Part-time vs. Full-time
 

A lot has been made of the fact that NFL refs are part-time refs, unlike officials in the other major sports leagues. NFL officials work only one day a week, for a three-hour period, etc.

While I'm not going to argue that they work 40 hours per week, I think it's misleading to suggest that they're getting paid $670 per hour. Just think about your own HS game on Friday night. What does it last? An hour and 15 minutes? An hour and a half? But is that the only time you've invested? Obviously not.

You have to:

1) Drive up to 2 hours to the game site.
2) Arrive at the game site one to one-and-a-half hours before game time.
3) Spend that hour and a half in preparation.
4) Officiate for another hour and a half.
5) Shower, do a post game review, and dress.
6) Drive home.

NFL officials have to:

1) Fly up to 5 hours to the game site.
2) Arrive in the game city 24 hours before game time.
3) Spend those 24 hours in preparation; watching game film, reviewing position responsibilities, etc.
4) Get to the game site 2 hours or so prior to kickoff; inspect team equipment, do pre-game conference, meet with league officials and replay officials (who are not union members, I believe).
5) THEN officiate for 3 hours.
6) Shower, do a post game review with a league official, dress.
7) Drive to the airport for (up to) a 5 hour flight.
8) Drive home.

And that does not include mid-week conference calls or rules meetings or whatever else.

Now, this is still a part-time proposition, true. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it just fits into their weekend plans.

Having said all that, if I were an NFL official I'd take the league's deal. It seems more than fair to me. I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Chuck

Quote:

I would like to add my two cents to the contract dispute between the NFLRA and the NFL. I come from a union background. My father was a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters for over fifty years, and his two brothers were members of the United Steel Workers for over forty years, and I am a member of the American Federations of Teachers. I will be the first one to admit that unions are not perfect but the standard of living and the working conditions that exist in this country today are the product of unions representing the workers of America. While one does not think of the UBC, USW, and the AFT in the same breath as the NFLRA, all of them exist to make sure that its members get a fair shake from their employers. Having said that let me get to the central theme of my post.

I disagree with part of this. I believe that at one time unions helped the average worker and raised his standard of living and bettered his work environment. Those days have past. Today unions are out to get business owners. Their defininition of "a fair shake" would put many business owners out of business and would raise the cost of goods and services to the point that they would be unaffordable to the average working family. The day of the union is past. Unions exist now to put money into union organizer's and leader's pockets and to harass legitimate business owners.

Quote:

I officiate four sports: basketball, baseball, softball, and soccer, and basketball is my serious sport and I officiate the other three sports for fun. If the NBA or WNBA officials were ever to go on strike, and I were offered a chance to officiate in place of a striker I would turn it down. Why? Have you ever been in an officiating postion where you took a stand on principle and refused to officiate because of that position because to officiate would not be in the best interest of the profession? You were willing to lose money to take a stand on principles. But at the same time many of your brother/sisters were more than willing to take those games because of the money.

How is refusing a 60% raise in pay not in the best interest of the profession? I do not know a single person who wouldn't want a 60% raise this year and a 120% raise in three. How are these men different than those willing to take the games for $2K/game? It is absolutely about taking games for the money offered. The money standard is just different. The NFL has laid out a package that is very attractive and VERY FAIR to the officials. I am amazed and astounded at the greed being displayed by the officials and by the gaul of claiming that it is a matter of principle. In my mind the integrity of the officials as a whole is sufferring from the officials union's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith.

Quote:

I say a pox on your family to any official who works as a scab. You have forsaken your brothers/sisters just so you could say you officiated in the NFL. We are supposed to conduct ourselves in a professional and ethical manner. It is neither professional nor is it ethical conduct to take another person's job under such circumstances.

Maybe it wasn't about reffing in the NFL, maybe they needed the money and $2k was too much to pass up. Maybe it was the biggest reffing payday they had ever had and they felt liked it was fair compensation for the service they provided.

Professionalism and ethics are critically important and the NFL referee's union needs to learn a thing or two about them. It is not ethical nor is it professional to hold a business hostage for unreasonable demands. It is unethical and unprofessional to refuse work under fair and generous conditions provided by your employer. It is unethical and unprofessional to expect full time pay for part time work.

The replacement guys aren't scabs, they are opportunists. One set of refs won't work under good conditions and another will, that is all there is to it. If the NFL wasn't being fair or upright with the refs, then I could see having a problem with replacements, but not when the NFL has been very fair.

$40K is a lot more than many people make in their real job, how pompous are these guys to demand more than what has been offered. I know they haven't had a pay raise in 6 years, but that is the deal they signed. As it is a 60% raise is still 10% a year for each of the 6 years (and a 10% raise is nothing to scoff at--I'd take that every year fot the next 6 ;) ). It is time for these guys to get off their collective butts and sign the deal. If they refuse it, I say good luck to the guys in stripes this weekend and for many to come.

Re: Part-time vs. Full-time
 

Most professionals do not get paid for their preparation time or training time. It is just the cost of doing their business. Same with us, we don't get paid to travel (Yes, i know some places pay mileage, but you kow what I mean), go to meetings, camps, etc. It is just a cost of what we do for the love of the game.

I think important part is we agree they should stop whinning and get back on the field where they belong.

I thought this was the basketball area. Would this conversation be better suited for the football area, or even the legal or morality page, if they exist?

Aw, c'mon .
 

The sophisticated person, I hear, knows a lot about one thing and a little about a lot of things.

BigWhistle has called
 

... Just before I reviewed Bigwhistle's post, I thought to myself, "Some things do not mix, Politics and religion."
Then I started thinking about the passion of officiating.
As you know, some compare it to a religous thing. "Jesus, Can't you EVER get a call right?!" SO, maybe this thread does belong here, in the officials' forum.....! :D

Ladies and Gentlemen: Please keep your disparaging remarks to yourselves. I have not elected to delete any posts, but a few were borderline.

Remember that this forum is not for bashing other officials. Also, please keep in mind that NFL officials do visit this forum as well as other officiating websites.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated, so avoid comments that are derogatory, even if that person is not a participant on this forum (i.e. "greedy", "pompous", etc.)

Finally, if anyone is interested in the work and effort put in by these officials, I encourage you to read the <A HREF="http://www.officiating.com/index.cgi?category=football&page=edhochuli">Interv iew with Ed Hoculi</A> (as well as <A HREF="http://www.officiating.com/index.cgi?category=football&page=edhochuli2">Part 2</A>, <A HREF="http://www.officiating.com/index.cgi?category=football&page=edhochuli3">Part 3</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.officiating.com/index.cgi?category=football&page=edhochuli4">Part 4</A>).

These guys put in a ton of hours during the season and during the off-season, in addition to working full-time jobs, and supporting their families. I think that until we have walked a mile in their shoes, we should reserve our judgment.

Lets face it, whether one officiates at the amateur level or the professional level, sports officiating is a really a profession that we like to think is an avocation.

But in either case a sports official must conduct himself in a professional and ethical manner. Taking assignments that would normally go to officials who are being locked out or on strike is unprofessional and unethical. There is no rational that an official can use to justify taking the assignment.

The opportunity to be seen, the chance to make a huge game fee, or a once in a life time opportunity to officiate at a level that one would normally not officiate are just excuses for not acting in a professional and ethical manner. The are not reasons.

I do not officiate football and do not think whether the NFLRA contract requests are out of line. The point is professional and ethical conduct by all officials.

One either conducts himself according to his professions ethical and professional cannons of ethics or he does not. There is no middle ground.

As far as whether we should boycott games officiated by scabs (and that is just what they are): sure why not. It will be easy for me because I do not live that close to an NFL city, and I am sure that they are other sports and television that I will be able to watch instead of NFL games.

As far as the timer's husband. He was upset that I was instructing his wife in how to do her job. The best part was that when he attacked me, he did it from behind just as I was walking into the coaches office that doubled as our dressing room. I was able to roll to one side while he was still on top of me and grab the telephone receiver and whacked him on the nose. I did not break it but it did not look good, and I also broke his glasses. The whack with the telephone receiver got his attention and he broke off the attack. The worst part that the Monroe, Michigan, City Prosecutor, dropped the charges against him against my wishes because the husband "promised" to take an anger management class. He signed off on the agreement in such a manner that if the husband did not take the class he could not be recharged.

Brad, I could not have said it better.

Respectful dissent
 

No offense, Mark, but at least two out of three of the above statements are outright false. I think you're allowing emotion to tinge your judgment.

First, sports officiating in general is not a profession. There are plenty of parents, teenagers, and even coaches who officiate all sorts of games for no fee. They do it simply b/c either: a) they weren't smart enough to say "Oh, I can't make it that day"; or b) there is literally no one else to do it.

Even for many of us who frequent this board, officiating is not a profession. We may aspire to that level, but we're not there yet. Yes, we get paid and we are expected to act professionally, but we're not truly professionals, any more than a man who holds the stick in an airplane for 5 minutes is a pilot.

Second, what exactly is unethical about performing a service that someone else is unwilling to do? The fact that the service is normally done by a guy in a union doesn't seem to me to make it unethical. This is arguable, I guess; I can't make the case that you are clearly wrong about it and I'm willing to hear a logical argument for your position. But on first blush, there doesn't seem to be any moral reason to avoid performing the service. I think if you hadn't spent so much time personally involved in union matters, this might not seem as big a big deal to you.

Third, of course there are plenty of rationales for an official to use in giving a reason for taking one of those unfilled NFL positions. You might not like any of them. But there are millions of reasons. And I'm not talking about "My pet rabbit Harvey told me to", either. You and I don't get to decide what's a valid reason for a third party, simply b/c there's a union job at stake.

You may be right that football officials should stick together. But not b/c of the statements above.

Very respectfully,

Chuck

I am sorry to disagree with you Chuck but sports officiating is a profession.

According to the Third Edition of the New World Dictionary of American English the definition of profession is as follows: "3a) a vocation or occupation requiring advanced education and training, and involving involving intellectual skills such as medicine, law, theology, engineering, teaching, etc." And the definition of professional from the same dictionary is: "adj. 1) of, engaged in, or worthy of the high standards of a profession......6) being such in the manner of practicing a profession..... n. 1) a person practicing a profession..."

As an enigneer I can tell you that sports officials can closely identify with the legal profession. And whether one is an engineer or a lawyer or a sports official (amateur sports or professional sports) we are subject to the standards of ethical and professional conduct.

As I have stated before the officials who replace NFLRA officials this weekend are not meeting the standards of ethical and professional conduct.

On a final note, it was brought to my attention in the Football Forum, that one of the NFLRA officials who are being locked out was a scab during the MLB umpires' strikes in the 1970's. And I cannot help wonder what he is thinking now as he watches scabs take his place.

On a lighter note...
 

Well for us in Australia this really isn't an issue - since we have basically no televsion access to the NFL.

And besides, those guys are wimps! Wearing all that padding, lycra pants and helemts! Maybe you should boycott the NFL and watch some of the football that is played in Australia - you can chose from Rugby League, Rugby Union or Australian Football (Aussie Rules). :)

Geez...I'm sure that's going to open a can of worms.

Professionalism
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am sorry to disagree with you Chuck but sports officiating is a profession.

Mark, you're always welcome to disagree, but in this case you'd still be wrong. :) Sports officiating, in and of itself (which seems to be what you're saying) is not a profession; even according to the definitions that you provide below. Let's look at them.

According to the Third Edition of the New World Dictionary of American English the definition of profession is as follows: "3a) a vocation or occupation requiring advanced education and training, and involving involving intellectual skills such as medicine, law, theology, engineering, teaching, etc."

Sports officiating doesn't fit this definition b/c of the very first phrase: "a vocation or occupation". Sports officiating is neither a vocation or an occupation for hundreds of people who officiate. As I said in my previous posts, many people who officiate do so, simply b/c they're the only parent willing to do it. I officiated softball while I was in college and I promise you, it was neither my vocation nor my occupation by any stretch of the imagination.

Next definition:

"adj. 1) of, engaged in, or worthy of the high standards of a profession......6) being such in the manner of practicing a profession.....

I don't think this definition will support your claim either, Mark. As I've pointed out above, many officials are not "engaged in" officiating as a profession, and I've personally worked with several officials are not "worthy of the high standards" of professional officials. And since it's clear that many officials do not practice it as a profession, definition 6 doesn't apply either.

n. 1) a person practicing a profession..."

This clearly doesn't apply either, b/c of the large number of officials who do it literally for nothing, as I mentioned above.

As I have stated before the officials who replace NFLRA officials this weekend are not meeting the standards of ethical and professional conduct.


You've stated it several times now, but you offer no reasons. I asked a pretty clear question in my last post, but I have yet to see anybody make a real attempt at answering it. What exactly is the moral rule that prohibits a person from performing a service that another person has chosen not to perfom? What makes "scabs" unethical?

I'm not trying to split hairs here. I'm just trying to show that while I understand your passion about the issue, your statement of the facts is not really precise. Sports officiating in itself, as practiced by hundreds of parents, teens or coaches, is not a profession.

That is a COMPLETLY different question from whether or not paid officials at the HS and college levels should act AS IF THEY WERE professionals. Maybe they should. I'm just trying to be as clear as possible about what we're really talking about.

Chuck

Hey Chuck... Until the IRS stops defining officiating as a vocation/profession (read: doesn't make me pay taxes on my officiating income), I'll have to agree with Mark! :)

Brad, I realize from the smiley that you're joking a bit, but I think I've made my point. Officiating is an avocation that some of us take very seriously. For those of us that take it seriously, we try our best to act like professionals, despite the fact that we obviously are not. That's all I was trying to get across.

Chuck