When Opportunity Knocks

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Jeff, all I can do is respond to the words you say, and you said this...."And no people do not just quit a good gig just because they do not like the certain conditions. What fantasy world are you living in?" So I would suggest the following; 1) either get better with your grammar or 2) own up to what you say on here.

Sue me, I typed a little fast. Still the statement stands, no one just quits a job just because they do not like one aspect of a job. They just want to be compensated for what they do from a multi-billion dollar corporation. It would cost each team around $100,000 and they are charging well over $100 a game for tickets in many cases and building new stadiums with tax payer money.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If you want to try to put a dig in on me with that 'fantasy world' crap, then I will response with facts and 'real' examples and make you look silly. Then in turn, you will obfuscate and pretend like you didn't say what you said. I've seen you do it too many times. You could actually be a good politician...

Actually people who travel for a living want to be compensated for that job. I do not know anyone that is gone for several days to do their job says, "Hey I want to be paid the same as someone that is sitting in their office and goes home every day." Maybe you have never had that kind of job, but people that do tend to make a little more than a manager that sits in the same place all the time. Better yet, if you have a job where you are on-call or always away from home people in those situations tend to ask for more money. And this is not even about money, it is about benefits.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Who friggin' cares about the 4th timeout!!! Sure it was wrong. Did it change the outcome of the game? NO. Have there been games in the past 2-3 years where an incorrect call by the Big Boys did change the outcome of the game? YES.

But you said they could get anyone to take their job right? That was not a kind of sort of oversight, that was a pretty bad mistake that could have helped the Seahawks win the game. That is not a mistake that the current guys make or even a person at the high school or college level should make. And that was created because these guys have no NFL experience before this weekend (not talking about laid back pre-season). I would compare this to someone that crossed a line in the NBA not knowing how to apply the “clear path” rule or know the differences in the semi-circle from different levels. Then again the guys in the NBA that would be replaced are not guys like these replacements; they are not getting their replacements from high school courts. The regular NFL guys might miss a foot being out of bounds or a catch (and replay is there to help those situation), but not running the clock when it is supposed to be run or giving a touchback on the 5 yard line are not things the regular guys do. Better yet, not knowing when to enforce a penalty at the end of the kick or applying an NF philosophy of going back to the previous spot. Those are big things that would normally be caught. Again you say no one cares, but someone cares because those things are constantly being talked about by those that cover the NFL on a regular basis. I cannot watch a single NFL show without some mention of these kinds of huge mistakes and they are not easily defended like those from the regulars.

Peace

[JRutledge]

I will just say this and leave it at that. I know officials that have been fired from leagues after the officials signed a contract and wanted to get off to move up to another/higher level. You think these officials did not in July give back games to work these NFL games? They absolutely did in many cases and I know of specific situations that this was the case and they do not have a guaranteed job coming back. The college league I am working now has the assignor scrambling to fill games to this day because of this situation on many levels. And one case is a HS crew situation because the crew chief had to find replacements for his situation and we have no idea when or if this will be solved soon.

No one has to be sympathetic to your personal ambitions. You leave you can and will be replaced. That is also the American way.

Peace

[Publius]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No one has to be sympathetic to your personal ambitions. You leave you can and will be replaced. That is also the American way.

Peace

Bravo!

When I assign, I do it in such a manner to accommodate ambition, but it has its limits. Never mind working professional games; I have guys who turn back games just to work higher levels of amateur ball. That, even though I always wait to assign until the D1/D2 assignors are done. That, even though I always tell them, "If you want to stay available in case a make-up or replacement opportunity comes up, great. Just don't take my games." I never hold grudges for blocking a date so you can be open to work up. I always do if you turn back games I gave you after I already made my own job more difficult in order to accommodate your ambition.

I do what I can to help guys move up. One thing I absolutely demand, though, before I recommend someone to a higher-level assignor is that he honors his commitments.

I took a lot of heat for hiring striking minor-league baseball umpires in 2006. The ones I hired, though, batted 1.000 when it came to honoring their commitments. That was better than I got from the complainers; hell, I had one guy b!tching because I gave a striker a game that guy had turned back!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Publius

Bravo!

When I assign, I do it in such a manner to accommodate ambition, but it has its limits. Never mind working professional games; I have guys who turn back games just to work higher levels of amateur ball. That, even though I always wait to assign until the D1/D2 assignors are done. That, even though I always tell them, "If you want to stay available in case a make-up or replacement opportunity comes up, great. Just don't take my games." I never hold grudges for blocking a date so you can be open to work up. I always do if you turn back games I gave you after I already made my own job more difficult in order to accommodate your ambition.

You want guys to agree to sit at home in case something comes up? Wow. Unless I was hurting for money, I wouldn't bother taking youth game from such an assignor if they were going to get pissy when the HS or college assignor calls with a game. Unless they're just lazy, it seems like an assignor would want the best officials he could get, even if it meant a little more work when they occasionally get called up to a higher level . That's what assignors get paid for. There are certain tiers of games and assignors need to realize their place in the hierarchy....even for turnbacks that are rippledown effects.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You want guys to agree to sit at home in case something comes up?

No. The officials want to be available when something comes up at a higher level. That's THEIR decision, and it's fine with me. All I say is, "If you take a game from me, I expect you to work it. If being available to other assignors is more important to you than this game, don't take it." They want to eat their cake, and have it, too.

Many officials have made your exact argument to me. Some want to turn back a crappy college game to do a really good HS game. Some don't want to piss off some other assignor. I've told many, "OK, but it's going to work both ways. You can do that, but if I assign you a game and a better official lets me know he's available, I'm dumping you and giving it to him. Are you good with that?"

Rut's position is correct: they can do that, but they can and will be replaced.

I don't let teams screw the officials, and I don't keep officials who think they're bigger than the game. That keeps me in good stead with officials who want to work, and with teams who want officials.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Publius

No. The officials want to be available when something comes up at a higher level. That's THEIR decision, and it's fine with me. All I say is, "If you take a game from me, I expect you to work it. If being available to other assignors is more important to you than this game, don't take it." They want to eat their cake, and have it, too.

Many officials have made your exact argument to me. Some want to turn back a crappy college game to do a really good HS game. Some don't want to piss off some other assignor. I've told many, "OK, but it's going to work both ways. You can do that, but if I assign you a game and a better official lets me know he's available, I'm dumping you and giving it to him. Are you good with that?"

Rut's position is correct: they can do that, but they can and will be replaced.

I don't let teams screw the officials, and I don't keep officials who think they're bigger than the game. That keeps me in good stead with officials who want to work, and with teams who want officials.

I'll say it again since you didn't understand it...you want the officials to sit home in case the better game comes up rather than help you out if they can and don't get an assignment from a higher level. You want to be priority #1 with third rate level of games. I understand if you want to establish some sort of deadline for turning the game back, but none at all sounds more like a power trip than reasonable.

It is pretty standard practice here for the assignors to accommodate the upper level assignors. People turn back games for higher games all the time. It is the expected order of things...D3 comes after D2. HS comes after college. MS comes after HS. Etc... It doesn't hurt their assignments one bit. The only issue that bothers anyone is short notice.

In fact, the lower level assignors are grateful they can even get them to do their games because they know that if they make the person choose, they're going to choose the higher level and they'll be left with the next level officials. Sure, it makes the assignors job easier but they really are not putting the best officials they can get on the floor.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'll say it again since you didn't understand it...you want the officials to sit home in case the better game comes up rather than help you out if they can and don't get an assignment from a higher level. You want to be priority #1 with third rate level of games. I understand if you want to establish some sort of deadline for turning the game back, but none at all sounds more like a power trip than reasonable.

It is pretty standard practice here for the assignors to accommodate the upper level assignors. People turn back games for higher games all the time. It is the expected order of things...D3 comes after D2. HS comes after college. MS comes after HS. Etc... It doesn't hurt their assignments one bit. The only issue that bothers anyone is short notice.

In fact, the lower level assignors are grateful they can even get them to do their games because they know that if they make the person choose, they're going to choose the higher level and they'll be left with the next level officials. Sure, it makes the assignors job easier but they really are not putting the best officials they can get on the floor.

You are right it is a common practice, but it is not a practice that everyone follows the same way or across the board. As I said I know a guy that works D1 now and gave back a HS varsity game to a local assignor. That official was banned from that league for giving back the game. Now that official obviously was not hurt by that situation, but others have not achieved that level and were hurt or did not get certain assignments in the future. A MS assignor is a little different than HS assignors for sure. And depending on when you give back the game that can cause some challenges to that assignor. And if that assignor feels you just dumped a game on them within a short period of time, they can and will take issue with that position. But like Publius suggested, there are assignors that do not want you to give back their games and tell us around here to not put them in that situation. Of course things happen and if it is really a move up then most will pat you on the back and assign the game, but some will just look as you not taking their game seriously and not assign you in the future. I work a couple of really nice and prestigious tournaments and people that gave back those games often have not been asked in the future. Again, that is the assignor's right to feel that way and again the official in the replacement role for the NFL gave back games with a month or so left before the season. I can imagine the assignors were not happy and time will tell if these guys have a place to come back to.

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Sue me, I typed a little fast. Still the statement stands, no one just quits a job just because they do not like one aspect of a job.

This is a joke. You go from saying "because they do not like the certain conditions" to "because they do not like one aspect of a job". That is just the perfect example of obfuscating. And complete denial to boot, even after being given two legitimate examples.

I have no interest in suing, however, it is always nice to converse with someone that doesn't keep moving the stakes to prove their point. Just a little tip...... take a few seconds and re-read what you've typed before submitting. I do and it does make a difference..

They just want to be compensated for what they do from a multi-billion dollar corporation. It would cost each team around $100,000 and they are charging well over $100 a game for tickets in many cases and building new stadiums with tax payer money.

That logic may work in some European country, but thank goodness not here. The fact that it is a multi-billion dollar corporation is irrelevant. If someone will work/officiate for $X, then that's what will happen. If no one will do the job for $X, then they will increase the rate until they get a labor force that the EMPLOYER is happy with. If the labor force then demands increased pay or a better deal, the employer can either agree to it or go back to the labor market to see if they can find people willing to do the job for the previously established rate. Am I the only one that learned this in 10th grade?

Don't blame the new stadiums on the NFL. Ultimately, it is state and local governments that make the final decisions in that regard. Hence we can vote and put people into office that won't vote to spend tax payer money in that fashion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

That logic may work in some European country, but thank goodness not here. The fact that it is a multi-billion dollar corporation is irrelevant. If someone will work/officiate for $X, then that's what will happen. If no one will do the job for $X, then they will increase the rate until they get a labor force that the EMPLOYER is happy with. If the labor force then demands increased pay or a better deal, the employer can either agree to it or go back to the labor market to see if they can find people willing to do the job for the previously established rate. Am I the only one that learned this in 10th grade?

Exactly. And I've even seen two unions fighting for the same jobs....each claiming it should be theirs.

Perhaps these replacements should form a union. That would resolve the reservations of the union lemmings. It would then be union vs. union.