The shorter game reference was strictly meant in this context: I work football and basketball and am often gone from 3 pm to as late as 1 am on many Friday nights in the fall. Other nights in the fall for subvarsity work are like 4:30 until close to 10 -- and about the same in the winter. I'm backing away from basketball (for now) and picking up softball because I like working outdoors. But I spend enough time away from home that a shorter series of games in the spring is helpful. From what I understand from those in my local softball chapters, the games typically run 1.25-1.5 hours, unlike baseball which are typically 2+ hour games. It isn't a money thing at all, nor is it a HUGE consideration. But I can tell you from football, there seems to be a big difference between an hour and a half game and a 2 hour game. I don't know if the focus just gets tougher or what.

That didn't come out right. I guess what I should have said that though it was your post, the response wasn't specific to you, but all. Officiating simply for the hourly rate just isn't right, IMO.

It was not meant as a personal attack toward you.

Okay, as an aside note,

I assume you referred to one of my responses as negative. It was meant to be negative for the reason noted.

Softball umpiring is fraught with what are referred to by some as "greens" as in the color of money. And it hurts the reputation of umpires in general.

While it was directed as a response to your post, the comment was general. While the money is obviously helpful and a factor, I believe it shouldn't be the only factor and to me, your "shorter games" note came across as that.