which is longer?
 

We're having a negotiation w/ one of our leagues about game fees.

When ASA went to a 1-1 count for slow pitch games, this particular league decided that this would shorten the game too much, so they decided to play 9 inning games. At that point, we did not change the game fee.

Less than 16% of the scheduled games are played as triple-headers on 1 field which basically invokes 1:30 minute time limit per game w/ a hard stop @ 11 PM.

Half the games are double-headers with the first game not allowing a new inning after 1:45, so there is somewhat of a time limit on those. The second games of these DHs currently don't have a hard stop time.

And about a third of games scheduled are played on fields w/o lights, so are either played to completion, called due to darkness, or have the 15-run rule invoked after 7 innings.

We've maintained that the extra 2 innings have caused games to run longer (than 7 innings w/ a 0-0 count), but currently don't have hard data to support that. We'll probably monitor it for a while to get some information.

There are large disparities in the level of play within both of 2 divisions. Two decent teams or 2 poor teams may have competitive games, but upper level against bad teams still need to play to 7 innings to invoke the run rule.

Anyone out there have similar situations or experiences? Any ideas on how to balance things out?

Thanx.

Here in So. Cal all of the leagues have time limits ranging from 60 minutes to 70 minutes 7 innings max. It does not matter if the count is 1-1 or 0-0. Game fees are $28-$30 per game.

I don't have any experience to offer for the problem you're trying to solve. But I wonder if you aren't trying to solve the wrong problem. You're trying to figure out if you "should" charge more for these games based on whether they are longer. But it's not obvious to me that this is the right metric. The 9 inning 1-1 count game presumably features a lot more at bats and this being slow pitch many of those involve putting the ball in play. I could imagine that even if it were shorter the umpire has to work harder to do the game. If you're pricing based on "should" and not "can" then I'd think effort would make more sense.

So, you are working for idiots. Congratulations :)

The 1-1 count was not a speed-up rule. By itself, it doesn't do anything to speed up the game and can actually make them run longer if you have two hitting teams.

The idea is to get the game where it was meant to be, putting the ball in play and getting the outs or scoring runs. If they want to worry about time of the game, forget the innings and just play to the clock.

And if they haven't gotten any data stating the game runs shorter with a 1-1 count, just don't work the games past 7 innings and force them to prove their point

We're trying to be fair in the rates we charge this league compared to others that we work. At 9 innings, a run rule that doesn't kick in until 6.5 or 7 innings, we often need to work for another 9 or 12 outs depending upon which team is ahead.

This is a church league that emphasizes getting everyone a chance to play, allows 16 in the batting order, and is pretty loose w/ courtesy runners, taking someone out of the lineup without penalty, a courtesy foul w/ 2 strikes, etc.

So we allow them to play "their game" as their bylaws call for. We need to be careful not to chase them away to utrip or some other association, but we also want an equitable game fee for our umpires.

I do think that the 1-1 count does help speed up play, at least a little. I know many hitters that would always take the first strike, and now w/ the 1-1 count, that happens less. Another men's league we work schedules their games (7 innings) to a 1:15 time period. They have an exception to complete an inning that has started, but no new inning starts after that.

We offered a modest increase to work the 9 inning games, but had we pro-rated the increase from a 7-inning, it would have been significantly higher. Again, the concern being that we don't want to lose the league.

We have not experienced in my area. The largest difference is that when you have mismatched teams on the field. Then the run rule takes effect, but the weaker team enables the better team to achieve that level quicker.

I have been given the dubious honor this year of being our Assignor for ASA ball this year, so I know exactly what is going on here. Now, our commissioner (and former assignor) has pretty much standardized our contracts, but we can be flexible when needed.

Example one: We have a small women's slow pitch league on Mondays that we have worked probably for 30 years. They hardly ever give us trouble, they pay up a half season at a time, and they are pretty much there for a good time. So this year, they asked, instead of our usual two umps a game (something we INSIST on, for both safety and problem prevention), that only have one - at our usual fee and half rate for one ump. We said okay - but with the stipulation that of ANYthing happens like arguments, or an injury that might have preventable, we have the option of going back to two umps. Now understand, our usual per ump fee for a game is $42 - so they are only saving $21 a game! As an assignor, I really do not mind, especially in May, when high school ball is in full swing, and it is VERY difficult finding enough people on weekdays. But it IS less work for our people....

(and yeah, $42 a game - we are basically the only game in town - the U-trip group around here is VERY tiny.)

On the other hand....

We have a Sunday morning men's modified league (all of the men's ball here is modified pitch of one stripe or another) which is a genuine pain in the a**. It's 6 doubleheaders - and every team.....moves to another field after the first game! :eek: Not just to an adjacent field, but they actually have to travel!! :eek: So yeah, it makes for a very long Sunday morning, and we - no surprise - have trouble getting guys to work there. Oh, and did I mention that about half the teams are real idiots? So a couple of years back, we actually forced them into a time limit situation, and its worked ok, but we are still trying to work on the actual DH with both teams staying thing. As I said, U-trip could never handle them, so we have leverage of a sort.

Its gonna be a fun year......;)