Presented to:
The National Collegiate
Athletic Association
Committee on Competitive
Safeguards and
Medical Aspects of Sports
By:
Amateur Baseball Umpires’
Association, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This national study is the first of its kind conducted for the NCAA to measure the beliefs, attitudes and behavior about the spit-tobacco use (smokeless tobacco) habits of college baseball umpires and their knowledge of the NCAA’s no-tobacco rule.
The Board of Directors of the Amateur Baseball Umpires’ Association, Inc., the largest membership association for amateur baseball umpires in the U.S., approved its involvement in a national program to educate amateur baseball umpires about the dangers of spit-tobacco use and make them aware of the “no-tobacco rules” that both the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) and the NCAA have instituted.
This action came on the heels of discussions the NCAA Baseball Rules Committee had at its July 2002 annual meeting where it reiterated its concern for and support of a zero-tolerance policy for tobacco use. The committee expressed its concern about the amount of tobacco use by college baseball field personnel and thought enough of the concern to make tobacco use and its elimination from the game its main point of rules emphasis in 2003.
The board also expressed its support for the ABUA to take a leadership role in developing an instructional strategy aimed at reducing spit-tobacco use among college baseball field personnel (e.g., players, coaches, umpires, other team personnel) and improving the implementation of the no-tobacco rule.
In the fall of 2002, the ABUA retained the services of Susan Giarantano Russell to develop the survey instrument after contacting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ms. Russell serves as a tobacco consultant to the CDC.
The two types of spit tobacco
discussed in this survey are chewing tobacco (Red Man, Levi Garret, Beech-Nut) and snuff (Skoal,
1. Specific
questions related to spit-tobacco use.
2. Specific
questions related to influences to use spit tobacco.
3. Specific
questions related to spit-tobacco knowledge.
4. Specific
questions related to the NCAA’s no-tobacco rule.
5. Information
about the umpire and the umpire’s experience.
Pilot Study
With the help of the National
Federation of State High School Associations and the Missouri State High School
Activities Association, the ABUA completed in February 2003 a first-of-its-kind
pilot survey of spit tobacco use habits and beliefs of 800 high school baseball
umpires in
Sampling
For this national survey of college
baseball umpires, the ABUA requested the assistance of nearly every NCAA
Division I, II and III conference that sponsors baseball. The conference commissioner or umpire
supervisor was asked to provide their umpire list for the sole purpose of
participating in this study. Of approximately
3,000 college baseball umpires, the ABUA procured a list of 1,724 umpires for
this study. From this group, 1,400
umpires were selected at random to participate in the study. The surveys were mailed
Finding 1: Nearly 10 percent of college baseball umpires currently use spit tobacco. Nearly 31 percent of the surveyed umpires report they have quit using spit tobacco.
Finding 2: Those who have never used spit tobacco cite three main reasons: no desire to experience the effects; worried about health effects; and using spit tobacco sets a bad example for children in the stands.
Finding 3: For those who use spit tobacco, an alarming number – 36.2 percent – admitted using spit tobacco in some or all games.
Finding 4: For those who use spit tobacco, use before and after the game is twice more prevalent than use during the game (26.1 percent)
Finding 5: For those who use spit tobacco and those who have quit, the biggest influencer of use is a friend who played baseball and used spit tobacco. Surprisingly, almost 32 percent said they chose to use spit tobacco on their own, without influence.
Finding 6: Users are three times more likely than those who have quit to believe spit-tobacco use increases concentration.
Finding 7: An alarmingly low percentage of users – 17.4 percent – strongly agree that using spit tobacco will harm their health, as opposed to 76.1 percent of those who have quit and 81 percent of the respondents who have never used spit tobacco.
Finding 8: Only 72.5 percent of users agree or strongly agree that using spit tobacco will harm their health as opposed to 97.7 percent of those who quit and 97.1 percent of those who never used.
Finding 9: The no-tobacco rule for players, coaches, team personnel and umpires has not, for the most part, discouraged umpires from using spit tobacco.
Finding 10: Umpires who have quit or never used spit tobacco are more than twice as likely as spit-tobacco users to believe kids use spit tobacco because professional baseball players use spit tobacco.
FINDINGS
ABOUT SPIT-TOBACCO KNOWLEDGE
Finding 11: Only 46.4 percent of spit-tobacco users strongly agree they are aware of the health risks of oral cancer associated with spit-tobacco use, as opposed to 76.3 percent who have quit and 72.8 percent who have never used spit tobacco.
Finding 12: Almost 50 percent of the respondents who have never used spit tobacco cite they have never received instruction about the dangers of spit tobacco.
FINDINGS
ABOUT THE NO-TOBACCO RULE
Finding 13: Nearly all of the respondents are aware of the no-tobacco rule in college baseball.
Finding 14: Only 30 percent of spit-tobacco users strongly agree that tobacco products should not be used by student-athletes, coaches and team personnel during practice sessions and all game competition, as opposed to 68.2 percent of all respondents.
Finding 15: Of current spit-tobacco users, 59.4 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that tobacco products should not be used, as opposed to 85.4 percent of those who quit and 91.5 percent of the respondents who never used spit tobacco.
Finding 16: Of current users, 44.9 percent of the respondents agree or strongly agree that ejection is the appropriate punishment, as opposed to nearly 72 percent of all respondents.
Finding 17: Of the respondents who have never used spit tobacco, nearly 47 percent believe they can consistently enforce the no-tobacco rule with success and still maintain respect and control of the game, as opposed to only 28 percent of those who use spit tobacco.
Finding 18: Of current users, 39 percent of the respondents strongly disagree with the notion that it is the umpire’s responsibility to enforce the no-tobacco rule during games, as opposed to nearly 17 percent of the respondents who have never used spit tobacco.
Finding 19: Nearly all respondents (95 percent) believe that it should be the responsibility of the coach to enforce the no-tobacco rule among players and team personnel.
Finding 20: Of current users, 55.8 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the result of trying to enforce the no-tobacco rule during a game is not worth the problem it creates, as opposed to 33.2 percent of the respondents who have never used spit tobacco.
Finding 21: Of current users, 26 percent of the respondents would rather ignore the use of spit tobacco than confront the individual, compared to 14.2 percent of the respondents who quit or never used spit tobacco.
Finding 22: Slightly more than two-thirds of the current users stated they would rather talk to the player, coach or team personnel about the no-tobacco rule rather than eject the individual from the game.
Finding 23: Spit-tobacco use by the respondents does not impact the umpires’ willingness to inform coaches, players and team personnel about the hazards of using spit tobacco. Across the board, roughly one-third of the respondents in all three groups expressed an interest in communicating the dangers.
Finding 24: One-third of all respondents – and slightly more than 40 percent of users – expressed an interest in learning more about the dangers of spit-tobacco use.
FINDINGS
ABOUT UMPIRING EXPERIENCE
Finding 25: Slightly more than 61 percent of the respondents were between 41 and 55 years of age.
Finding 26: Nearly all respondents were male.
Finding 27: Slightly more than 82 percent of the users are between 31 and 55 years of age.
Finding 28: For those respondents who have never used spit tobacco, slightly more than 75 percent were between 41 and 60 years of age.
In Conclusion
The ABUA views this survey as an important first step toward increasing awareness that will lead to a reduction in spit-tobacco use by college baseball umpires, players, coaches and team personnel.
While 33.5 percent of all respondents expressed an interest in learning more about the dangers of spit-tobacco use, 41 percent of those at the crux of this issue – the users – were open to receiving more information about the dangers.
To conclude on a high note, slightly more than 32 percent of the respondents expressed a willingness to inform others about the hazards of spit tobacco. This bodes well for the success of a targeted cessation plan that the ABUA will propose in the near future.
Confidential
Amateur Baseball Umpires Survey
Overall
Responses – N = 714
Currently
Use Responses – N = 69
Used,
but Quit Responses – N = 219
Never
Used Responses – N = 426
The
following questions ask about your spit-tobacco use.
1.
Have
you ever used spit tobacco? (Select one)
|
|
Overall |
Currently use |
Used, but quit |
Never used |
|
No |
59.7% |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Yes, but I quit |
30.7% |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Yes, I
use now |
9.7% |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
2. If you have never used spit tobacco, why? (Select all that apply)
|
|
Overall |
Currently
Use |
Used, but
quit |
Never
used |
|
I am
worried about health effects. |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
69.5% |
|
Others
would disapprove |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
16.2% |
|
It is
against my beliefs |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
26.1% |
|
Because
the no-tobacco rule applies to baseball practices and games |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
21.8% |
|
It is my
responsibility to monitor others on the field, so I shouldn’t do it
myself |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
28.4% |
|
I have no
desire to experience the effects |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
83.8% |
|
It costs
too much |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
11.0% |
|
I was
afraid of becoming addicted |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
0.0% |
|
It sets a
bad example for children in the stands |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
38.0% |
3. If you
have quit using spit tobacco,
why? (Select all that apply)
|
|
Overall |
Currently
Use |
Used, but
quit |
Never
used |
|
I am
worried about health effects |
n/a |
n/a |
75.3% |
n/a |
|
I don't
like it |
n/a |
n/a |
36.1% |
n/a |
|
Others
would disapprove |
n/a |
n/a |
24.7% |
n/a |
|
Because
the no-tobacco rule applies to baseball practices and games |
n/a |
n/a |
29.2% |
n/a |
|
It is my
responsibility to monitor others on the field, so I shouldn’t do it myself |
n/a |
n/a |
32.0% |
n/a |
|
It costs
too much |
n/a |
n/a |
14.2% |
n/a |
|
I was
afraid of becoming addicted |
n/a |
n/a |
0.0% |
n/a |
|
It hurt
my performance |
n/a |
n/a |
0.0% |
n/a |
|
It sets a
bad example for children in the stands |
n/a |
n/a |
29.2% |
n/a |
4. During
the past 30 days, on how many days did you use spit tobacco? (Select one)
|
|
Overall |
Currently use |
Used, but quit |
Never used |
|
0 days |
n/a |
4.3% |
94.1% |
n/a |
|
1 or 2 days |
n/a |
7.2% |
2.4% |
n/a |
|
3 to 5
days |
n/a |
11.6% |
1.5% |
n/a |
|
6 to 9
days |
n/a |
4.3% |
0.5% |
n/a |
|
10 to 19
days |
n/a |
14.9% |
0.5% |
n/a
|
|
20 to 29
days |
n/a |
20.3% |
0.5% |
n/a |
|
All 30
days |
n/a |
37.7% |
0.5% |
n/a |
5. How often do you use spit tobacco while umpiring a
game? (Select one)
|
|
Overall |
Currently use |
Used, but quit |
Never used |
|
Every
game |
n/a |
7.2% |
3.3% |
n/a |
|
Some games |
n/a |
29.0% |
5.2% |
n/a |
|
Not at
all |
n/a |
63.8% |
91.4% |
n/a |
6. Do
you use spit tobacco at the following times? (Select all that apply)
|
|
Overall |
Currently use |
Used, but quit |
Never used |
|
Before
the game |
n/a |
50.7% |
4.6% |
n/a |
|
During the game |
n/a |
26.1% |
5.9% |
n/a |
|
After the
game |
n/a |
56.5% |
4.6% |