|
Mike [/B][/QUOTE][/i]Mike: Coaches see more umpires than we do!
Many associations use coach evaluations as part of the umpire evaluations.
Our association assigns all umpires based on coach preference lists.
It is inescapable: There are bad umpires and good umpires. Most umpires are average. That's what "average" means.
It is silly for us to sit here and lord it over coaches. Why? Take a look at the questions "umpires" ask here. Take a look at the comments some posters make.
If a group of coaches in your association thinks that some umpires are not fair, it's probably 6, 2, and even they are right.
And remember the comment was: The "fairest" umpire I know. No remarks about my being the "fairest of them all." (grin)
Is there something between "fair" and "fairest"? [/B][/QUOTE]
Fair enough. (Your question, that is). Their evaluations are important because of the impact they can have on us. That is inescapable. But average, by definition, should be good enough as an end result, though not as a goal. (I wrote the last sentence, but I'm not sure I buy it. But if it is false, everyone would have to be above average.) Now, if a coach makes a comment to me on the field that I am fair, it is meaningless. If he says so in an evaluation, it probably means he is telling my assignor that I am at best average, and passable, but that's all. If his evaluation says I'm good, I'd expect my assignor to interpret that as I'm above average.
The problem here is that fair has multiple relevant meanings. It can mean somewhere between good and bad, or it can mean that you don't cheat. But even if it means the latter, it doesn't mean that other umpires cheat. I expect that the coach's meaning would be more along the lines of, "I'd rather he was good, but his judgment leaves something to be desired. Nevertheless, he misses as many for the other team as he does for mine, so I can live with it. Hopefully, my team will win because we are better than the other team."
Mike
|