[BlueLawyer]

There should be two purposes in ratings: (1) constructive, helpful criticism that helps the rated official in particular and officiating in the area in general become better and (2) determining who does what level of game.

I work in a small state, population-wise (Arkansas). I worked for years in basketball and baseball before I gave basketball up- now I'm baseball only.

In basketball before I quit, the ONLY ratings came from coaches. I saw a grand total of three of them in ten years- none of them were particularly flattering or helpful. Our high school assignor told us that these ratings were used in determining regular-season varsity assignments. This did not a whole lot for either purpose, in my judgment, as I didn't find anything in the ratings to build on, and the appointments depended as much on who the coaches knew and liked (politics) as on who would give a quality officiating performance on the court.

In baseball around here, the coaches have no say in who comes to their games other than to get two scratches. That is not to say that there is no politics in baseball around here, just that the politics takes a side seat to who can actually call a game. Coaches still rate. The bottom line is this: unless the coach is an umpire too, (it happens around here) his actual comments about what you did or failed to do are not likely to help you become a better blue. If coaches get a voice in who officiates their contests, to include playoffs, their subjective judgments about "who did me a good job" are more important than your rotation and positioning on R1-R2 with two out from C.

I have the crazy idea that people who know umpiring should choose umpires for big games and playoffs.

Strikes and outs!