Quote:
Originally Posted by yawetag
While I'm thinking about it, it would be nice for Missouri to at least give you the date of the contest when the coaches rate you. In addition, I think we should be able to question why "needs improvement" was marked. The coaches would then have 7 days to respond with a reasonable answer, or the mark is removed.
I'm not even thinking of a post-season state assignment anytime in the near future. However, if the ratings are one of the factors (which I've been led to believe), there should be a way for officials to question a rating, especially when they receive a "Needs Improvement" on a category.
To be fair, Missouri does require the coach to explain a 5 rating (which equates to "not good enough for sub-Varsity level"). Coaches know this, so the lowest they'll go is a 4 rating. After that, they'll just mark the "needs improvement" for all the sections.
|
Everything must be done incognito. If they gave you the date you would more than likely know which coach gave you the bad rating, especially if you had a particularly hard time with the coach. They would only be pouring salt on the wound so to speak.
Coaches more than likely give the low ratings because they probably don't care to do them at all. They figure if their impute is consistently at the low levels, they won't be forced to do them anymore. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't be the least bit interested in being required to give a rating.
If you've been in an association long enough, you will learn who the knuckleheads are and how to approach them. I know I've gotten the 411 on some coaches. When they see a new umpire, they believe they can play their little games and get away with it. They must be unaware that umpires don't talk among themselves or share information.
Or, take your game up a couple of notches..........
Oh well, the dog is barking telling he wants back in. Goodnight.