Quote:
Originally posted by Drifter
I wasn't going to go into this but I will. Blackballing umpires, if done for the correct reasons, is a gift to the umpire association. You can't hide a bad umpire for long.
Example. Two years ago, an umpire was assigned to a playoff game and got the plate. I was in the stands, out of uniform, to do a later game. For no apparent reason, this guy, called a runner out while rounding third after a home run. The third base coach shook his hand as he rounded the base. When the inevitable riot started I left the stands and hid behind the concession stand.
My point is that these two schools were like the 14th and 15th schools to blackball this guy. He couldn't get any more assignments, he was running out of schools. Justice was served, and the association, which rarely has enough umpires to double cover all the games, didn't have to make a move.
Vern
|
Ok, Vern. IF the blackballing is done for the "right" reasons THEN as Tee also points out, it can be a valuable tool for the assignor in assessing his troops.
That notwithstanding, the fundamental principle is STILL wrong, IMHO! My point was that most players and most coaches seldom IF EVER have any real idea what makes a good umpire. It's simply not their job to know that. Your guy in the example above made it VERY obvious the time you saw him and probably did the same for the 14 or 15 times before as well. Was there any attempt after the first two or three red lines to get this guy some additional instruction or watch him and critique his performance? Was he EVER helped to improve his game?
What about the times when guys were blackballed for no good and discernable reason? Were these attempts to manipulate the system? Were they coaches who simply had no idea that the umpire was actually doing the right thing? I like Tee's idea of giving these guys the away games, so the coach gets to see the guy again, as a sort of chance to recant, and also knows the umpire has his assignor's support (barring a litany of continued screw ups of the like you mention).
We can pull up all sorts of anecdotal evidence for one side or the other. The bottom line is that, justified or not, this is a system that allows the coaches and teams to influence by exclusion the proper selection of officials, and in so doing leaves much room for manipulation of that system to the coach's and his team's advantage. Surely there is a better way, if we really look hard enough.
How about we get assignors to do their jobs for a start? I know those guys can't watch every umpire every game. In the associations where they can't assign two guys per game for lack of numbers then they're pretty well in the doo doo unless they can find a way to swing a double team every so often. For the rest, what about using partner evaluations to highlight the guys who might need to be watched and perhaps helped a little in their process of development? I know from experience that this can work well, if you pick the right partners. Our Umpire Development Officer has 2 or 3 guys whose evaluations he can trust to be fair and informed, and he rotates them through the partners who need watching. It works. League feedback has the whole standard in our association rising dramatically over the last few years.
It is my belief that far too many associations, and the assignors they appoint, simply turn their charges loose without ever really looking at their progress in a game situation. Fitting names to roster slots takes over as the single most important task. That's not fair to the coach's or the teams they are given and it's not fair to the guys themselves because they have no measure of their progress outside of perhaps some annual clinic.
This red lining can't be the ONLY way to achieve the weeding out process or flag guys who might need further development. It is far too open to abuse. It didn't appear to be working in the case in your example. The guy had 14 or 15 prior blackballs and STILL was assigned the plate in a playoff? Gimme a break! He should have been looked at come Hell or high water LONG before it got to that stage!
Cheers,
Warren Willson
[Edited by Warren Willson on Nov 21st, 2000 at 03:55 PM]