Thread: LLWS and replay
View Single Post
  #73 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 10, 2011, 06:52am
Rich's Avatar
Rich Rich is offline
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by THoy View Post
I may also feel the same way to a certain extent, but rather than ripping the man I would attempt to find a solution. Perhaps candidates who apply for a Series with a DA endorsement should be evaluted before being selected. After the evaluation the candidate is recommended to a training before they can move forward or upward. Another suggestion may be that all candidate attend a required training after being recommended. If the candidate fails to demonstrate an ability to preform than more training is prescribed. Either way a volunteer in the program deserves a chance at a series.

A solution based approach is certainly a more positive than criticizing the entire system along with individuals. And as stated before talent and experience will be tested in these WS environments. Umpires miss calls when in perfect position for whatever the reason. I think what I enjoyed most about my particular experience was the absense of a ultra competitive environment among the group. We were a unit that hung out together after the games. No one sat around picking other guys apart. It was a group of geniune individuals who love the game and the craft. I know I have had a great deal more training than other guys not to mention experience, however it does not permit me to trash other umpires in the name of the profession.
We do differ, I think, in one regard. There are not enough spots available for everyone to work a LLWS. Look at the West region -- there are thousands of LL umpires who would probably love to go to WP and they get 2 slots a year. So in the next 25 years that's 50 umpires that go.

So the selection process shouldn't be based upon identifying the right "volunteer." It should be designed around finding the right umpires who volunteer. Plenty of LL umpires have quite a bit of talent now and I'd rather take a 10-year umpire that has demonstrated ability than a 30-year person who others feel should be given a gold watch.

My solution would be to "not recommend" more umpires at the state and regional levels. I get that DAs aren't going to be able to tell quality umpires from lesser quality umpires at times. But by the time an umpire gets to a state or a regional tourney, there should be someone there to evaluate. If they can't handle the WS then (in the opinion of the UIC of the tourney) there should be no recommendation given. The umpire is then free to attend training, get more experience (not the same amount year after year) and get better and THEN go back to the level where they weren't recommended and try again. It shouldn't ever be a gold watch for these guys.

I find it pointless to rip individual umpires and pretty tasteless to do so -- I'll point out errors in order to help others not make the same mistake. But it doesn't stop me from wondering how some (and I felt that way about a couple at my WS this year) made it through the process. Doesn't mean I would denigrate those people and that I would do anything but help them and work with them when we shared the field, but those thoughts did cross my mind.