|
IMO, this is another area where it is hard to legislate good judgement. In this area, most assignors are one of the more experienced umpires who was willing to take on the job in addition to working games. But in one case, it is a coach who was willing to take on the job when noone else would!
I agree, this is one of many issues that will always produce ticklish situations whenever someone has something to gain or loose. A lot depends on what the availability of umpires is vs. the demand in a given area or association, as that can dictate decisions. Someone has to work the games that no one seems to want to work. And I don't think it is reasonable to tell an umpire his career must end if he is to do the assigning.
I think some type of lottery system for the "best" games (among those "qualified" of course), and a quota system that tries to balance the number of games assigned across everyone in the pool are ways to take some of the potential for conflict of interest out of the picture. This applies even if the assignor isn't assigning himself or herself. We have all probably seen situations where some umpires that are favored for whatever reason get many more (and better) opportunities that others. This practice tends only to magnify the differences between umpires, rather than elevate the skills of those not chosen.
__________________
Panda Bear
|