Training and Evaluation

[jumpmaster]

I was recently appointed to head a committee to develop a recommendation for training, evaluation and mentorship of less experienced umpires in our association. Because I am one that believes in working smarter not harder, what are some of the things that have worked in your association? Do you have standards for who can be a mentor? What types of training and evaluation programs do you have?

[David B]

We have such a program in our association and it takes a few years to set it up right.

This has been my responsibility for the last five years and it works, but it takes everyone working on the same page.

We started out requiring class time (this takes the most work). All 3 year and under officials were required to attend five hours of class time. (if they don't attend they don't work)

Also, we have an on the field class where we talk and go through all mechanics. (required attendance to work)

Finally the first two years, the younger or newer officials will when at all possible work with veteran partners. This gives more time for "on the field" training.

The key is to have it set and in writing what is standard mechanics and how you are going to deal with side issues (coaches, equipment, enter/leave the field etc.,)

Evaluations are a whole new thing, but basically we use our veteran official for evaluating, and when I have time, I do it myself.

thanks
David

[FVB58]

We started evaluations this year. Our org. has the rooks set these up on line and we have a number of vets that either work the game with them, or go to the field to observe and evaluate. It seems to be working rather well. I am sure we have some hiccups that will be corrected once the season is over.

We also do a lot of training. Our training includes classroom work and on the field (gym) mechanics work. Most of our guys get between 10 and 15 hours of training before they don the gear in the spring. The training is for the new guys and the vets. We just track both groups seperately.

It is a lot of work, but it does pay off.

[mrm21711]

I am in no position in my assocation to be training people, but I am somewhat critical of veteran umpires and rookies who have no business being on the field. I feel there is not enough accountability to know the rules inside and out. Now, memorizing the rule book is not important, because a monkey could do that. There needs to be an attempt to know the rules and apply them to situations. I like testing but only if there is accountability behind it to make the people better. I also felt like there is not enough on field work in my association, as people get out there for their first game and have no clue what to do. I think the working with veterans helps, but I find it impossible to put somebody with zero experience into a high school game to "learn on the fly." I would like to see people just watching a veteran crew work a local varsity game every once and a while, to learn before doing. Some people can get thrown into the fire...but not too many without serious mistakes. I like the required class time, as long as it is serious study and discussion, not a bunch of clowns in the back of the room talking about God knows what, that really distracts from the focus of the meeting.