Rating Systems?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I applaud my state association for trying to make a better rating system and a more objective way to rate officials for tournament assignments. it is a hard job. The problem is unless you use objective standards like test scores and trained umpires to evaluate people, no rating system is fair to the umpires. Coaches just cannot evenhandedly evaluate umpires, or frankly officials in any sport.

Test scores???

Test scores are one of the worst ways to evaluate umpires. I have no problem if they are factored in some way, but test scores only prove someone knows how to pass a test. I have seen guys that are really good at passing tests only to wilt like a flower in a hard rain when the heat gets on. Umpiring is more than passing a test and more than just knowing the ins and outs of a particular rule. We also have to manage people and deal with conflict. Not every umpire knows how to do that very well and it shows when a player or a coach gets on them.

Secondly there is always going to be input from coaches about the job we do. When I worked my first D1 game recently I heard of the report that the coach said to my assignor. When I worked for the first time in a D2 conference I heard about the opinions of what the coaches thought of the job I did. You might think there is not "rating system" in place but the reality there is. At least with a set rating system you might know what goes into it. When you work higher levels you might not ever know what is said behind closed doors and you could be affected more.

Peace