"real umpires"

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, the term "REAL UMPIRE" is an umpire who

1. Looks the part meaning they are properly dressed
2. Reads the rule-book
3. Attends some form of mechanics training and
4. Takes pride in what they do no matter what the level of ball.

Pete Booth

I find it interesting that neither experience nor ability find a place on your list.

[kylejt]

I guess my question is, what was the point of the original post?

[IowaMike]

I liked the four stages of umpiring. I did baseball for about 5 years, three of those I worked HS JV and a few Varsity games. I always worked some LL and Pony league as well. I believe towards the end I fluctuated back and forth between stages 2 and 3. There are bad JV umps out there but I have seen very few, if any, bad Varsity umps in my area. They all call a decent game and always look like they know what they are doing out there. I never felt that I was anything better than a good JV umpire. Never could get the feel of being really consistent with my strike zone and that is part of the reason I gave it up. I didn't want to be one of those guys who people hate to see show up to work a Varsity game. I also work basketball, do a lot of Varsity games and feel very comfortable with that sport. There is, in my opinion, a world of difference between working a Varsity game vs a LL game. The expectations on you are much higher at the Varsity level, from both the coaches and the players. Most folks are just happy to see an adult in uniform behind the plate at a LL game. I consider guys that umpire for a living real umpires.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I find it interesting that neither experience nor ability find a place on your list.

I don't know about the experience not being mentioned. I agree that it should have been. However, I think the four listed are mutually inclusive of ones ability.


Tim.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

However, I think the four listed are mutually inclusive of ones ability.


Tim.

I don't.

I know umpires who dress great, read the rule book, go to their associations mechanics sessions, are prideful of their efforts and suck. In fact, I think I saw a couple of those at LLWS.

I liken it to music. One can buy a great tux, take lessons, practice like hell, be proud of their efforts and play like crap. Some where along the line there has to be a place for ability, talent, skill, whatever you want to call it.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I don't.

I know umpires who dress great, read the rule book, go to their associations mechanics sessions, are prideful of their efforts and suck. In fact, I think I saw a couple of those at LLWS.

I liken it to music. One can buy a great tux, take lessons, practice like hell, be proud of their efforts and play like crap. Some where along the line there has to be a place for ability, talent, skill, whatever you want to call it.

Then you're saying there has to be a pre-disposition to succeed as a "real" umpire?

Tim.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Then you're saying there has to be a pre-disposition to succeed as a "real" umpire?

Tim.

RIF

No, I didn't say that. First off all, I don't use the term "real umpires" becaused I don't know what it means.

Secondly, although volumes have been written about the possibility of a pre-disposition to a skill playing a part in future success at that skill, I didn't suggest it. I suggested skill or ability, both of which are developed, is required for one to be considered a good umpire and that looking good, reading the rules, attending a clinic and being proud of your effort are not enough. Perhaps you were confused by my inclusion or the word "talent". We can debate forever what that means. I prefer not to. I'll remove it if it is getting in the way.

As we often tell music students, practice is meaningless unless it is performed properly. Some students can "practice" two hours a day and not develop as well as those who "practice" half an hour a day. There are numerous books written on the art of practice.

It's similar to five years experience and one year's experience five time.

I will continue to contend that a good umpire displays more that the listed four items and must demonstrate the ability to perform well before he is considered a good umpire. Without ability, he just "looks" like a good umpire.

You may continue to believe that skill isn't required if you'd like, or that by lookikng good, reading the rules, attending a clinis and being prideful is either evidence of skill or automatically develops skill. As both and educator and an umpire trainer, I know better.

[gordon30307]

I respect an umpire who not in order of importance:

Looks the part.

Show up on time.

Knows the rules. Not necessarily a rules guru but knows the most common problems that occurs and how to apply the rule properly.

Uses proper mechanics.

Has good timing.

Communicates on the field. ie. uses signals.

Has good game management. One could write a book on what good game management is. But that's another thread.

Is open to suggestions on how to improve as an umpire.

This might not be your list and I may have left something out but if you do the above you're a "real umpire" or at least on your way to becoming a "real umpire".