Future of Officiating

[jicecone]

In a recent thread, I used the phrase that I was the senior official in a game and basically stepped into a situation to resolve a dispute that had the potential of exploding. Exception was made with the fact that being the senior official on the field meant very little, “#2 It is my understanding that in most areas, the PU is the UIC, being the more senior as far as I know doesn't supersede anything.”

Today, I am reading the article “Ejection in the Cape Cod League” by Peter Osborne and noticed his statement, “However, as the senior umpire, I take a lot more initiative.”

Not exactly the same scenario however, I thought it may be a good topic of discussion.

Now, we have a good mix of young cocky stallions on this forum and some old geezer’s with a lot of experience and knowledge, often going head to head.

Maybe it is just me, but there seems to be a lot more individualism in officiating amateur sports now. Is it truly “every man for him self,” and should we prescribe to a “sink or swim” philosophy in our associations and let the younglings fend for their self?

In today’s competitive world what say you?

[LomUmp]

Hey all,

There are certain things during a game that the UIC is responsible for, hence the UIC label. However, if there is a relatively inexperienced PU and a very experienced BU, the senior official should, IF asked by the PU, make some input in regards to game management, rules interps, etc...

This should be done in a way that does not undercut the authority of the UIC on the field. Ideally, these things should be covered in a good pregame discussion, but sometimes, doo-doo occurs.

LomUmp

[ozzy6900]

Sometimes, it is a file line we tread! As defined by the rule books, the PU is the UIC in 2 man work and has certain duties. If I am the BU and I have a rookie at the plate, I will let him "run on the leash" but will reel him in if he is heading for trouble. We are partners and as the senior person, I will offer (not push) my help as needed. Of course, I am not talking about help on a call here, I am referring to help with touchy decisions dealing with rules, arguments and the like.

In 3 or more man crews, we usually agree on a crew chief. Sometimes we use the senior person, sometimes we use the junior person (that really sets off the coaches).

Of course, if a young buck won't "rein in" when pulled upon, I let him go until he runs out of steam. I usually walk away but I leave the barn door open - just in case he wants to stable up. Then as the senior person, I'll get the dogs off his back so he can recuperate.

Regards

[mick]

Originally Posted by jicecone

In a recent thread, I used the phrase that I was the senior official in a game and basically stepped into a situation to resolve a dispute that had the potential of exploding. Exception was made with the fact that being the senior official on the field meant very little, “#2 It is my understanding that in most areas, the PU is the UIC, being the more senior as far as I know doesn't supersede anything.”

Today, I am reading the article “Ejection in the Cape Cod League” by Peter Osborne and noticed his statement, “However, as the senior umpire, I take a lot more initiative.”

Not exactly the same scenario however, I thought it may be a good topic of discussion.

Now, we have a good mix of young cocky stallions on this forum and some old geezer’s with a lot of experience and knowledge, often going head to head.

Maybe it is just me, but there seems to be a lot more individualism in officiating amateur sports now. Is it truly “every man for him self,” and should we prescribe to a “sink or swim” philosophy in our associations and let the younglings fend for their self?

In today’s competitive world what say you?

I think it is good to have an Umpire in Chief, or Crew Chief, one umpire to make a final decision on anything, some One who is responsible for how a game is generally managed. It matters not to me whether the *Chief" is the Senior, is behind the plate or is in the infield, but it seems more practical that the Chief is not in outfield for reasons of accessibility.

If some problem rears its ugly self during a given game, meet with the crew, come to a conclusion and live with the decision as a crew.

That said, for me, the Crew comes first, the crew follows and supports one another through the final out, the Chief included. If it is determined that it has become difficult, uncomfortable, or impossible to work with, or to communicate with, a member of a game crew, simply refuse to take any such assignments in the future.

This remains a game.

[GarthB]

It is a balancing act.

When working with a new or weak partner I'll have an intensive pregame and concentrate on game management.

I'll tell him to feel free to come to me with any questions or if he feels he's getting "in trouble." I'll tell him that I will come to him and speak privately if I feel he has made a mistake in rules, but I will not come to him in regards to any judgment calls unless he invites me. I also tell him that I will leave his game management up to him unless it appears that a situation could get out of hand, at which time I will, again, privately give him my opinon on handling the situation.

The only time I'll step in unvited is if he has ejected someone and they need to be lead away, he gets into a two on one situation and someone needs to be peeled off, it appears he is experiencing a melt-down, or to do otherwise jeopardizes someone's safety or the completion of the game. I won't throw him under the bus, nor will I let him unknowingly climb under one.

[ManInBlue]

I like what I've read to this point. I must agree with what has been said as well. I'd like to think that I, too, handle it the same way. However, I am (in HS) one of the younger "less experienced" umpires. I get into more crap because of the older, "I've been doin' this for 15 years" folks than I care to mention.

The problem around here isn't the new guys don't know what to do. There are very few new umps in either association. The problem is that the old farts have been around for a while, doing things wrong, and don't know any better. It's harder to tell "Pops" he's an idiot and doesn't do things right than it is to tell "Little Johnny" what he's doing wrong, or could do to improve.

[mattmets]

As a young guy who is looking to make a career out of this whole umpiring thing, and has tried to absorb as much about every aspect of umpiring as he can, I think I have a little different perspective on this.

Our association works games from Willie Mays up to 18-19 year old ball, where the kids are some guys I played in high school with. A lot of guys I work with say they can't find people who are willing to work some of the "shaving age" ball we have, but I have no problem doing it. As I see it, any chance I get to walk on the field and learn something- whether it's from a partner, a situation with a coach, or something I pick up on myself and tell myself I have to work on.

Having said that, we have a couple of guys who come in every half-inning and always have something to say. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know everything, but I know where I'm supposed to be with R1/R3 on a fly ball with one out. However, if I know I've screwed something up, but I don't know how to fix it, I'm more than willing to go to an older guy and ask about it. Problem is, we also have a lot of guys who don't really like to help younger guys. Fortunately, we have a few older guys who ask all their partners if they noticed anything wrong with the game. Just because an umpire is younger doesn't mean he can't pick up on something the veteran may have been a little lax in.

I guess the point in what I'm saying is that there has to be give and take. When I'm PU, I expect my BU, whether a veteran or a rookie, to let me run my game and step in if I have a problem. Likewise, if I'm BU, I'll let the PU do things his way unless I need to step in. When I'm working with a veteran, I consider him a resource, not my father. I don't expect to be criticized on everything I do wrong. I expect to be told I'm wrong, but I also believe that I should be able to ask follow-up questions and get an explanation as to why what I did was wrong. We have to remember that we're the only ones out there who like us.

If there's a shortage of officials and you want to attract and retain younger guys, you can't alienate them. The younger ducklings need to be able to find their own footing, but you can't have the older, wiser guys not wanting to have anything to do with them.

[D-Man]

Where'd you find this article?

[PeteBooth]

In today’s competitive world what say you?

[/QUOTE]

There is competition when trying to make umpiring one's living.

However, in the amateur game depending upon where you live there is an overall shortage of umpires so the phrase "competitive world" doesn't apply.

The catch phrase is

"Are you available" is more prevelant in the amateur game
There is competition in getting High end HS Varsity games and sectional games. I do not umpire college but I would think there is competition in getting a College World Series assignment.

Absent the aforementioned there is plenty of games to umpire if you are available.

We should be a Team out there just like when we played and treat our fellow official with the same respect we did our teammates which means we do not throw our partner "under the bus" etc.

If you have a problem save it for after the game.

We give our partner a chance to handle a particular situation but when it gets heated etc. it's time to step in and get the game moving.

Talking about the amateur game only, if you have an ego and are strictly "out for yourself" word gets around no matter how good of an official you are and no one wants to work with somebody like that.

As far as the future of officiating, I see a continued shortage at least in the amateur game.

Pete Booth

[Rich]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Talking about the amateur game only, if you have an ego and are strictly "out for yourself" word gets around no matter how good of an official you are and no one wants to work with somebody like that.

If you don't have an ego, I don't want to work with you.

[PeteBooth]

You and Joe West would get along fine then.

If you are "out for yourself" and have an EGO I am glad you would not want to work with me.

Also, it's difficult to get umpires if you have a group of officials who think their you know what doesn't stink.

Pete Booth

[David Emerling]

I believe MLB adopts the concept that the crew chief (wherever he may be positioned) has a lot of authority with regards to problem resolutions.

When all the umpires get together to resolve a problem, my guess is that the crew chief has final approval of the resolution. But I don't know for sure. That's just the impression I get.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I believe MLB adopts the concept that the crew chief (wherever he may be positioned) has a lot of authority with regards to problem resolutions.

When all the umpires get together to resolve a problem, my guess is that the crew chief has final approval of the resolution. But I don't know for sure. That's just the impression I get.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Agree, David, it is PUs butt in the end all.

[Tim C]

Rich noted:

"If you don't have an ego, I don't want to work with you."

I could not agree more!

I want my partner to want to fight me for the dish, be self-assured to the max, and not allow any sign of weakness.

"Big Umpires Make Big Calls In Big Games!"

Pete noted:

"If you are "out for yourself" and have an EGO I am glad you would not want to work with me."

I am "out for myself" everytime I enter the field. I know that if I do my job, get my calls and have a great pre-game the umpire crew will be successful.

Give me too much ego over a "Sally" anytime.



Regards,

[GarthB]

Pete:

There is a difference between umpires with a solid, secure ego and those who are egotistical.

I've worked with both

Like Tee, I want a partner with a healthy ego.

Like you, I don't want a partner who inappropriately displays that ego.