How about an opinion:

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

I would welcome the input and don't mind being critqued (much different than being yelled at from the bench). I've attended camps and been evaluated by minor league and college umpires. The best part of the evaluation is that they picked up on things I didn't necessarily realize I was doing incorrectly or could be doing better. An evaluation from a coaches perspective would make for interesting reading. Just my two cents!

They might be able to point out what you are doing, but do they have the knowledge to correct it. And evaluation should only come from people that have an extensive understanding of mechanics and procedures, not just giving an opinion as to what they do not like or what they like. Or if they tell you that you are doing something wrong, are they able to give you why you were wrong?

Peace

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Tim C

OK, let's build a system of evaluation for umpires (that work games with non-professional players).

Question #1:

Would you want to give coaches formal input on an umpire's evaluation?

T

No, I would not want input from coaches.

• They do not know the rules (they prove this time and time again).
• They do not know positioning (again they prove this all the time).
• They do not know how to evaluate without bias.

[jicecone]

When was the last time you were asked to evaluate the coaches from a school system or league. Except for the lets suck up to the coaches end of the year association sportsmanship award.

Never, zero, nada, not once. Probably because they don't think we know anything about coaching.

Well that is exactly my opinion, about their opinion, about my officiating.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

When was the last time you were asked to evaluate the coaches from a school system or league.

We don't hire coaches, school systems, or leagues.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

We don't hire coaches, school systems, or leagues.

Schools and Leagues don't (generally) hire individual umpires... they generally hire a scheduler or a group of umpires. It is up the the association to ensure that their umpires are good enough to umpire the league so that the association is retained. None of this says coaches should have individual input into the hiring or use of a specific umpire. I really hate the "we have to cowtow to the coaches because we are their employee" nonsense. It's NOT the case. And even if a school was SO upset about a particular umpire that they threatened the contract of the association, the association should not cave - as in general it is not an individual school doing the hiring, but rather a group of schools. And if a district chooses to get rid of an entire association, good luck finding umpires.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

When was the last time you were asked to evaluate the coaches from a school system or league.

Every year. In fact, as UIC I'm usually on the committee that chooses post season managers.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by Tim C

OK, let's build a system of evaluation for umpires (that work games with non-professional players).

Question #1:

Would you want to give coaches formal input on an umpire's evaluation?

T

Probably not, because it would just result in "the umpire needs to stand closer, get his head next to the catcher, and not have his hands on his knees".

[UmpJM]

Tim,

Interesting question.

I believe that soliciting input from coaches for an umpire evaluation system would most likely be a good thing.

While I wouldn't give it a ton of weight in the overall evaluation scheme (I don't know, maybe 25% max...), I believe there are some aspects of our umpiring that coaches have a unique perspective on - and it would be good to include that perspective whether the purpose of the evaluation was to rank/score umpires or simply help them improve their umpiring.

As a couple of posters have suggested, the vast majority of coaches do not know HOW to umpire - they don't know the proper positioning techniques, they don't know proper mechanics, they don't know rotations & responsibilities, etc. Evaluation of those aspects I would think best left to umpires.

However, there are a number of other aspects of umpiring - things like game management, communications, decisiveness and consistency of calls, professionalism, etc. that I feel the coaches DO have a useful perspective on.

Like it or not, they are our customers. If you're not interested in their perspective, you're not really interested in being the best umpire you can be.

In terms of bias, I have found most coaches to be fairly reasonable and objective - once you remove them from the heat of a game situation.

So, I would solicit input from coaches, but it would be different input than I would solicit from evaluating umpires.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Schools and Leagues don't (generally) hire individual umpires... they generally hire a scheduler or a group of umpires. It is up the the association to ensure that their umpires are good enough to umpire the league so that the association is retained. None of this says coaches should have individual input into the hiring or use of a specific umpire. I really hate the "we have to cowtow to the coaches because we are their employee" nonsense. It's NOT the case. And even if a school was SO upset about a particular umpire that they threatened the contract of the association, the association should not cave - as in general it is not an individual school doing the hiring, but rather a group of schools. And if a district chooses to get rid of an entire association, good luck finding umpires.

You're reading a lot into my post. The fact that we don't rate coaches is not a reason to reject coach input about umpires.

Fwiw I agree that coaches often have too much input. I suspect that happens because there's nobody else to offer criticism.

[DG]

Sure.

[jkumpire]

This year I started in my association asking for a general evaluation from coaches and AD's of the umpires we sent them to. It was for the most part a disaster.

The main reason was we only got responses from 3 schools in SB, and 2 in BB.
We got specific answers to questions, but for a couple of coaches it was a gripe session about guys they don't like.

IMO, there should be only umpires evaluating umpires, and in my state there should be state association representatives looking at umpires during the season. IN our state coaches do have a chance to rate umpires, but the results are not made public. It seems some umpires figured out who gave them a bad rating, and called up AD's about it, so the state association refuses to reveal ratings.

In my system (in a perfect world) Evaluator A, a retired umpire, with video camera in hand comes to a game.

Evaluator shoots video, and evaluates on a standardized form. He then meets with the umpires after the game, shows the video to them, and hands them a copy of the evaluation. Umpires with a bad grade for a game, or with under 3 years experience get looked at again later in the season. Good umpires get looked at every other year.

[kylejt]

The response from coach would go a long way in determining whether his input is useful or not.

Wandering strike zone.

Not receptive to inquiries about calls.

Sleepy, had to wake him several times on the bases.

Might be helpful

He's an idiot.

Walking dental floss.

Disgrace to the man race.

Might not be so insightful. It really depends on what the coaches say.

I ask for input from coaches about my crew, because I truly want to know what they're thinking. Sure, they don't know if they hit their rotations, or pivoted the correct way on the infield. I've got that covered. I want to know if their strikezone is what they're looking, or if they work well with the catchers. Stuff they would know about.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Tim C

OK, let's build a system of evaluation for umpires (that work games with non-professional players).

Question #1:

Would you want to give coaches formal input on an umpire's evaluation?

T

Tim,

Great question. In generalities, yes, I think coaches should have some input to an umpire's evaluation; however, they should only be a small part.

Missouri "requires" (quotes intended) all head coaches to evaluate every umpire for every Varsity-level game. Last year, I only received 3 evaluations. One of the evaluations had me ranked as 4 (Sub-Varsity level quality) for every section of the review -- the coach even marked that I needed to work on "Appearance." The idea is laughable, as I know I've never looked sloppy walking onto a ball field.

In a perfect organization, I see the following:

• Coaches: 10%
• Partner: 25%
• Organization: 25%
• Evaluator: 40%

The coaches would have a standard form, where they rate the umpire 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Awful) on several aspects of the game. Part of the evaluation would include If an umpire receives feedback from both coaches of a game AND those ratings are similar, it would hold more weight. These ratings would be viewable by the umpire, but with no information to clue the umpire as to the game it came from.

Each umpire would be required to evaluate each umpire for every game worked. The umpires should have the evaluations completed within 72 hours, but the eval wouldn't be available to the partner for a week. Again, the details are hidden, so the umpire wouldn't know which partner completed the review.

The organization would rate their umpires based on several factors away from the games. Attendance to meetings, training classes, and clinics would be a majority of the rating. Part of the rating would also include how often they complete other ratings.

Finally, the organization would either hire evaluators or pay a current umpire a game fee to evaluate both umpires. At least one evaluation would be required for all first-three-year umpires; after that, it's random on where the evaluator goes. If an umpire WANTS an evaluation, they can request one from the evaluation committee -- the first is free, and all others will cost a game fee (could be shared between both umpires).

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Tim,

Great question. In generalities, yes, I think coaches should have some input to an umpire's evaluation; however, they should only be a small part.

Missouri "requires" (quotes intended) all head coaches to evaluate every umpire for every Varsity-level game. Last year, I only received 3 evaluations. One of the evaluations had me ranked as 4 (Sub-Varsity level quality) for every section of the review -- the coach even marked that I needed to work on "Appearance." The idea is laughable, as I know I've never looked sloppy walking onto a ball field.

How did you see that a particular coach gave you a 4 rating? All I can see is my final rating for the season and how many times I "needed improvement" in each area for the season as a whole.

How many ratings should you have had? The coaches are supposed to do them or they can be kept out of district play. I had around 90 basketball ratings and over 70 baseball ratings this past season.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by zm1283

How did you see that a particular coach gave you a 4 rating? All I can see is my final rating for the season and how many times I "needed improvement" in each area for the season as a whole.

You're right. I knew I received all 4's because at one point in the season, I had 1 rating with a 4.0000 rating. Magically, I also received a "needs improvement" in every section at the same time.

Originally Posted by zm1283

How many ratings should you have had? The coaches are supposed to do them or they can be kept out of district play. I had around 90 basketball ratings and over 70 baseball ratings this past season.

I received 3 ratings from 4 Varsity games, so I'm missing 5 ratings. My assumption, according The Journal that was just sent, is that MSHSAA can determine when a coach doesn't complete the ratings, and they'll penalize as needed. Maybe it takes Officials to complain about it.