While I'm thinking about it, it would be nice for Missouri to at least give you the date of the contest when the coaches rate you. In addition, I think we should be able to question why "needs improvement" was marked. The coaches would then have 7 days to respond with a reasonable answer, or the mark is removed.

I'm not even thinking of a post-season state assignment anytime in the near future. However, if the ratings are one of the factors (which I've been led to believe), there should be a way for officials to question a rating, especially when they receive a "Needs Improvement" on a category.

To be fair, Missouri does require the coach to explain a 5 rating (which equates to "not good enough for sub-Varsity level"). Coaches know this, so the lowest they'll go is a 4 rating. After that, they'll just mark the "needs improvement" for all the sections.

Everything must be done incognito. If they gave you the date you would more than likely know which coach gave you the bad rating, especially if you had a particularly hard time with the coach. They would only be pouring salt on the wound so to speak.

Coaches more than likely give the low ratings because they probably don't care to do them at all. They figure if their impute is consistently at the low levels, they won't be forced to do them anymore. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't be the least bit interested in being required to give a rating.

If you've been in an association long enough, you will learn who the knuckleheads are and how to approach them. I know I've gotten the 411 on some coaches. When they see a new umpire, they believe they can play their little games and get away with it. They must be unaware that umpires don't talk among themselves or share information.

Or, take your game up a couple of notches..........;)

Oh well, the dog is barking telling he wants back in. Goodnight.

I don't think my game is that bad. I certainly know my appearance isn't. :P

How about an opinion
 

My thoughts: Who has a dog in this hunt? Just the coaches. The variables on a coach's evaluation after a game skew any objective report. Strike zone sucked,but he won. Strike zone sucked,but he lost, etc.
For my two cents, use an impartial evaluator. Some one whose opinion can be trusted, who has the knowledge and experience to see the TOTAL performance.
Blew a call? Why? Good/bad position, moving/not while making call, etc. Rules knowledge-- shall we even go there?
Critical question as yet unasked: how much time is a good/bad coach spending during any given game spent "evaluating" the umps.
Personalities-- coach likes to "work" the umps vs. coach who doesn't.
What is the objective of evaluation? If improving the association's the overall performances, only unbiased opinions are worth the paper it's printed on.
Want to find out who is there just for the money? Honest reports will quickly weed those out. Those trying to improve will take evals to heart and strive to improve. End result--everyone wins. Yourmileage may vary.

One note... if you feel you HAVE to have coaches input on umpires, regarding things like appearance, game management, etc... the only fair way to do it would be to require coaches to go to a few non-district games to evaluate umpires. Coaches with a dog in the hunt are inherently biased - and scores will automatically be better if the coach wins than if the coach loses.

That must be a local thang, because I do not see why it would matter what district they are in or where the game is played? I will never accept an evaluation from a profession that does not know how to teach our profession.

Peace

IMO, the most important aspect of building an evaluation system is to have Umpires doing the evaluation.

These umpires (like yourself) would get paid just as if they were doing games. The pay could be curtailed (meaning not a top rate Varsity Fee) but none-the-less compensatory.

Depending upon how many games your association services you most likely will need at least 5-6 guys that do the evaluating.


Should the coaches get input?

On a trial basis.

here is what I mean.

We have Team A playing Team B

We also have an umpire evaluator present.

At the end of the game compare the evaluations? If the coaches evaluations are "way off" then it is not a good idea to have input from them because in a way the coaches evaluation is meaningless. You could have one of those games where we had balks called, OBS/ interference etc. All PROPER calls by the umpiring crew BUT the coaches thought they were terrible hence a bad evaluation.

Also, IMO, one or two bad games does NOT make for an efficient system either. We all have had bad games so we need to take that into account.

In summary: Unless the umpire association can provide OFFICIALS to do the evlauating IMO, the system will be flawed and unproductive. Feedback also needs to be conveyed to the umpires.

Pete Booth

I don't like the idea. But, I'm not in a role to be overly concerned with what coaches think of a particular league. I do my part in the game and try to look as good as possible.

As an eval of an individual umpire, I don't think they should have much weight. Too many variables of why they don't like an umpire. But, if there is a trend for an umpire, it can mean a warranted official eval of the umpire by an evaluator. But, that is all of the weight it should carry.

As an eval of overall satisfaction of umpires, yes. But, only to the extent for an assigner to know if his customers are happy. The occasional bad one won't mean much. But, many might indicate an issue or overall dissatisfaction and needs to be followed up.

I agree with you in principle. There seemed to be several, however, who felt that since we "work for" the schools, that input from the coaching side would be worthwhile. I disagree, but was saying that if one must INSIST on coach input, it needs to come from a neutral coach who was not involved in the game. Doesn't matter, necessarily, what district... just that the coach is neutral. I suppose it's possible that such a neutral coach might have valuable input regarding both appearance and "handling coaches" - but that's about it in my book.

I am amazed that officials believe that a coaches input is necessary in his deveopment. I have been involved many years in the training of officials for both Ice Hockey and Baseball and find it degrading to think that I, my trainers or association need input from a coach in order to develope an official.

Setting up a training program for your officials in personal appearance, physical conditioning, mechanics, judgement, rule knowledge, interpretation and application, communication with players and coaches, alternate officiating systems, community relations and involvement, needs good experienced officials that are willing to pass along this information. Not Coaches.

Reinforcing this training with constructive evaluations and mid year training, then rewarding with advancement is just about all the ingredients necessary to develope an official.

Most good coaches I have met expect only that we hustle in position, know the rules, be respectful, and give them the best job we can. If they have to tell us how to do our job, then we shouldn't be there and I agree.

I never had the oppurtunity to attend a professional umpires school but, I just can't believe that the staff has many, if any coaches on it. JMO

Precisely what I've been thinking reading this thread. We've never used coaches opinions in our training or evaluations and its worked very well.

Now our state office came along and started this evaluation for each game per the Arbiter system and it was a mess because a coach could easily rate you down and you had no way of responding. And usually you could tell who lost the game based on the evaluations given by the coaches.

But at a local level, training doesn't require coaches input.

I did like Bob's idea that if you include coaches, have a very specific list of questions and very few general ones. The only thing I've been able to glean from coaches input through the years is how an umpire might respond under pressure, when the coach is coming down on them hard during a heated contest. Some very good umpires simply cannot handle the pressure of a "big game'.

Thanks
David

Who said anything about training? That's a ridiculous red herring. Tee was asking about evaluation.

I and others have already explained the rationale for including coaches' input: they offer a perspective on an umpire's game management that nobody else can. Not a partner, not a paid or volunteer evaluator (who might not hear a conversation).

That's a small but significant component of an evaluation. It's certainly not intended as a substitute for an umpire doing an evaluation, which would cover far more ground and be the primary evaluative tool.

I'm not too surprised that many coaches would ignore opportunities to evaluate umpires. It's not required by their job, nor will it help them keep it. When you ask people to do volunteer work, you have to go out of your way to explain how it will benefit them, their team, and the game. Otherwise all you get are the cranks and hotheads (which could happen anyway).

You have one thing correct, the only thing that we've found useful in evaluations from coaches is "game management". As far as positioning, strikes and outs, coaches simply don't have a clue because everything is based on wins and losses.

We've used coaches to evaluate several years ago for a season and it was a complete waste of time, they simply could not get past letting "one call" skew their perspective on the job the umpire or umpires performed during the contest.

The best evaluations I've ever gotten from a coach on an umpire was when i caught him at church, the mall, and the best place .... ;)during summer ball when the regular season was over and the coach had a much more laid back approach to baseball.

Thanks
David

David, this is certainly not true. There are many coaches, at least in my area, that know an umpire's correct positioning. They've been doing the job long enough to know where we're supposed to go and what we're supposed to do.

Some of these coaches even know PU has 3B on a first-to-third by R1. If PU fails to make that rotation and the call goes against the coach, I guarantee he's going to let both umpires know the proper mechanic.

The biggest reason I see it helping is simply because there's a coach at every game. If your organization has enough officials to rate every official at every game, then that's great. However, I'm sure you're lucky to get 2 evals on each official in a year.

I would not give that responsibilities to all officials, why would I give this to a group of people that know less by occupation? I guess to each is his own and if you want to put the future or training in the hands of coaches that is your prerogative, but I would find that to be pointless. I guess different places have different "standards." :D

You need two different people to evaluate two different umpires? Really? If one guy can do that with 5 guys on a field, I think one person can do that in a sport like baseball where no one moves until the ball is contacted or a play is made.

Peace