Regardless of what you think, my post did not need any fixing.

I'm sure we work different levels. In the levels that I work there is mutual respect. Although they may disagree with my judgement at times, they respect the way I work a game.

And in my area, I'm lucky to see an AD at the game for longer than an inning.

I would not want AD's evaluating my performance on the field...they might have less of a clue than the coaches

I do not know if I even see ADs during the baseball season at all.

Peace

Every once in a while, I'll see one. I definitely see a school administrator, and occasionally it's the AD.

Wow!
 

I saw your comments people, I am amazed:

1. In every HS athletic event I officiated in the 2009-2010 except for one wrestling tournament, I talked to the home school AD or Assistant AD.

2. Some of you are misunderstanding me, so let me try again: For SOME things, like game management for example, AD's have insights that coaches do not have, and officials do not have. For example, in the state I work in, who deals with ejections? The AD and principal. Who evaluates coaches and their work: AD's.

3. I know for a fact that many AD's I talk to will talk about what relationship coaches have with officials. And sometimes it will be words like: "Stop complaining about ...." Other times it is the opposite.

4. Finally, in order to be clear, let em say that AD's may well have a part to play in Tee's system, not a big part, but maybe a better view of things than coaches do.

UMMV.

Well in baseball that would not apply here. The reason is because baseball is one of multiple sports that can likely be playing at the same time as other sports. It is not unusual that there is a softball game and a soccer (e.g. Lacrosse, Boy's Volleyball, or Track too) game is going on at that school at the same time. I am sure the AD or other administrators have other things going on and that is why we do not see them. And even when it comes to calling the school to verify the contest, it is not uncommon that I cannot get to talk to the AD for that information rather than I will talk to the department secretary instead.

This is just one of these many things that is going to vary based on where you live and the systems you are under.

Peace

[QUOTE]
While the AD may be present, is he watching and observing ALL 7 innings of the game?

Answer: Highly unlikely

The AD might catch an inning or 2 but he/she is most likely doing "other" things while the game is going on. He /she is there but not necessarily at the field UNLESS his/her presence is needed.

Why should the AD have input? What does he know about umpire positioning? whether or not a balk should have been called or what OBS / interference are.

In other words theoretcially you could get an excellent rating from the coaches / AD BUT received a bad evaluation from the umpire evaluator

Why!

Even though the calls were correct and the HC and VC were "happy", the umpires were not in the Proper position. Yeah in today's game they "got away with it" BUT the umpire evaluator KNOWS that eventually if this crew or individual does not get into proper position it's just a matter of time before they get burned.

That's why in my answer to TEE, the FIRST "builiding block" HAS to start with the Umpire association.

The problem:

Schools will most likely NOT want to pay for an umpire evaluator in addition to the crew. These evaluators should get some form of compensation otherwise they would simply do games and forget about evaluating.

I like Bob J's idea on receiving the coaches evaluation, make the questions simple for them to fill out and do not make them ambiguous.

Pete Booth

It does (help how you are perceived) - it's just that there are also other factors involved- such as whether you suck or not!!

;););)

In my plan, the organization pays for the first evaluation for every umpire. Anything else is a game fee to be paid by the umpire requesting the evaluation. If both umpires want their second eval at the same game, they can share the cost.

Rating officials vs. Enhancing officiating
 

Asking a coach about umpire performance is a way to rate an official, not improve officiating. In our state, coaches do rate officials. The coaches get to pick which officials work their playoff games. Coach puts you on his list, you just got rated. Not one coach puts you on his list, you just got rated. We pay dues to organizations which take on the responsibly of education and training. I believe that most veteran (>3 years experience) officials do very little to try and better their game. Our chapter meetings are obligatory and hold no value. People do not ask questions because the questioning official looks ignorant. I believe the question posed should be: How do we energize the veteran official? The best summer games in my area are tournaments, not league play. Those tournament games are assigned to what is believed to be inferior officials, officials who do not belong to the local high school or college association. (And they don’t even shine their shoes) Some of these games determine which teams will go to the Connie Mack World Series in Farmington, NM. Some consider the CMWS to be the top amateur baseball in the land. I note the importance of the games to show perhaps the difference between “Smitty” and our selves is not as great as we would like to believe. So transparent, a TD of a very important tournament is willing to use “Smitty” to save ten bucks. I think our local organizations should use some of our dues to help defray the cost of a real clinic. A clinic put on by professional umpires. Film of a live game (scrimmage, so umpires could be rotated) should be mandatory. I should get more for my dues than just a rule book at the beginning of the year. My opinion: There is not one single thing that would improve ones performance more than film of a live game. Asking a coach about your performance is not constructive criticism.

Very interesting points. Great first post. Welcome to the board.

[QUOTE=Blindguy;687432]I think our local organizations should use some of our dues to help defray the cost of a real clinic. A clinic put on by professional umpires. Film of a live game (scrimmage, so umpires could be rotated) should be mandatory. I should get more for my dues than just a rule book at the beginning of the year. My opinion: There is not one single thing that would improve ones performance more than film of a live game. [QUOTE]

Every October there is a clinic in Central Illinois that limits enrollment to 30. Participants are video taped umping plate and bases in a Junior College round-robin Fall tournament. Umpires are rotated in and out every couple of innings and get multiple opportunities to work. Critique is "voiced-over" during the video taping, and once the umpire is done on the field he takes his tape to another evaluator who screens it with him, taking in the on-tape suggestions and adding whatever he feels relevant. At the end of the camp, each umpire critiques the camp, the instructors, and gets to take his video home. All of the instructors are either Minor League umpires, former Minor League umpires, or strong D-1 umpires with many years of experience.
It would be great if there could be a clinic of this value in every state in the union.

JJ

And yet they do with the coaches rating year after year and according to the new baseball guy, it's the one thing they look at in the state office when deciding how many regionals you work or how you get chosen for sectionals.

It's simply ludicrous. The coaches that like you -- about 40% of them (based on my experience) actually take the time to give you a rating. But if you happen to eject a coach or make a correct ruling they don't like, you can almost guarantee that a rating will show up for you -- it's the coach's way to "get even."

In 2004 my football crew ejected a player for spearing. Absolutely correct call, no doubt about it -- a kid blasted a defenseless player with the crown of his helmet. The kid doing the spearing hurt himself, too, and the coach came out to check on him and on the way off the field got himself an USC flag for, essentially, being an idiot and arguing the penalty. This coach gave us a rating in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 even though we (1) haven't worked him since then and (2) haven't worked in that *conference* since then (because I guess that one coach can keep a crew out of a conference). After a few emails and phone calls, I finally got those ratings removed and got a promise that the school wouldn't rate us anymore.

To me, ratings are mostly a coach's retribution tool. I've found that the highest rated officials around here are typically those who will (1) in football, never throw any flags and (2) never have any controversy or ejections, no matter how warranted. To me, a miserable, miserable system. I absolutely never let it affect how I officiate.

Coaches, for the most part, have no *idea* how to umpire. They ask the wrong umpire for appeals on missed bases all the time, they have tried to tell me that I'm out of position when I was in the absolute correct position (here's a hint, coaches, telling me how to umpire is a bad, bad idea), and they have tried to argue calls on plays where, if they were showed a replay, would be embarrassed at how "not close" the play was in the first place.

If there's to be a successful evaluation process, it must come from the umpires themselves. And since most umpires are not working and have little desire to sit through a game on a day off (we have families, after all), then the best you can do (I think) is a partner evaluation. And in many areas, umpires choose who they work with (my entire HS schedule for next season is with the same umpire, although work and other obligations will change that somewhat during the season), so I'm not sure that works in many areas either.

A peer review system is possibly even worse. The pettiness and jealousy involved in this kind of system kills any chance it has at being effective. If a superior or a small team of superiors is doing the evaluating, then it has a chance of yielding some accurate assessments and helpful results.

And that's not just in the umpire fraternity; peer reviews are similarly ineffective most everywhere else they're tried. It's the easy way out for an organization that doesn't want to take the time or make the effort at properly training and evaluating its employees.