How about an opinion:

[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.

[yawetag]

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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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

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