How about an opinion:

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[jicecone]

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

[David B]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

[mbyron]

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).

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

[Publius]

To what end, Tee?

Hell, I get evaluated by umpires who don't know WTF they're talking about.

"Sometimes worked in B with no one on base--not an acceptable mechanic." was a criticism. ROBOTIC adherence to standard mechanics is expected.

Evaluator had no clue that I told my partner between innings, "The glare of the sun off the windshields of those cars is so bad I can't see a thing in A; you have all the fair/foul, because I'm going inside so I can see."

I've received some comments from coaches that indicate they DO know a little something about umpiring.

When a standard mechanic is unproductive, I discard it. Getting association "leaders" intent on the accretion and retention of power to accept that is more important to me than whether or not coaches get input. I'm sick of being called "unwilling to accept constructive criticism" (and penalized accordingly) when lots of the criticism is not only not constructive, it's DEstructive.