How about an opinion:

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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.

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."

Originally Posted by yawetag

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.

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

[UmpTTS43]

Taking judgement away, it is my opinion that coaches can contribute to an umpires evaluation concerning professionalism and game management. There are times when rotations change, crew preferences, and they may think they know what should happen but don't. As long as the play is covered, they have no reason to gripe. Coaches can be, and are, a valuable tool in determing an umpires capabilities, like it or not.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Taking judgement away, it is my opinion that coaches can contribute to an umpires evaluation concerning professionalism and game management. [snip] Coaches can be, and are, tools.

Fixed that for you.

And to actually address the subject, I disagree that coaches are all that valuable to the process. Let me try putting it in mathematical terms, what a coach thinks, generally:

Non-obvious calls went mostly against me == you (the umpire) suck
Non-obvious calls went mostly for me == you suck, but less

Remember, we're pretty much the enemy to these guys, like it or not. Because that call you made in the bottom of the first, calling a kid out on a banger at 1B? That one play was the difference in his team getting beaten 12-1.

I'd like to agree with you that coaches could address professionalism. I'd like to, but can't. Players and coaches can chirp all game long about anything and everything, but the second an umpire says anything, he's the bad guy.

Something apparently happened a couple games ago for the Nats, where an umpire said something to Jim Riggleman after the game, and it became a "thing." I heard Ron Dibble - speaking of tools - on TV last night, and he said something like "Well, Jim Riggleman is a consummate professional, so if he says something about, it's serious." Dibble conveniently doesn't mention anything about how benches gripe all game long.

It's such a one-way street that I really don't want coach input considered. Or, collect all you want, and then take the paper straight to the local recycling company.

[kylejt]

Two reason you may want the coaches input:

One, they'll feel like they have a say in the process. Real, or imagined, that can't be a bad thing.

Two, they might provide some good insight. They see things from a different angle, and don't look for shiny stuff and snappy rotations. If you have someone smart looking at their evaluations, and taking them for what they're worth, then you can glean some valuable information from them. If you have some dolt, who just dismisses everything a coach says as drivel, then you might as well forget about it.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Two reason you may want the coaches input:

One, they'll feel like they have a say in the process. Real, or imagined, that can't be a bad thing.

Two, they might provide some good insight. They see things from a different angle, and don't look for shiny stuff and snappy rotations. If you have someone smart looking at their evaluations, and taking them for what they're worth, then you can glean some valuable information from them. If you have some dolt, who just dismisses everything a coach says as drivel, then you might as well forget about it.

I guess I lean towards the "dolt" side of the meter, then.

I don't disagree with part one - let them think they have a say. IF you can get them to submit anything.

Part two: I wouldn't say it's all drivel, but whatever valuable information a coach has, it's probably got much more to do with the "play-calling" and the skills teaching for winning games, than it does for noticing what we do.

[kylejt]

I know some coaches that have been around the block, and can offer some pretty good information on umpires. I'll hunt them out, and seek information on my crews. Some coaches are actually umpires themselves, and have a different take on things, good or bad.

My point is that you shouldn't just summarily dismiss their input. 90% may be worthless, maybe more. But you might learn something from the other 10%.

As for umpires evaluating coaches, I do it all the time. I'll rate them on rules knowledge, game management, situational awareness, etc. I'm usually on the panel that evaluates them as All Star manager candidates, and my input is pretty highly regarded.

If you're in the "all coaches are rats" club, disregard all of the above.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by kylejt

I know some coaches that have been around the block, and can offer some pretty good information on umpires. I'll hunt them out, and seek information on my crews. Some coaches are actually umpires themselves, and have a different take on things, good or bad.

My point is that you shouldn't just summarily dismiss their input. 90% may be worthless, maybe more. But you might learn something from the other 10%.

As for umpires evaluating coaches, I do it all the time. I'll rate them on rules knowledge, game management, situational awareness, etc. I'm usually on the panel that evaluates them as All Star manager candidates, and my input is pretty highly regarded.

If you're in the "all coaches are rats" club, disregard all of the above.

I agree with you that coaches are going to have input. But I do not want coaches having input about mechanics and in some cases judgment. Now in basketball and football, if an official does something wrong there must be video tape to back up the complaint. Usually a complaint has to be reviewed by someone that assigns or someone that is a trainer and gets back to the coach on the issue. That does not happen in baseball hardly ever. I cannot think of too many games that are taped by the school as a regular practice. In football and basketball, they record many levels not just the varsity. So when there is an issue coaches can ask for clarification or show a clear misapplication of the rules.

I had a coach this year that wanted me to ask for help on a pulled foot while I was in the A position. I clearly saw the play, but the coach thinks for some reason that this play must be asked for help. The people that trained me would be upset if I asked for help on a play that I not only was close to but had a clean look. And for the record my partner could not help me as the play was not easy for him based on his angle. But this coach say, "You are one of those guys" because I would not ask for help. Must I add everyone left the field when he asked for this "help." Sorry, I do not want that guy who likely has not been coaching as long as I have been umpiring what I or anyone should do to get better.

Also we have had coach's forums at association meetings and what we have found is they are a waste of time. Because the coaches b@@@h about umpires/officials and do not offer much to help people get better.

You can have them, I will pass. And if I have anything to say about it, I do not want their input at all when it comes to evaluation. They will always have input in some way like ratings, but that is as far as it should go. And no I do not believe all coaches are rats, they are just coaches.

Peace

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Fixed that for you.

And to actually address the subject, I disagree that coaches are all that valuable to the process. Let me try putting it in mathematical terms, what a coach thinks, generally:

Non-obvious calls went mostly against me == you (the umpire) suck
Non-obvious calls went mostly for me == you suck, but less

Remember, we're pretty much the enemy to these guys, like it or not. Because that call you made in the bottom of the first, calling a kid out on a banger at 1B? That one play was the difference in his team getting beaten 12-1.

I'd like to agree with you that coaches could address professionalism. I'd like to, but can't. Players and coaches can chirp all game long about anything and everything, but the second an umpire says anything, he's the bad guy.

Something apparently happened a couple games ago for the Nats, where an umpire said something to Jim Riggleman after the game, and it became a "thing." I heard Ron Dibble - speaking of tools - on TV last night, and he said something like "Well, Jim Riggleman is a consummate professional, so if he says something about, it's serious." Dibble conveniently doesn't mention anything about how benches gripe all game long.

It's such a one-way street that I really don't want coach input considered. Or, collect all you want, and then take the paper straight to the local recycling company.

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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."

If you'd read my original post on this matter, you would see how much stock I put into evaluations by coaches. However, the fact of the matter is that there are always two coaches at every game your umpires officiate. If those two evaluations are similar in a category (i.e., both coaches give high marks [or low marks]), it's a fair bet that you've got a good idea how that umpire is for that category. On the other hand, if you've got one giving high marks and the other giving low marks, you can throw the evals out -- they're obviously biased.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Two different people? I'm confused. If you're referring to my "2 evals on each official in a year." comment, you misread it. I was saying that if an organization relied on umpires to go to a game to evaluate the umpires, an umpire would be lucky to have two of their games evaluated in a year.

Peace[/QUOTE]

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by yawetag

If you'd read my original post on this matter, you would see how much stock I put into evaluations by coaches. However, the fact of the matter is that there are always two coaches at every game your umpires officiate. If those two evaluations are similar in a category (i.e., both coaches give high marks [or low marks]), it's a fair bet that you've got a good idea how that umpire is for that category. On the other hand, if you've got one giving high marks and the other giving low marks, you can throw the evals out -- they're obviously biased.

I do not put any stock in coaches because they are not qualified to evaluate officials. If you do that is OK, but I would not want newer officials in my area to have part of their futures or assignments based on an evaluation from some coach that might not know how to coach yet. If there are umpires I cannot put that trust into, I certainly would be weary to do that with a coach.

And that is ultimately the point I am trying to make.

Originally Posted by yawetag

Two different people? I'm confused. If you're referring to my "2 evals on each official in a year." comment, you misread it. I was saying that if an organization relied on umpires to go to a game to evaluate the umpires, an umpire would be lucky to have two of their games evaluated in a year.

Peace

OK, minor issue. You clarified that and it was never that big of a deal in the first place. I am always going to be against giving coaches that kind of power or a structure in which they influence the growth of officials. Again a rating is different than an evaluation. Ratings in my area are only used for varsity contests and are to help rate officials for a small part of playoff consideration. In those ratings we never get information about positioning or mechanics, they simply give an opinion as to what we can do in 5 different categories. The top level being a State Final, the lowest level only able to work a lower-level game. That is only to give some input to our playoff assigning which means theoretically you can get so many of those ratings that one rating means little to nothing. And we never know for sure what they gave us and the coaches must clarify the score of the game.

But we do have an observers program where we try to watch newer officials as to help them get better. In a sport like baseball there is not the man power to evaluate that many in a year. Baseball is one of the least officiated sports in the state and definitely that case in the major sports.

Peace

[GoodwillRef]

Just because someone can coach baseball or be hired as a coach doesn't mean they know anything about umpiring. Why do we think they should know...their job is to coach. In our area there are so many new 20 something coaches who have trouble getting the line-up card right game to game and we want them to evalute us...no thanks.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Just because someone can coach baseball or be hired as a coach doesn't mean they know anything about umpiring. Why do we think they should know...their job is to coach. In our area there are so many new 20 something coaches who have trouble getting the line-up card right game to game and we want them to evalute us...no thanks.

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.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

Are you implying that evaluators aren't able to be petty or jealous?

[JRutledge]

Guys,

The system that you are under might be the issue. NO system is ever perfect. But I like our system because it limits the input of coaches and even limits the peer evaluations. You have to do many other things to be successful and if you can work, someone will find you. But the reality is most of us are not honest with themselves about their abilities and cry about evaluations when they do not get where they want to. Someone is always going to have some say and someone is can is always going to decide who should or should not get opportunities. Work within your system and get over it.

Peace