How about an opinion:

[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?

[Kevin Finnerty]

... No, I'm not.

But there's just a better chance that a unit's leaders will do what's better for the unit, and a unit's members will more often do what's better for themselves. And by rating a peer highly, an individual's own rating might suffer.

[Tim C]

Why does there need to be some type of nefarious reason for the OP.

I thought it was a rather mudane topic that would roll over and die quickly.

I did have a reason for asking the question:

I am currently writing an article for the NFHS publication High School Today that deals directly with this issue.

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

I wanted to get the feeling of officials. I have already talked to several assigners, several athletic directors, a number of coaches and many school board members. This was just the best way that I could get a good cross section of the people I respect: the officials that put their butts on the line for very poor wages.

T

[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

[Rich]

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.

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.

Is it really? If you work a lot of games and you are evaluated fairly by most of the people you work with (assuming you're in the same peer group as your partner), you can dismiss the statistical outliers. If you're not in the same peer group as your partner, then the system can eliminate that evaluation completely -- and transparently, if the assignor or state association wishes.

Here, with coaches, they really aren't required to submit a rating. Some take the process seriously, others only rate when they want to "get even" with an official. I've never had a sport (other than football) in any season where more than 50% of the coaches even bothered submitting a rating.

In an association, peer evaluation can be made as a requirement (do it, or don't get paid). While some people will downgrade others to boost their own rankings and others will collude with regular partners to boost each other, those things can be easily spotted by those that look at the numbers.

It's better than a system where coach who gets ejected has the right to rate an umpire who's just doing his job.

[Blindguy]

We are still speaking about how to rate officials, rather than how to enhance officiating. Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks. I would be interested in Tee's opinion; on if he believes coach's ratings enhance officiating.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's better than a system where coach who gets ejected has the right to rate an umpire who's just doing his job.

Yep. That's like having felons' evals be part of a cop's appraisal.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Sounds exactly like Missouri. Each head coach in a Varsity-level game must rate each official in the following categories: Verbal Communication Skills, Physical Appearance, Effort, Control, Consistency, Professionalism. When evaluating, they give a score between 1 (State-Level Tournament Caliber) to 5 (Sub-Varsity Caliber). These scores are used to determine post-season assignments. It's obviously not the only criteria, but it's used.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

And that's my point. There are days in the High School season, especially after rain-outs are being rescheduled, that every available umpire is needed to do a game. For most of the season, I'd guarantee that no umpire would be turned away from a game if they were available -- the open spots are there. In these cases, it would be almost impossible for the organization to have the ability to send another umpire to a game solely to evaluate the umpires on the field.

[jkumpire]

I am sorry, while I understand what some of you are saying about some coaches having a good idea about positioning and game management, there is a person who can really address some of these issues; a good Athletic Director.

AD's have to deal with umpires and coaches, and he or she is the one with a unique perspective. Frankly, in the area of the state I am involved with, I know the AD's I can trust, and the AD's who know what they are doing. Those folks can be great sources of insight for officials' organizations, and sometimes they can also smooth out rough patches between umpires and coaches, many times by telling the coach to "get a grip".

Frankly Tee, I think these people might be the people you need for umpire evaluation, not coaches.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I am sorry, while I understand what some of you are saying about some coaches having a good idea about positioning and game management, there is a person who can really address some of these issues; a good Athletic Director.

AD's have to deal with umpires and coaches, and he or she is the one with a unique perspective. Frankly, in the area of the state I am involved with, I know the AD's I can trust, and the AD's who know what they are doing. Those folks can be great sources of insight for officials' organizations, and sometimes they can also smooth out rough patches between umpires and coaches, many times by telling the coach to "get a grip".

Frankly Tee, I think these people might be the people you need for umpire evaluation, not coaches.

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