How about an opinion:

[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.

[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]

[piaa_ump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Tim,

Interesting question.

I believe that soliciting input from coaches for an umpire evaluation system would most likely be a good thing. While I wouldn't give it a ton of weight in the overall evaluation scheme (I don't know, maybe 25% max...), I believe there are some aspects of our umpiring that coaches have a unique perspective on - and it would be good to include that perspective whether the purpose of the evaluation was to rank/score umpires or simply help them improve their umpiring.JM

agreed Tee, good question.....

I think this is a good question and as above I would include their ratings but only under a weighted system that would mollify any bias.....

Stan

[MD Longhorn]

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. Peace

He didn't say anything even remotely like that.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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.

In Illinois they only get to give a 1-5 rating. They do not get to tell us anything else. That was the case several years ago, but that changed. That was a good change because you never knew what they meant and it never made you better. It was just a way to rip on the officials. Not productive at all.

Peace