How about an opinion:

[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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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).

Any coach who blames his record on officiating should be fired just for that. Bad officiating doesn't even cost you a whole game, much less a season.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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).

T

Fired coaches want to blame officials?

Most often, the teams that took first and second in the league had the same officials as the team who finished last.

What a crock.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not so much, actually.

Was just trying to inject a little levity into a topic that had gone on for a while - won't make that mistake again. If you don't want an army of umpires doing your bidding - good or evil - that's entirely up to you...

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).

They have no control over it, and they generally have no way to prove it, either.

It's the way of it - coaches and players will blame the officials for their failings as their first option.

And it's all levels, not just HS. I worked an NABA game Sunday, and as I left the field a player said "Thanks for calling me out there, Blue", referring to a banger at first in the 5th or so. I didn't bother to mention his team had 20 other outs to work with, or that they'd had the lead more than once in the game, or that they went into the bottom of the 7th defending a 1 run lead, and couldn't hold it. No point to it - it was CLEARLY my fault, on that one call, in a 7-6 or 8-7 game.

That's why I said, a few pages ago, that coach input really needs to be minimized, if not outright ignored, since nearly all of their ratings will based on the emotions of winning and losing. Having evaluators from the umpire association itself is ALWAYS the better option. Sure, they might be biased - since umpires are the "third team" - but they won't have the emotional attachments a player or coach would have.

[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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well...it's kind of a loaded question if Tee would be doing the ratings. Personally, I'd welcome a rating/evaluation from Tee...he could rip me apart and really help me improve versus getting the screws on a rating because of an ejection, one bang/bang call that could've gone either way, etc...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

Evaluations should always be done by people that know the "business" in some capacity. Ratings are always going to be done to help choose who works playoffs or certain levels. They work if you use them correctly and will not work if you do not.

Peace