How about an opinion:
 

OK, let's build a system of evaluation for umpires (that work games with non-professional players).

Question #1:

Would you want to give coaches formal input on an umpire's evaluation?

T

Yes, but...

If I were an association officer, I would want to know if we had an umpire who systematically pissed off coaches around a league or conference. That would be a symptom of poor game management skills.

Coach input shouldn't count for much else, as they typically don't know the rules or mechanics of umpiring and so can't legitimately evaluate most of what we want to know.

I would, yes. I think it's important to get their opinion. Now how much weight is put on their opinion is a question all in itself and, frankly, I haven't figured that out myself.

-Josh

Absolutely.

As much as we like to think the players, coaches and fans don't know squat about umpiring, they're the ultimate customers of our services. You can have the nicest gear, ironed polywools, shiney shoes, and fabulous mechanics, but if your strikezone sucks, so you do, in their eyes.

I would agree with this. We talk all the time about how looking professional with your uniform/equipment is important, but in the end, coaches don't really care about that stuff. I know of umpires who coaches love who wear crappy gear and look like slobs, but they are well-liked. (Part of which may just be because the coaches can influence their calls and walk all over them)

I'd like to think that having top of the line uniforms and equipment helps how I'm perceived, but I don't know if it really does.

I don't think it necessary. If you have a good training program that throughly covers what it takes to be a good official, an evaluation system that reinforces that training and advancement, that rewards those that work hard at executing what they have been taught.

Some of the best input we used to have was attending league meetings and hearing that your guys are doing a good job. Believe me if they aren't, your going to get an unsolicited evaulation the next morning.

Evaulations should only be used as tools in your umpire development program.

How do you deal with the veteran that won't stay up with the rules, refuses to adhere to association mechanics, won't attend training and is still overly arrogant on the field?

Limit his assignments, bring him before the board, put him on notice and don't be afraid to expel if necessary to get the message out to the members as to what is expected.

Got a little wordy here but, I just don't think the coaches input is necessary if a good program of training, reinforcement and reward is properly implemented.

Been there , done that.

I'm torn on this one too. Whenever I receive poor feedback on an umpire is was about a judgment call that didn't go their way, some player blows a gasket, gets ejected and that team never wants to see him again, because he's terrible.

I think it's good politics to solicit coach/manager opinions, ultimately in my eyes, it really doesn't count for much.

If an umpire ends of getting a really easy game, he might not be the greatest umpire, but since it was an easy game, he is seen as a "great umpire"

I have leagues that request to see certain umpires and other leagues that don't want him doing their games. That does not make sense in my eyes. The lack of consistency on his performance makes it tough to pull a guy from the schedule. However, when multiple leagues request to not see a particular umpire, then I feel like I need to get out there and do an observation.

I got in hot water last year when I assigned a guy to work a playoff game that they specifically requested to not have, I sent him out there anyway, because based upon my evaluations, their feedback did not justify pulling him off of the playoff assignment.

Great post Tim...this will be a good thread.

I have also considered giving the coaches the evaluation rubric that we use to evaluate our umpires so at least when they see the evaluation form they might think..."holy cow, I have no idea on most of this stuff."

As an example of some coaches not having a clue...in the last two weeks, I've received emails telling me that they felt the umpire "screwed up"

R1, zero out. Batter hits a line drive to F4 who catches the ball, then attempts to double R1 off of 1B. The thrown ball from F4 rolls into the dugout. The umpire awarded R1 third base. Coach: "I feel that this was the wrong rule. Is this umpire judgment or something?"

Here's another one:

R2, 1 out. F1 legally engages the rubber, steps to 2b, but throws the ball to F4 who is nowhere near 2B. Coach: "Your umpire didn't call a balk. I thought he had to throw to the base."

These are the people who would be giving evaluations on my umpires...sorry, it's tough for me to seriously consider their feedback on how well my guys umpire when they haven't demonstrated basic understanding of some very simple rules.

This is exactly right. It's also why I think it's ridiculous that our state uses coaches ratings for post season assignments in basketball, among other things. It doesn't happen as much in baseball, but I have basketball coaches tell me things quite often that are flat out wrong, and these are the people giving evaluations/ratings. (Like the basketball coach last year who told me that you can't dive after a loose ball and slide with it) Additionally, some officials make it a hobby to schmooze with coaches on and off the court/field as much as possible, which can't hurt when ratings/evaluations come due.

In a perfect world I would not want their input. But the reality is they see many umpires over a season and there are not individual evaluators at games so they have to have some say. Coaches should only rate officials, never evaluate. There is a big difference.

Peace

I agree with how you have said this, but can you have one without the other?

As long as the questions are specific, then I think the feedback is good.

For example, rather than asking, "Has a good command of the strike zone?" (Y/N, ask:

Upper End: Consistent: Y/N / Appropriatenes: Too High, Just Right, Too Tight.
Inside:
Outside:
Low:

We do in my state. We have a ratings system that is used for a very small post season consideration. Coaches cannot evaluate us or tell us what we need to do or how to improve.

Peace

I would welcome the input and don't mind being critqued (much different than being yelled at from the bench). I've attended camps and been evaluated by minor league and college umpires. The best part of the evaluation is that they picked up on things I didn't necessarily realize I was doing incorrectly or could be doing better. An evaluation from a coaches perspective would make for interesting reading. Just my two cents!

If, as T said, we are BUILDING a system of evaluation for umpires, NO, I would not want to take coaches' opinions or input into account. I understand the political necessity of ASKING for their opinion (and I like Rut's thought of rating instead of evaluating... although I think ranking might be better)... but often an umpire that is well liked is not a good umpire. I can't tell you how many times I've walked onto a high school field with Country Bob, who said hey howdy hello to most coaches (by name) and the occasional fan, had a boisterous plate conference, and then tries to award 1 plus 1, or doesn't call obstruction "because they don't like it when you do".

If I am BUILDING a system, I'd begin with the premise that we have enough umpires and evaluators that we can pay them to watch other umpires. I'd have partners anonymously evaluating partners, and ensure that everyone was seen and rated enough that a bad game isn't the end for someone, and the tendencies of the reviewer get averaged out over time.

They might be able to point out what you are doing, but do they have the knowledge to correct it. And evaluation should only come from people that have an extensive understanding of mechanics and procedures, not just giving an opinion as to what they do not like or what they like. Or if they tell you that you are doing something wrong, are they able to give you why you were wrong?

Peace

No, I would not want input from coaches.

• They do not know the rules (they prove this time and time again).
• They do not know positioning (again they prove this all the time).
• They do not know how to evaluate without bias.

When was the last time you were asked to evaluate the coaches from a school system or league. Except for the lets suck up to the coaches end of the year association sportsmanship award.

Never, zero, nada, not once. Probably because they don't think we know anything about coaching.

Well that is exactly my opinion, about their opinion, about my officiating.

We don't hire coaches, school systems, or leagues.

Schools and Leagues don't (generally) hire individual umpires... they generally hire a scheduler or a group of umpires. It is up the the association to ensure that their umpires are good enough to umpire the league so that the association is retained. None of this says coaches should have individual input into the hiring or use of a specific umpire. I really hate the "we have to cowtow to the coaches because we are their employee" nonsense. It's NOT the case. And even if a school was SO upset about a particular umpire that they threatened the contract of the association, the association should not cave - as in general it is not an individual school doing the hiring, but rather a group of schools. And if a district chooses to get rid of an entire association, good luck finding umpires.

Every year. In fact, as UIC I'm usually on the committee that chooses post season managers.

Probably not, because it would just result in "the umpire needs to stand closer, get his head next to the catcher, and not have his hands on his knees".

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.

As a couple of posters have suggested, the vast majority of coaches do not know HOW to umpire - they don't know the proper positioning techniques, they don't know proper mechanics, they don't know rotations & responsibilities, etc. Evaluation of those aspects I would think best left to umpires.

However, there are a number of other aspects of umpiring - things like game management, communications, decisiveness and consistency of calls, professionalism, etc. that I feel the coaches DO have a useful perspective on.

Like it or not, they are our customers. If you're not interested in their perspective, you're not really interested in being the best umpire you can be.

In terms of bias, I have found most coaches to be fairly reasonable and objective - once you remove them from the heat of a game situation.

So, I would solicit input from coaches, but it would be different input than I would solicit from evaluating umpires.

JM

You're reading a lot into my post. The fact that we don't rate coaches is not a reason to reject coach input about umpires.

Fwiw I agree that coaches often have too much input. I suspect that happens because there's nobody else to offer criticism.

Sure.

No, No and No
 

This year I started in my association asking for a general evaluation from coaches and AD's of the umpires we sent them to. It was for the most part a disaster.

The main reason was we only got responses from 3 schools in SB, and 2 in BB.
We got specific answers to questions, but for a couple of coaches it was a gripe session about guys they don't like.

IMO, there should be only umpires evaluating umpires, and in my state there should be state association representatives looking at umpires during the season. IN our state coaches do have a chance to rate umpires, but the results are not made public. It seems some umpires figured out who gave them a bad rating, and called up AD's about it, so the state association refuses to reveal ratings.

In my system (in a perfect world) Evaluator A, a retired umpire, with video camera in hand comes to a game.

Evaluator shoots video, and evaluates on a standardized form. He then meets with the umpires after the game, shows the video to them, and hands them a copy of the evaluation. Umpires with a bad grade for a game, or with under 3 years experience get looked at again later in the season. Good umpires get looked at every other year.

The response from coach would go a long way in determining whether his input is useful or not.

Wandering strike zone.

Not receptive to inquiries about calls.

Sleepy, had to wake him several times on the bases.

Might be helpful

He's an idiot.

Walking dental floss.

Disgrace to the man race.

Might not be so insightful. It really depends on what the coaches say.

I ask for input from coaches about my crew, because I truly want to know what they're thinking. Sure, they don't know if they hit their rotations, or pivoted the correct way on the infield. I've got that covered. I want to know if their strikezone is what they're looking, or if they work well with the catchers. Stuff they would know about.

Tim,

Great question. In generalities, yes, I think coaches should have some input to an umpire's evaluation; however, they should only be a small part.

Missouri "requires" (quotes intended) all head coaches to evaluate every umpire for every Varsity-level game. Last year, I only received 3 evaluations. One of the evaluations had me ranked as 4 (Sub-Varsity level quality) for every section of the review -- the coach even marked that I needed to work on "Appearance." The idea is laughable, as I know I've never looked sloppy walking onto a ball field.

In a perfect organization, I see the following:

• Coaches: 10%
• Partner: 25%
• Organization: 25%
• Evaluator: 40%

The coaches would have a standard form, where they rate the umpire 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Awful) on several aspects of the game. Part of the evaluation would include If an umpire receives feedback from both coaches of a game AND those ratings are similar, it would hold more weight. These ratings would be viewable by the umpire, but with no information to clue the umpire as to the game it came from.

Each umpire would be required to evaluate each umpire for every game worked. The umpires should have the evaluations completed within 72 hours, but the eval wouldn't be available to the partner for a week. Again, the details are hidden, so the umpire wouldn't know which partner completed the review.

The organization would rate their umpires based on several factors away from the games. Attendance to meetings, training classes, and clinics would be a majority of the rating. Part of the rating would also include how often they complete other ratings.

Finally, the organization would either hire evaluators or pay a current umpire a game fee to evaluate both umpires. At least one evaluation would be required for all first-three-year umpires; after that, it's random on where the evaluator goes. If an umpire WANTS an evaluation, they can request one from the evaluation committee -- the first is free, and all others will cost a game fee (could be shared between both umpires).

How did you see that a particular coach gave you a 4 rating? All I can see is my final rating for the season and how many times I "needed improvement" in each area for the season as a whole.

How many ratings should you have had? The coaches are supposed to do them or they can be kept out of district play. I had around 90 basketball ratings and over 70 baseball ratings this past season.

You're right. I knew I received all 4's because at one point in the season, I had 1 rating with a 4.0000 rating. Magically, I also received a "needs improvement" in every section at the same time.

I received 3 ratings from 4 Varsity games, so I'm missing 5 ratings. My assumption, according The Journal that was just sent, is that MSHSAA can determine when a coach doesn't complete the ratings, and they'll penalize as needed. Maybe it takes Officials to complain about it.

While I'm thinking about it, it would be nice for Missouri to at least give you the date of the contest when the coaches rate you. In addition, I think we should be able to question why "needs improvement" was marked. The coaches would then have 7 days to respond with a reasonable answer, or the mark is removed.

I'm not even thinking of a post-season state assignment anytime in the near future. However, if the ratings are one of the factors (which I've been led to believe), there should be a way for officials to question a rating, especially when they receive a "Needs Improvement" on a category.

To be fair, Missouri does require the coach to explain a 5 rating (which equates to "not good enough for sub-Varsity level"). Coaches know this, so the lowest they'll go is a 4 rating. After that, they'll just mark the "needs improvement" for all the sections.

Everything must be done incognito. If they gave you the date you would more than likely know which coach gave you the bad rating, especially if you had a particularly hard time with the coach. They would only be pouring salt on the wound so to speak.

Coaches more than likely give the low ratings because they probably don't care to do them at all. They figure if their impute is consistently at the low levels, they won't be forced to do them anymore. I know if I was a coach, I wouldn't be the least bit interested in being required to give a rating.

If you've been in an association long enough, you will learn who the knuckleheads are and how to approach them. I know I've gotten the 411 on some coaches. When they see a new umpire, they believe they can play their little games and get away with it. They must be unaware that umpires don't talk among themselves or share information.

Or, take your game up a couple of notches..........;)

Oh well, the dog is barking telling he wants back in. Goodnight.

I don't think my game is that bad. I certainly know my appearance isn't. :P

How about an opinion
 

My thoughts: Who has a dog in this hunt? Just the coaches. The variables on a coach's evaluation after a game skew any objective report. Strike zone sucked,but he won. Strike zone sucked,but he lost, etc.
For my two cents, use an impartial evaluator. Some one whose opinion can be trusted, who has the knowledge and experience to see the TOTAL performance.
Blew a call? Why? Good/bad position, moving/not while making call, etc. Rules knowledge-- shall we even go there?
Critical question as yet unasked: how much time is a good/bad coach spending during any given game spent "evaluating" the umps.
Personalities-- coach likes to "work" the umps vs. coach who doesn't.
What is the objective of evaluation? If improving the association's the overall performances, only unbiased opinions are worth the paper it's printed on.
Want to find out who is there just for the money? Honest reports will quickly weed those out. Those trying to improve will take evals to heart and strive to improve. End result--everyone wins. Yourmileage may vary.

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

IMO, the most important aspect of building an evaluation system is to have Umpires doing the evaluation.

These umpires (like yourself) would get paid just as if they were doing games. The pay could be curtailed (meaning not a top rate Varsity Fee) but none-the-less compensatory.

Depending upon how many games your association services you most likely will need at least 5-6 guys that do the evaluating.


Should the coaches get input?

On a trial basis.

here is what I mean.

We have Team A playing Team B

We also have an umpire evaluator present.

At the end of the game compare the evaluations? If the coaches evaluations are "way off" then it is not a good idea to have input from them because in a way the coaches evaluation is meaningless. You could have one of those games where we had balks called, OBS/ interference etc. All PROPER calls by the umpiring crew BUT the coaches thought they were terrible hence a bad evaluation.

Also, IMO, one or two bad games does NOT make for an efficient system either. We all have had bad games so we need to take that into account.

In summary: Unless the umpire association can provide OFFICIALS to do the evlauating IMO, the system will be flawed and unproductive. Feedback also needs to be conveyed to the umpires.

Pete Booth

I don't like the idea. But, I'm not in a role to be overly concerned with what coaches think of a particular league. I do my part in the game and try to look as good as possible.

As an eval of an individual umpire, I don't think they should have much weight. Too many variables of why they don't like an umpire. But, if there is a trend for an umpire, it can mean a warranted official eval of the umpire by an evaluator. But, that is all of the weight it should carry.

As an eval of overall satisfaction of umpires, yes. But, only to the extent for an assigner to know if his customers are happy. The occasional bad one won't mean much. But, many might indicate an issue or overall dissatisfaction and needs to be followed up.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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." :D

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

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.

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.

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]

agree...
 

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

He didn't say anything even remotely like that.

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.


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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Great thread
 

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.

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

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.

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

I would not want AD's evaluating my performance on the field...they might have less of a clue than the coaches

I do not know if I even see ADs during the baseball season at all.

Peace

Every once in a while, I'll see one. I definitely see a school administrator, and occasionally it's the AD.

Wow!
 

I saw your comments people, I am amazed:

1. In every HS athletic event I officiated in the 2009-2010 except for one wrestling tournament, I talked to the home school AD or Assistant AD.

2. Some of you are misunderstanding me, so let me try again: For SOME things, like game management for example, AD's have insights that coaches do not have, and officials do not have. For example, in the state I work in, who deals with ejections? The AD and principal. Who evaluates coaches and their work: AD's.

3. I know for a fact that many AD's I talk to will talk about what relationship coaches have with officials. And sometimes it will be words like: "Stop complaining about ...." Other times it is the opposite.

4. Finally, in order to be clear, let em say that AD's may well have a part to play in Tee's system, not a big part, but maybe a better view of things than coaches do.

UMMV.

Well in baseball that would not apply here. The reason is because baseball is one of multiple sports that can likely be playing at the same time as other sports. It is not unusual that there is a softball game and a soccer (e.g. Lacrosse, Boy's Volleyball, or Track too) game is going on at that school at the same time. I am sure the AD or other administrators have other things going on and that is why we do not see them. And even when it comes to calling the school to verify the contest, it is not uncommon that I cannot get to talk to the AD for that information rather than I will talk to the department secretary instead.

This is just one of these many things that is going to vary based on where you live and the systems you are under.

Peace

[QUOTE]
While the AD may be present, is he watching and observing ALL 7 innings of the game?

Answer: Highly unlikely

The AD might catch an inning or 2 but he/she is most likely doing "other" things while the game is going on. He /she is there but not necessarily at the field UNLESS his/her presence is needed.

Why should the AD have input? What does he know about umpire positioning? whether or not a balk should have been called or what OBS / interference are.

In other words theoretcially you could get an excellent rating from the coaches / AD BUT received a bad evaluation from the umpire evaluator

Why!

Even though the calls were correct and the HC and VC were "happy", the umpires were not in the Proper position. Yeah in today's game they "got away with it" BUT the umpire evaluator KNOWS that eventually if this crew or individual does not get into proper position it's just a matter of time before they get burned.

That's why in my answer to TEE, the FIRST "builiding block" HAS to start with the Umpire association.

The problem:

Schools will most likely NOT want to pay for an umpire evaluator in addition to the crew. These evaluators should get some form of compensation otherwise they would simply do games and forget about evaluating.

I like Bob J's idea on receiving the coaches evaluation, make the questions simple for them to fill out and do not make them ambiguous.

Pete Booth

It does (help how you are perceived) - it's just that there are also other factors involved- such as whether you suck or not!!

;););)

In my plan, the organization pays for the first evaluation for every umpire. Anything else is a game fee to be paid by the umpire requesting the evaluation. If both umpires want their second eval at the same game, they can share the cost.

Rating officials vs. Enhancing officiating
 

Asking a coach about umpire performance is a way to rate an official, not improve officiating. In our state, coaches do rate officials. The coaches get to pick which officials work their playoff games. Coach puts you on his list, you just got rated. Not one coach puts you on his list, you just got rated. We pay dues to organizations which take on the responsibly of education and training. I believe that most veteran (>3 years experience) officials do very little to try and better their game. Our chapter meetings are obligatory and hold no value. People do not ask questions because the questioning official looks ignorant. I believe the question posed should be: How do we energize the veteran official? The best summer games in my area are tournaments, not league play. Those tournament games are assigned to what is believed to be inferior officials, officials who do not belong to the local high school or college association. (And they don’t even shine their shoes) Some of these games determine which teams will go to the Connie Mack World Series in Farmington, NM. Some consider the CMWS to be the top amateur baseball in the land. I note the importance of the games to show perhaps the difference between “Smitty” and our selves is not as great as we would like to believe. So transparent, a TD of a very important tournament is willing to use “Smitty” to save ten bucks. I think our local organizations should use some of our dues to help defray the cost of a real clinic. A clinic put on by professional umpires. Film of a live game (scrimmage, so umpires could be rotated) should be mandatory. I should get more for my dues than just a rule book at the beginning of the year. My opinion: There is not one single thing that would improve ones performance more than film of a live game. Asking a coach about your performance is not constructive criticism.

Very interesting points. Great first post. Welcome to the board.

[QUOTE=Blindguy;687432]I think our local organizations should use some of our dues to help defray the cost of a real clinic. A clinic put on by professional umpires. Film of a live game (scrimmage, so umpires could be rotated) should be mandatory. I should get more for my dues than just a rule book at the beginning of the year. My opinion: There is not one single thing that would improve ones performance more than film of a live game. [QUOTE]

Every October there is a clinic in Central Illinois that limits enrollment to 30. Participants are video taped umping plate and bases in a Junior College round-robin Fall tournament. Umpires are rotated in and out every couple of innings and get multiple opportunities to work. Critique is "voiced-over" during the video taping, and once the umpire is done on the field he takes his tape to another evaluator who screens it with him, taking in the on-tape suggestions and adding whatever he feels relevant. At the end of the camp, each umpire critiques the camp, the instructors, and gets to take his video home. All of the instructors are either Minor League umpires, former Minor League umpires, or strong D-1 umpires with many years of experience.
It would be great if there could be a clinic of this value in every state in the union.

JJ

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.

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.

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

:D

... 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.

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

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.

Tsk, Tsk
 

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...

How is this for making this crystal clear?
 

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

Actually, given his silence 6-7 pages later, Tee started this thread to get us all to turn on each other, while he laughs maniacally from the keep of his castle overlooking [some body of water in Oregon*]. With thunder and lightening ominously in the background. While twirling the ends of his mustache**.

Or something.

*I don't know geography outside the Eastern US.
**Mustache optional.

You do at least know Oregon is bordered by the Pacific Ocean, right? As far as castles, I'm not sure.

Sure, I knew about the Pacific Ocean, but I wasn't going to be so bold as to predict Tee's Castle O' Doom* would be THAT grandiose!

*trademark pending

Hmm,
 

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

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

T,

There was nothing wrong with your question. I am on the committee for an Official's Conference that is run every July and the main topic of conversation with officials are ratings and how it affects them personally. And we even invite other association members to attend from other states and the conversation always seems to come back to how officials are assigned games and how their ratings/evaluations factor.

That is the problem with the internet and these sites. People always want to find the conspiracy in whatever someone brings up a topic.

Peace

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. :rolleyes:

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.

Yep, and when they lose, it wasn't because of the three errors, the walks, the bunt not executed correctly, and the absolute banger that we missed at 1B because F4 bobbled the ball twice, his throw pulled F3 off of the base, and we safe him on the swipe tag which "costed them the game"

I've seen it and heard it a million times.

I doubt the irony of the system escapes most officials.

The last time I heard something like this was at the end of an 8-run ballgame that eliminated the team from the tournament. I couldn't help but chuckle with my partner as I ignored the coach completely while heading to the car.

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...

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.

Well,
 

Actually, I have NO IDEA what this statement means.

T

It's OK, the rest of us do. :)

Count me out of the rest.:confused: