How about an opinion:

[Tim C]

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

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

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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.

[jicecone]

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.

[johnnyg08]

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.

[johnnyg08]

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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Coaches should only rate officials, never evaluate. There is a big difference.

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

[bob jenkins]

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:

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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

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

[njdevs00cup]

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!

[MD Longhorn]

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.