How many would be umpires

[PeteBooth]

At officiating.com IMO Carl wrote an excellent article called " Let's NOT Take a Test?" which got me thinking (that could be dangerous)

What is required to be an umpire?

Is it simply to pass a test? or should on field abilities be taken into consideration?

Obviously there needs to be some "mechanism" to become an umpire. Also, let's face it,if it was too difficult, approx half the games would be uncovered because there wouldn't be enough umpires.

Suppose you wanted to start an association of umpires today. What qualities would you want? What "mechanism" or "approach" would you use to get umpires.

Keep in mind you have the Fall HS season in which games start at the 4 PM range and then the Summer / Fall season. How are you going to cover all the games?

The reason I posted this is each year we have to take an open book FED exam Parts I and II. Some questions IMO are just plain jokes. For example on Part one here are the last 4 numbers 97 to 100

97. The on deck circle is 5 feet in diameter located 37 feet to the side and away from home plate of space permits.

98. The recommended width of a foul line is 2 1/2 inches.

99. The batter's box should be 4 ft. by 6 ft. located 6 inches from home plate.

100. The distance from home to third base shall be 90 ft., measured from the apex of home plate to the back edge of the base.

All the above are true and with the exception of maybe 99 who cares. IMO these are NOT TEST questions. The questions should be more on rules and not how many inches or feet the on deck circle is.

In summary, what kind of test would you give and how much percentage would this apply to an umpire's overall ability.

In other words, there are:

1. Rules
2. Field Mechanics
3. Game management

How much "weight" should be on the aforementioned to come up with a TRUE grade for an umpire.

Pete Booth


[Edited by PeteBooth on Mar 17th, 2003 at 07:48 PM]

[Whowefoolin]

I would put:

80% on Game Management (you need this to get through the game and to have some common sense in certain situations)

15% on Field Mechanics (even if you don't know what is going on, if you LOOK like you do, half the battle is won)

5% on Rules (if you don't know them, after the rash of sh#t you get from the fans, you will know them next game)

[woolnojg]

So,
Taking a test with questions on rules that are not used in every game is beneath you. Perhaps part of the reason those questions are test items is to find out if you have read the rule book. Knowing the size of the batter's box is not important? I think it is. How many times have you seen both teams obliterate the chalk lines so they could get an unfair advantage. I've had coaches tell me I can't call their batter out because the box wasn't marked. This is after his kid has hit a ball with his front foot in the grass of the infield.
Rules knowledge is the most important factor.
Mechanics follows.Then "game management".
You have to know the rules, not the myths to use mechanics properly. Mechanics put you inposition to apply the rules properly. If you are doing these things properly, then game management is easier because there is very little conflict to manage.

[tucktheump]

Pete,
There are many more categories that umpires should be graded on than just those three.

Like anyone trying to get into professional baseball, I went to school. I chose wendlestedt. (I made it into the PBUC evaluation camp, and on to spring training. I was on the minor league reserve roster untill the end of last season. Sadly, I never got called up. I now work Div. I & II baseball in the southeast.)

Pro umpires are graded on several categories:
1)Appearance
2)Hustle
3)Knowledge and interpretation of the rules
4)Game management & special situations
5)Voice
6)Mechanics
7)Judgement
8)Overall plate work (a monkey can work the bases)

Your plate work is what makes you a great umpire. Knowledge of the rules is absolutely essential. I strongly disagree with Whowefoolin when he says only 5% on rules. The rules are your job. That is the reason baseball has umpires - to enforce the rules. He writes 80% on game management...I agree, game management is extreamly important, but good mangement and confidence is a result of thoroughly understanding the rules.

There is nothing worse than a partner that does not know the rules. And nothing makes your partner look more stupid than when you have to correct him because of a misapplied rule.

Thanks,
Tuck

[greymule]

I think if you're trying to be a pro, you should know every comma in the rule book. You should practically be able to quote it verbatim. If some coach asks, "Where is that in the rule book," you should be able to cite the number as well as any interpretations from other books. I also think you should know the case book cold.

However, for amateurs like me, who might work baseball and softball, or both Fed and ASA, or Fed and American Legion, it is hard to keep things straight, particularly with regard to things like width of lines on batter's boxes. It's also hard when each association makes slight modifications every year.

Take the subtle differences among all the associations as to awarding bases or as to whether an appealed missed base is a force play. If all you do is OBR, you learn every nuance and that's it.

But is the hockey mask legal in ABC but illegal in XYZ? No, you can use it in XYZ, but only if it has a certain embossed stamp and a throat protector. The throat protector is optional in ABC. How about using a gray or white undershirt, etc. As everybody knows, almost no one can keep all those rare cases straight across associations. At least I can't.

But of course knowing every rule is just a start. There are umps who get 100% on the tests and simply don't see the plays they way they actually occur. Years ago, there was an ump around here who went to the pro schools, had great mechanics, studied the rules like crazy, dressed professionally, and hustled all over the place. Everybody appreciated that, but he had the problem of repeatedly blowing calls.

[Edited by greymule on Mar 18th, 2003 at 12:28 PM]

[DownTownTonyBrown]

All the facets mentioned are intertwined.

Rules knowledge gives you confidence - a definite game management/social skill.

Mechanics gives you judgement. Without proper mechanics, one cannot be in the proper position to make the correct calls.

Rules knowledge without game management and social skills makes for the worst official - blind, impersonal enforcement of the rules leads to lots of screaming.

Hustle is a fundamental of proper mechanics. As are appearance and voice. They are also elements of management and social skill.

I like the 80%/20% rule and tend to feel that success for any endeavor in life is 80% attitude (social skills and management) and 20 % knowledge. I also feel that this 20% (rules knowledge and mechanics knowledge) is readily learnable - read the books. Whereas the 80% (attitude/social skills/management) is not so readily learnable. Some come by it naturally; others, like myself, need to work at it and continuously remind ourselves to maintain the proper attitude.... I tend to defend myself and become angry/upset when only a second more thought would have allowed me to maintain complete composure and impartiality.

Personally, I think I might score 18-19 out of the 20% but probably more like 65 out of the 80%... I'm still working on it.

The FED tests are ridiculous. I think they are more intended to get you into the rule and casebook than they are to test your game knowledge. But maybe they are appropriate because I find most coaches are ridiculous also...

Oooohhh my.... There I go again. Still working on it.

[nine01c]

I think the rating I would give an umpire (based on Rules, Mechanics and Game Management) would be greatly determined by his experience. One must learn to crawl before he can walk, and then run.

Assuming the person has a desire and potential to be a decent official, the first thing is to learn the rules.
After passing that first exam to be certified, then the book must be reviewed year in and year out. Open book exams and practice tests are a great way to keep reinforcing common and obscure rules.

Next, mechanics are best mastered by practice and application. With a good handle on the rules, one can work on his positioning and crew communications. Of course, this is best achieved by working with partners who care and use proper mechanics themselves. The idea of "looking like you know what you are doing" will fail you quickly.

And lastly, game management comes primarily from game experience. Some maturity and lifetime experience will add to one's ability to face adversity and handle sticky situations. After four or five years, a HS official with suficient game experience should have the knack of managing a game, in general. That is, if he knows the rules and has sound mechanics, IMO.

[Whowefoolin]

Let me get this straight.

RULES vs. GAME MANAGEMENT: An umpire knows the rules 100% but sucks in game management, that is good? A guy is letting people run all over him. Sitting back having a a talk with the fans for 10 minutes between innings. Not keeping proper line-up changes. Letting people talk trash. THIS MAKES RULES MORE IMPORTANT??

RULES vs. MECHANICS: An umpire makes the right call at first base, but is in "C" position with a runner on first. He will still get loads of crap from people saying "how can you see that from over there blue!" An umpire observes (correctly)a fly ball hit close to the chalk in fair territory and yells "Fair ball". But because mechanics are all screwed up, which again, causes a rain of crap to come down on him from both teams once the baserunner stops thinking he said "Foul"...THIS MAKES RULES MORE IMPORTANT??

Know the rules all you want, but it is the least important of the three that Pete mentioned. I am not saying to be a total idiot, but if a new umpire came into the association, I would hand him/her a rule book and softly say read it. But I would make damn sure I stressed proper mechanics and game management before he stepped on the field. Rules...trial by fire.

[Bfair]

Using proper mechanics to make the judgment decisions combined with rules knowledge can minimize the need for game managment. It can keep you out of trouble if you don't become overofficious. Still, you can't play god and survive, and if you're a marshmallow they'll toast you.

Tony states:

The FED tests are ridiculous. I think they are more intended to get you into the rule and casebook than they are to test your game knowledge.

I couldn't agree with you more........
I've seen many officials who easily pass the test but are relatively clueless to certain rules when on the field without their books to seek the answers. Putting down a correct answer on an open book test is not the same as knowing the rules on the field.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[jicecone]

First of all, I think the use of tests for every sport is an absolute must in the training and development of officials. Not as means to evaluate or judge the abilty or knowledge of an official, but to act as a tool in getting officials to know their sport. If all the test accomplishes is getting officials to open up their rule book (yea I know some copy the answers, thats not the norm though), then its done a lot.

In the state of PA, I have been trying to get PIAA to recognize this for five years now. The Fed tests are used as a entrance exam into the ranks of officiating and after that the officials are on their own to open up the book. IMO that the tool is available, but not properly used.

"Tony states:

The FED tests are ridiculous. I think they are more
intended to get you into the rule and casebook than
they are to test your game knowledge."

For some officials, this is what is needed. And if it happens, then the test was successful in getting officials to learn the rules.

When all else fails, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS. Something, I don't believe enough officials do.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

jicecone,

You are absolutely right... we all need to be in the books and for the beginning official and even for veterans the FED tests ensure that accomplishment - unless you are copying someone else's answers. Being in the rulebook is what is needed for much of an official's development; the requirement of a test guides that development.

Perhaps I should expand my statement although I think most got the intended message.

The FED tests are a ridiculous tool for evaluating an official's ability on the field. 100% on the test won't make a lick of difference to the screaming coach if you haven't used your game management skills to squlech that situation before the coach starts screaming.

[GarthB]

I was once asked for just two things an umpire could do to be successful. I was tired at the time and didn't give it a lot of thought, but in retrospect I think my answer works.

Be where you are supposed to be and make the call that is appropriate to the game. (Or to The Game)

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
jicecone,

The FED tests are a ridiculous tool for evaluating an official's ability on the field. 100% on the test won't make a lick of difference to the screaming coach if you haven't used your game management skills to squlech that situation before the coach starts screaming.

I have been saying this for years in many sports. But some places use these test to simply get a varsity contest. I would rather have the guy that has experience and can handle themselves on the field than a guy that can only get a high score on the FED test. Especially when they ask for measurements of things we will almost never get a ruler to make sure it follows Rulebook standards.

Peace

[jicecone]

"The FED tests are a ridiculous tool for evaluating an official's ability on the field."

I couldn't agreed more.

But they are a TOOL, that if used correctly, can really be benificial in the development of officials.

I have worked with many officials that have years of experience on the field and STILL don't have a clue what the rules say. And that is exactly my point. If the certification requirements dictates the necessity for passing the test and the official has to open the book to do so, then by golly it accomplished something constructive.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by jicecone


I have worked with many officials that have years of experience on the field and STILL don't have a clue what the rules say.

This is very true, but this is not because they did not pass a test, this is because umpires do not spend the time with other umpires discussing plays, actually reading the casebook and rulebook when you do not have a test, and not reading sources of information that talk about umpiring or officiating in general.

I tend to learn actual rules from other officials. Because when you discuss situations that happen to other umpires, you can learn things that you have never experienced. Reading the rulebook can sometimes be confusing if you cannot visualize the plays that take place. This is why the casebook is so wonderful, but when you hear real life plays and situations, it gives you a better understanding of what to do when it actually happens. I learned more going to my association's meetings and discussing situation then just reading the rulebook blindly. Because when we discuss those plays, you go to the rulebook and might find more situation and more questions. You never stop learning and understanding the rules. Hell, every year they add rules and circumstances that you need to understand every year. Look at the Appeal rule for NF, I was blessed to not have a single situation that an appeal was needed. I learned more about the rule by talking to umpires that had.

Peace