End of JEAPU?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

What person with a "real job" can afford to give it all up to attend a 5 week school?

And what percentage of those people are going simply to improve their own knowledge and not necessarily to get a job with MiLB?

I'd bet that if Evans ran the classes (even if he had the 5-week one), he'd find it very profitable. Charge $1,000 (or even $1,200 to make a bit more than you would with the 5-week) to be there for the two weeks; make it clear it's not to get a chance for PBUC; and put it after the 5-week classes end. The only issue is the availability of your instructors.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by yawetag

On the flip-side, I've seen numerous people in my profession that aced the entrance exam but sucked rocks in doing the job.

Book smart doesn't always equal street smart. To truly see how well they handle the situation, have them do it on the field. You don't have four choices in those situations.

That's true, but it isn't really the flip side. How many people have you seen suck on the test--where it's multiple choice, open book, and unlimited time--then go out on the field and be really good at rules application? For me, the answer is zero.

Some, though, suck at rules but have great judgment, great people skills, great presence, and handle situations fabulously. Arguably, those are better umpires than those with superior rules knowledge but who lack those other characteristics. I'd rather have them as partners, because together, we make a better crew.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Let's just say one can tell if you read the answers carefully (among other ways one can "know"). Dummy me forgot to print my questions before I submitted the test this year, but there was one question where THE correct answer wasn't present, so I had to choose one of the 4 given, and I did so in mild disgust.

I had 6 questions of 60 where the correct answer wasn't obvious. 3 of them were the video questions I got. I scored a 92% (5 incorrect), but I'm curious if I screwed up the questions I got wrong or it's the questions themselves. I'll find out eventually.

[UMP25]

I came across 6 questions where numerous typos/wrong runners were referred to, so much so that I had to keep rereading the question to make sure I understood to which runners the question was referring.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I had 6 questions of 60 where the correct answer wasn't obvious. 3 of them were the video questions I got. I scored a 92% (5 incorrect), but I'm curious if I screwed up the questions I got wrong or it's the questions themselves. I'll find out eventually.

I also had 6 like that. I ended up with an 85%, so 9 incorrect. I know one I messed up on (I knew the rule, but when I went to confirm it, I couldn't find the damn thing but one that was contradictory, and, of course, someone coincidentally posted the clause I needed two hours after I submitted it.)

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Matt

I also had 6 like that. I ended up with an 85%, so 9 incorrect. I know one I messed up on (I knew the rule, but when I went to confirm it, I couldn't find the damn thing but one that was contradictory, and, of course, someone coincidentally posted the clause I needed two hours after I submitted it.)

The question that ticked me off the most was the based loaded, home run, R2 misses 3B question, how many runs score? No mention of an appeal, yet later on, we were told to assume a legal appeal was made. How in the hell were we supposed to know that? They make it impossible to do the test individually and get 100. There is no way.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Matt

I also had 6 like that. I ended up with an 85%, so 9 incorrect. I know one I messed up on (I knew the rule, but when I went to confirm it, I couldn't find the damn thing but one that was contradictory, and, of course, someone coincidentally posted the clause I needed two hours after I submitted it.)

I took the NFHS Part I right after this and scored 100. Now, I think the NCAA test, in theory, could be better. The idea of having video plays is great, but the questions that go with the video must be clearer, IMO. And some of the questions are simply written poorly. There must be someone better equipped to write the questions.

I believe I got lucky in that fewer of the questions I got were completely unworkable. In the end I had 3 that I just guessed on and figured if I didn't score 80 I'd go back again.

[Rich]

Back to the topic:

I have been fortunate enough to go to several weekend clinics that Evans and his staff put on. Great instruction, great teaching.

The one thing I, as a 30+ year old (at the time) corporate drone thought was that the instructors seemed rough around the edges and would be an HR person's nightmare. They always mentioned that at the school that the evaluation of a person included off-the-field behavior and started when the students were picked up at the airport. Sounds like the employees of the school didn't practice what they preached.

I may just be a Charlie, but I work 3 sports and we follow certain rules about eating and drinking in public because there's a chance people will recognize us from a game or from our officiating role and we don't want the perception of us tarnished by our public behavior.

This may just have been pretext to get rid of Jim in favor of TUS, but this is a multi-billion dollar company (MLB with MiLB) who decided to cut ties with a small vendor who provided a limited service because they did something that ended up painting them with the same brush in places like the NYT and Deadspin. The school provides a dozen employees for MiLB (this year's estimate). If you remove the particulars of who it is and who it involves, would this be a surprising decision?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

The question that ticked me off the most was the based loaded, home run, R2 misses 3B question, how many runs score? No mention of an appeal, yet later on, we were told to assume a legal appeal was made. How in the hell were we supposed to know that? They make it impossible to do the test individually and get 100. There is no way.

Who told you that? I had two such questions on my test, and did NOT assume an appeal (there was a thrid such question, and that one did indicate an appeal, so the answer was easy).

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

A two-week would be amazing and more doable for anybody who entered umpiring outside of their teens or early 20's.

What person with a "real job" can afford to give it all up to attend a 5 week school?

Answer: Not many people who could be very, very good umpires.

I agree with that thought but I'm also thinking;

"What person with a wife can give up two weeks to go to umpire school and still have a wife when they get back."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

I agree with that thought but I'm also thinking;

"What person with a wife can give up two weeks to go to umpire school and still have a wife when they get back."

I could. I travel to umpire all the time.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Who told you that? I had two such questions on my test, and did NOT assume an appeal (there was a thrid such question, and that one did indicate an appeal, so the answer was easy).

An individual who helped author the test. I will not post the name on here since who (other than his credentials) it is irrelevant.

We had the same two questions then...the video one where the runner doesn't retouch 3B which stated the defense properly appealed, then the other one that I posted above. Out of protest, even though I got "the tip" I answered four runs scored because w/o that tip, there's no way anybody puts "zero runs score"

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

I agree with that thought but I'm also thinking;

"What person with a wife can give up two weeks to go to umpire school and still have a wife when they get back."

I would be able to do it as probably a one time thing or every few years...my wife knows how important umpiring is to me so she would let me do it. YMMV

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Who told you that? I had two such questions on my test, and did NOT assume an appeal (there was a thrid such question, and that one did indicate an appeal, so the answer was easy).

I assumed an appeal, just because I thought they would want us to. That flies in the face of a proper interpretation of the question, though.

I'm curious to see what the correct answer will be on this one:

R2, R3, two outs. B1 smashes a drive into left field, and the ball bounces over the fence in fair territory. Both R2 and R3 are awarded home and B1 is awarded second. R3 touches the plate, then R2 touches the plate. The third-base coach yells for R2 to return and touch third since he had missed the bag on his way home. R2 retraces his steps by touching the plate, then going back to touch third; then, once again, coming back to touch home. When the umpire puts the ball into play, the third baseman calls for the ball and appeals that R2 had missed third on his first attempt. The umpire agrees and calls R2 out.

a.R2 is out and R3 scores.

b.R2 is out and R3's run is disallowed.

c.R3 and R2 both score. No out can be awarded since a legal appeal may not be made if the offensive team has drawn attention to any infraction by one of their runners.

d.No out is awarded. R3 and R2 score since R2 retraced his steps properly. This illustrates the "last time by" rule.

Even though R2's retouch is illegal, I'm betting 'd' will be listed as the proper response.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Publius

I assumed an appeal, just because I thought they would want us to. That flies in the face of a proper interpretation of the question, though.

I'm curious to see what the correct answer will be on this one:

R2, R3, two outs. B1 smashes a drive into left field, and the ball bounces over the fence in fair territory. Both R2 and R3 are awarded home and B1 is awarded second. R3 touches the plate, then R2 touches the plate. The third-base coach yells for R2 to return and touch third since he had missed the bag on his way home. R2 retraces his steps by touching the plate, then going back to touch third; then, once again, coming back to touch home. When the umpire puts the ball into play, the third baseman calls for the ball and appeals that R2 had missed third on his first attempt. The umpire agrees and calls R2 out.

a.R2 is out and R3 scores.

b.R2 is out and R3's run is disallowed.

c.R3 and R2 both score. No out can be awarded since a legal appeal may not be made if the offensive team has drawn attention to any infraction by one of their runners.

d.No out is awarded. R3 and R2 score since R2 retraced his steps properly. This illustrates the "last time by" rule.

Even though R2's retouch is illegal, I'm betting 'd' will be listed as the proper response.

If his retouch is illegal then why would 'd' be right. Illegal touch, he's out R3 scores. 'a' It is an illegal retouch since he touched home ofter the ball had become dead.