Umpire Rating Systems
 

Does your organization have a way or a system to rate umpires? If so, how is it done? Do you use it for post-season or championship assignments? Is it fair? Who evaluates? Can you challenge your rating? Do people ever get a lower rating than the previous year?

If you go through the year without pissing me off or making me do paperwork..... you get a good rating.....:cool:

Our HS association has an Evaluation Committee (required by FHSAA). Additionally, the officers do evaluations of umpires when possible. The evals are shared with the Recommendations Committee, who makes our post-season recs.

Last year we added a "Peer Evaluation" component in which each umpire has the chance to rate all of the umpires who are eligible for post-season play.

Can you challenge your rating? Not really.

Do people ever get a lower rating than the previous year? Yes.

Our HS association does have a board who conducts evals based on a set of certain criteria. They do not effect post season play, however, as TASO has a set guideline on what constitutes an eligible official for post season play. Their guidelines are that an official must attend a certain percentage of the local chapter's meetings, must attend a state or regional clinic. the passing of the state exam, and a certain level of proficiency points. There are three grades; Certified, Registered, and Approved. Anyone who falls in the last category cannot work post season play. (This includes all first year officials).

I feel the system in place here is reasonably fair, though as with any system, it has its faults as well.

There is really no instrument in place to allow an official to challenge their evaluations or their state ratings, though with the evaluations you can at least discuss it at length with the evaluator. As to the state rating system, you can ask for leniency to be granted for failing to get the required points where "extenuating circumstances" exist.

And yes, people get lower ratings than the previous year if they fail to meet expectations. That's the nature of the beast.

Uh oh.........:eek:

we have one based on Levels I(rookie/10U's)-V(ISF/elite), but its new and a work in progress.

Our high school has eveluation postcards that are given to the coaches before each game for completion and mailing to the board.

The cards are summarized and given back to you on a regular basis. In most cases, the ratings (on a scale of 5) are considered in light of the score and the coaches personality.

I like this system.

For consideration for post season, you are required to get at least 5 evaluation cards returned along with other critieria. (Passing the test, attending meetings)

I have often wondered about systems like this. How the heck does a coach know how to evaluate an umpire?? How many coaches know anything how mechanics that umpires use? To me, this sounds like a very flawed system from the get go. JMO, of course.

We used to have coaches mail in evaluation cards. It was worth next-to-nothing with respect to giving umpires solid feedback.

This is true. I can sit down with a pile of coaches' evaluations and tell which team won the game.

I have no problem with a coach providing feedback, but not as a determining factor in assignments, regular or post season.

Wow! Taso does all that up there in N TX? Down here, even if there were evaluations taking place, there are far too many playoff games to be covered. If only good umpires were qualified to call in the postseason, they would have to drastically cut back on the number of teams making the playoffs.

You also failed to mention TASO's puppet master, UIL, and how their mandates determine much about postseason assignments. Allowing HS coaches to pick their officials is absurd. UIL determines the make-up of the state tournament based more on race, gender, and geographical diversity than umpiring ability. I have seen some really bad things happen at state from an umpiring standpoint
.

Well I asked... (big mistake) we have the cards the coaches fill out and send in post-game....(love those) and our assignor (whom i asked this question) tells me that if they (committee) "like" you, you get better assignments. I asked him how he gets time to evaluate us, when he is so busy umpiring (lack of umpires, like everyone else) he says don't worry about it and that he is everywhere. sigh.
fyi: we are getting a new assignor this year and its our turn to make girls cry at the state finals (if things don't change at the LHSAA after the big a$$ fiasco that happened at last years state tourney) .. i only went for one session to spectate and the quality of umpires was so bad that I was embarrassed for them.

First of all, TASO does that everywhere in the state. The actual on field evals are the domains of the individual chapters, so if they are not happening, you need to address your board. If there are any umpires working a playoff game that do not meet the minimum requirements set by TASO where you are, then upon discovery, those games will be rendered void. The guidelines are there for everyone to read, both coaches and officials, on the TASO website.

UIL is the governing body for all HS competition in the state of Texas, and has been long before there was a TASO or anything else. It only stands to reason, then, that they will have a say in how events are conducted in the state, since that is the nature of their business. The officials that appear at the state tournament are those that their individual chapter's board (president, VP and secretary) have stated repeatedly are in the top 25% of their officials. Therefore, if you have seen officials that are less than worthy of working a state tournament (and I know you have), then the blame rests sqaurely on the board of that official's chapter. They submitted the name, time and again, and stated that in their opinion this was one of the best that they have. (Which, sadly, may be true.) You can't hold either TASO or UIL responsible for this. In fact, I know of at least two incidents when these less than able officials have been sent packing by the folks at the state tournament, never to be allowed back. They don't want to see it anymore than you do. So of course this statement, "UIL determines the make-up of the state tournament based more on race, gender, and geographical diversity than umpiring ability," is totally incorrect. The selections are made from lists sent by the individual chapters, and the points that official has earned via TASO.

I do agree with you on the coaches having the ability to select officials for post season play, though.

Adressing these boards is akin to telling the dinosaurs to make way for the mammals.

So you're saying that of all the HS officials in the state of Texas, the top 15 of the top 25% of their chapters that are working state just happen to be this diverse racially and genderwise, and are equally divided among the far flung regions of this rather large state? Please!

No. That isn't what I said at all. What I said was the individual chapters submitted lists of their Top 25%. Ergo, the lists that the chapters submit are that diverse racially and genderwise. Are you saying that you don't feel that it should be diverse, considering all the geography and culture this state spans? Do you feel that you can umpire a better game and are better prepared to handle the pressures of the state tournament better than, say, a Dora Martinez? I am really not sure what your beef is, or what you are getting at.

That's exactly what I'm saying. When anything other than the quality of an official is used to determine assignments, it does a disservice to the game.

This is an inappropriate question that would require an inappropriate answer.

Why do I have to have a "beef" to voice my opinion of the state of HS softball in my area? I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this about me.

I don't think either one of us are arguing with this. However, you wanted to blame the UIL or TASO for the failure of the various chapters, apparently. After all, it is there that the list of names that goes to UIL orginates. Now, granted, that a top 25% offical from Dallas or Houston or San Antonio may be more qualified than a top 25% from a chapter that has 20 total officials. But the folks in the local chapters should know who is qualified, that's the point. Don't lay the blame at the feet of TASO or UIL. All they see at UIL is a list of folks supposedly qualified to officiate at this level. The officers of each chapter know what the list they are submitting is for.



Maybe not the best question, but certainly to the point. A female, who happens to be hispanic, who happens to be an excellent umpire. But fair enough...let's skip this and move on.

What I have seen at the state tournament are umpires who are there, trying to give it their best. Men and women who, while maybe not succeeding, are striving to be the best official, and give the best game they possibly can. As with anything, no doubt, there are exceptions. The chapter president from Podunk, Texas, who wants to get his good friend into the state tournament because it is his "lifelong dream," who submits year after year this unqualified official's name. Of course this stuff happens. But all the folks in Austin can do is look at a list, and assume that these are the best officials that Texas has to offer. From there do they pick diversely, I don't know. Does it really matter? I mean, according to the list, isn't Jane Doe as good as John Doe as good as Juanita Dos as good as Jean Deaux in theory??? Maybe not in fact, but in theory? The only other option would be to pay someone to travel and personally evaluate every umpire in the state of Texas. Are you willing to see your TASO dues go up, say 200% for this to happen?



I am not trying to make this about you. I am trying to explain, apparently unsuccessfully, how the system works. There is no grand conspiracy to keep qualified officials out of the state tournament. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Peter Contreras and Walt Sparks and all of the schools participating in the state tournament want the best officials available. If your local chapter is failing to provide this information to the state, then either speak to the officers, or throw them out the next time elections roll around. The chapter officers are supposed to represent you and your interests to TASO, and TASO is supposed to represent those interests to the UIL (which they failed miserably on with the latest changes to Section 1204, but that is another story.) If you can think of, and implement a better system, I say go for it. But consider the size of this state, the number of officials working any one sport at any one time, and I think the system we have in place is probably about the best you are going to come up with.

No doubt. It's not about them.

No. Let UIL and the schools pay for it. It's their game. They can use the money they'll be saving on travel.

Like that will happen. You know who would foot the bill, without a doubt. But if you can sell them on that, then I am all for it.

In 1982, my unit of the Southern California Baseball Officials Association decided to hold an 'in-house' evaluation of each other. It was for umpires you worked with the past two seasons. Four fellow umpires gave me a very poor rating. The upshot of this was twofold.

1..I injured my right leg during the basketball season in 1978, then changed jobs, and hadn't done HS baseball since.

2..I had NEVER worked with any of these four schmucks on ANY level, never mind HS ball. I didn't even know them.

So much for evaluating our fellow umpires.

Bob

I'm so happy to know that in the 11 years since I lived in Texas, not a damn thing has changed.

Don't worry. Same crap happens up here, except the state tournaments are bigger -- gotta be PC and all-inclusive and all that other stuff. We have excellent umpires assigned to state from all over WA, and some others who quite frankly have no business owning a blue shirt.

You would think Charles Breithaupt, Peter Contreras or someone would come up with something to make things better down there. After all, everything is bigger and better in TX, right? ;) One of Breithaupt's basketball teams got screwed at state about 25 or so years ago, so you'd think he had a vested interest. Peter's been insulated in the UIL office for so long...

They're both great guys, but there are great guys and gals running things in most every state. It would seem they all want to be certain they have the BEST working the playoffs and especially at the state tournament...