Fellow Officials,
It was great to see everyone on that chilly Monday a couple of weeks ago via Zoom. Remember, our next membership meeting on March 1st at 7 pm will be all about the test. This is a Zoom call as well, and the link will go out a couple of days before the meeting. Our rules guys also have a Zoom call scheduled for the 26th of February and the 5th of March.
Again, all you have to do is log in if you need help with the test. Remember, despite what one unfortunate email said (sorry about the confusion), we are NOT providing the test answers, but we will HELP you FIND the answer. Both the rules test and clinic are now available online in both Virginia and Maryland.
Last month, we introduced Russell Scott and John Blaeuer as the new Shepherd coordinators for Northern Virginia; now, allow me to introduce Tim Anderson as the new Shepherd coordinator in Maryland. Tim and I have spoken about the unique challenges we face in Maryland, and I am confident that with his assistance and with the other leaders from Maryland, such as Mike Chmar, Anthony Hemans, Josh Cooper, and others, we are in very good hands on that side of the river.
I was happily surprised to learn that Gary was doing a feature on Josh Cooper this month. To say that Josh has exploded on the scene would be a massive understatement. Secretary of the Association, working with us on the rules committee, a central piece of the weekly quizzes you are seeing, and I hear he’s a pretty good umpire to boot. Very well done, Josh!
During the meeting, several questions arose about uniforms. Our uniform coordinator, Ron Adamczyk, will clarify any questions you may have about uniforms this week. BTW, a little birdie even told me that Gary Reals is getting a black shirt! News editor – inquiring minds want a photo of that!
We are getting some additional questions about some other things that I would like to clarify, if I might:
First, I have been asked several times about the possibility of an in-person meeting this year. When we schedule the in-person meeting in the middle of winter, the possibility of closures is always present. Of course, scheduling that meeting at any other time, and we risk folks being unable to attend because they are playing games. That’s just where we are. As of now, there are NO PLANS for an in-person membership meeting this year. If we attempt one, we will let you know in plenty of time.
Next, I wanted to let you know that we are receiving reports that some people are not receiving these messages. We’re working to make sure the messages are going out to everyone, but in the meantime, if you work with someone, just ask them if theyare receiving the messages, and if not, let us know. Speaking of our messages, when you just reply to the email, that message doesn’t come to me. Eventually, I get it, but it actually goes to Jim Clayton, who has to forward it to me. If you need to reach me, just email me directly. It’s [email protected]. We’re actually working on association email addresses, but don’t have them quite yet.
Finally, there have been lots of questions recently about ratings, so let me clarify a few things. We have a ratings committee headed by Tim Strutzel, with assistance from Matt Van Parys and others. The process is straightforward. The ratings team collects data from Arbiter ratings, talks to senior umpires, reviews video, and generally conducts research on each umpire. First-year umpires get an initial rating from the training committee. The ratings team then reviews those ratings internally, before presenting a finished product (a rating for each umpire) to the Board of Directors. The board votes to approve, or in some cases, modify the ratings. Once approved, those ratings are sent to the commissioners for input in Arbiter.
While your rating has an impact on your schedule, other factors, such as availability (which includes your mileage limits), the overall schedule, and system-generated restrictions, impact your schedule as well. For example, you are not likely to see the same team twice in a short period of time.
You may request to see your rating from any board member. They are the folks who actually have this information available. What you will get is a number (2.5, for example). Let me explain what that means. Any number that starts with a 1,2, or 3 means you have a varsity rating. Any number that starts with a 4, 5, or 6 is a sub-varsity rating. The lower the number, the better the rating. The highest (best) rating someone can get is a 1.3. The second number in the rating may best be described as analogous to a step in government employment (e.g., someone is a grade 12, step 5). It’s a bit of a way to track someone’s progress through the ratings process.
The ratings team works very hard to get these right; however, you have the right to appeal your rating. A ratings appeal is nothing more than a request to do a deeper dive into your rating. There are two things to remember about ratings appeals. First, time is of the essence. You have until March 1 to appeal your rating. Second, all you have to do is let someone on the board know you would like to appeal. Once that happens, the ratings team will assign someone to reach out to you and do a deep dive. If the ratings committee recommends an adjustment, the board will vote on it, and, if your rating changes, we will instruct the commissioners.
The members of our Board of Directors are me, Mike Chmar, Josh Cooper, Tom DeFranco, Ron Adamczyk, Robert Fobian, Paul Porto, and Anthony Hemmans.
Have a great season.
-Dave
