|
Post by Number 6 on Mar 10, 2008 15:15:45 GMT
I certainly voted against - but not solely for this reason!
Pete
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Mar 10, 2008 15:17:24 GMT
. I agree that the stepup from GL6 to GL5 wasn't all that great, but from what I've been told the step to GL4 isn't much from GL5, but that is only opinion. Then with respect what you've been told is utter nonsense. GL4 is a HUGE step up from GL6 & GL5. There's no comparison at all! Pete
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 10, 2008 15:22:18 GMT
I thought level 1 was the lowest level for the new ECB ACO. I passed GL6 in the autumn/winter and did a mock GL5. I passed GL6 with 92% but failed with about 70% in the GL5 mock. I thought there was a large gulf in difficulty between the two. I think GL6 and GL5 members should also be distinguished otherwise it isn't fair on the GL5 standard umpires.
That said, GL4 sounds horrible, with it being an oral exam - the pressure!
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 10, 2008 15:27:53 GMT
ACU&S Examination Now a rookie is classed as competent as a qualified ACU member with over 20 years experience. I agree this is ridiculous, I voted against ECB ACO but not for this reason. You may have thought ACUS could not organize a party in a pub? ECB ACO appear to be 100 x worse. I can't comment on the two organisations because I have had next-to-no experience of either. However, surely even though an umpire with 20 years' experience is officially as well qualified as a rookie, his reputation resulting from his experience would count for far more?
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Mar 10, 2008 15:40:39 GMT
I thought level 1 was the lowest level for the new ECB ACO. I passed GL6 in the autumn/winter and did a mock GL5. I passed GL6 with 92% but failed with about 70% in the GL5 mock. I thought there was a large gulf in difficulty between the two. I think GL6 and GL5 members should also be distinguished otherwise it isn't fair on the GL5 standard umpires. That said, GL4 sounds horrible, with it being an oral exam - the pressure! GL4 is a 2 to 2 1/2 hour oral exam and there are no yes / no or multiple chloice questions. It is all of the ilk of "look at this picture" or "watch this video clip" then with no further ado "tell us what you would do and why?" First you have to work out all the possible permutations of what the picture is showing you (and that's not always clear) and then decide what the examiner is actually testing you on, and then work out all the possible scenarios of the picture and then give a full off-the-cuff answer, not just on the laws but on actual fieldcraft and man-management. I sweated blood I have to say but passed GL4 at 92% To compare that to GL5 is IMHO a travesty! Pete
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Mar 10, 2008 15:43:04 GMT
I can't comment on the two organisations because I have had next-to-no experience of either. However, surely even though an umpire with 20 years' experience is officially as well qualified as a rookie, his reputation resulting from his experience would count for far more? But what if you apply to a league or panel in a new area? All they see is your qualification level, they have no idea of your experience or reputation. The GL sequence was IMHO a very good pointer to the quality of an umpire, the ECB levels are not. Pete
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 10, 2008 15:47:32 GMT
With that description of GL4, I (and many others I'm sure) would undoubtedly agree that that's a travesty! I wonder why the ECB hasn't decide to grade umpires 1-3 in relation the ACU&S GL system? Hmm... By the way I chose not to vote because I had no idea what course of action was for the best, but having heard I thing or two on these boards, I'd side with ACU&S...not that it would have made a difference due to the overwhelming majority of ECB voters. Peter, as for your question, I have no idea! I would sincerely hope the area would do a background check, because otherwise the system is grossly unfair
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Mar 10, 2008 15:56:57 GMT
Peter, as for your question, I have no idea! I would sincerely hope the area would do a background check, because otherwise the system is grossly unfair Trouble is they don't. When I last applied out of area they simply wanted my CRB, ACU&S membership number and qualification level. No references were required or taken and I don't see why it would suddenly be any different now. Pete
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Mar 10, 2008 15:57:35 GMT
I would agree with the fact that GL4 is a big step from GL5 & GL6, although GL5 was made considerablly more difficult last year.
It is interesting to read the ECB Level 2 requirements and assements and compare them with GL4/5. In my view it sort of falls between the two.
I gained Level 2 status with my GL5 but still carried on to obtain GL4 as I felt it would improve my ability, which I think it did. So I am not cross, but do think the cross references are a little strange. It would have been politically better to have had an extra level so that Gl6 = Level 1, GL5=Level 2 & Qualified = Level 3.
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on Mar 10, 2008 16:05:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 10, 2008 16:10:18 GMT
I thoroughly agree with a grading system which is consistant with the GL format. Perhaps the ECB are trying to disassociate themselves from everything set down by The ACU&S?
Any road up, it still smacks of injustice a bit.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 10, 2008 16:14:22 GMT
Blackbeard, clearly I'm out of my depth here. I suppose I'm being naïve to think that there would be a fair way of distinguishing between same-graded umpires. This is all very frustrating...
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Mar 10, 2008 16:15:15 GMT
Forgetting about exams, equivalences etc. Last night I did some umpiring at Nets. Very worthwhile. Gets the ears & eyes trained. Makes you think about many things and realize the difference between the class room and reality.
Great fun, good learning experience. I think all umpires should do this. We owe it to the players to be good from the start.
The Aussies do it.
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on Mar 10, 2008 16:23:01 GMT
Unfortunately there is no fair system of grading, those that are in the right circles will get higher grades than those who are not in the correct circles. Its not what you know but who you know.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Mar 10, 2008 16:58:40 GMT
"not what you know but who you know. "
...an axiom that I'd hoped would not extend the umpiring realm.
John; good advice. I should ask to officiate a friendly soon.
|
|