Good Question

I am really glad you asked this question. Let me first say that I coach Soccer, Baseball, and Basektball and also officiate in each. So I understand what is like to be on both sides. I feel that people who do both are better at both because they understand where the other is coming from.

Now specifically to the question. Answer: Consistency.

Without a doubt an umpire that is consistent has less problems. I have had some umpires that had terrible strike zones, but they were consistent both ways so I would tell the kids "you know he's calling a certain pitch a strike so swing". When an umpire has an amoeba (sp?) strike zone it leaves everybody guessing, and yelling. Consistency is also needed on base calls.

I like to see an umpire get out to see the play. Nothing angers me more than to se a guy getting paid $25 bucks sit behind the plate. These kids are working their butts off, the umpire should show some effort.

Back to strike zone, I think a big strike zone is better, make the kids hit. From my experience the ump who has a tin strike zone is criticized more because there is no way he can call all pitches within an exact area. If blue has a big zone people just concede to swing if it is close.

Finally, I enjoy officiating all the sports I coach and I think in order to be an effective umpire you must enjoy doing it. You can tell the ones that enjoy it because they take pride in what they're doing and when someone takes pride in what they are doing, they work towards being the best they can be.