This is where you lose credibility, IMO. You believe a guy who wasn't in the room over a guy who was? Or is there some other issue you're choosing sides over? Or are you saying you belive Miller over the official who called the T? Frankly, I will assume he was going over the top asking the official to ask for help. That's not a play you ask for help on. I'm going to ask this question, again.

In what other profession are you allowed to throw a tantrum like a 12 year old child and everyone brushes it off because of the stressful situation? Find me another job, please, where a public fit gets excused rather than punished. And there are jobs far more stressful than basketball coach where people are expected to act like adults. Somehow, coaches get excused from behavior that is otherwise expected and upheld.

If throwing a boxed lunch against the wall counts as a tantrum, I'd say the job of PAC-12 coordinator of officials fits your bill.

Oh, I don't know. He isn't still the coordinator, is he?

Besides, I was talking about the public tantrum (think Mulkey, or Eustachy 2000, or every baseball manager ever ejected from the pros).

I believe his demise goes a tad deeper than a flying drumstick.

Yep, but the box lunch thing is more like a coach's half time locker room speech than a public display of juvenile delinquency exhibited by coaches on TV every day.

If it's qualified like that, guess since probably around 99.9% of people's occupations aren't trailed by a camera, your question becomes more than a bit rhetorical.

I don't think Miller threw a major league tantrum. The call was missed, and at that juncture in that game it is important. His normal behavior, from the data on how many technicals he gets to his reputation, is fine. He's not Bobby Knight. If someone is lying in this case, I choose to beileve Sean Miller over Ed Rush.

Coaches can and should get technicals for crossing the line. Rush had a personal problem with Miller. He did not lilke him. I beileve, based on what I have read, that he took an opportunity to get him back through his officials, and by circumstance, you can make the case that it happened.

As someone who officiated, supervised, and now evaluates, I've seen most things. I think the responses from Rush have been despicable. Code? NevadaRef has it dead on--always assume that everyone can hear what you say, or keep your mouth shut. You shouldn't have to talk much about managing problem coaches or players in a locker room, your training should be applied evenly in all situations. You shouldn't have to tell war stories about using your authority to make yourself look good. If you don't like a coach or player (and it happens to everyone), go out of your way to ensure they cannot claim that you have a vendetta, and film doesn't lie.

If an official, assignor, coach, or AD does something wrong, they should be held accountable. It doesn't happen enough. In this case, the Pac-12 will be better for it.

I don't think anyone doesn't think Rush was joking in that Irving won't be checking his bank account for a $5,000 deposit.

I think the officials in that room were quite certain the message being sent behind the joke ("If you get the chance, you damn well better bang or run Miller") was no joke.

Put it all together - Rush is in there slamming chairs around, throwing things, generally having a tantrum. He is making it clear that he is PISSED.

And then he specifically mentions Miller by name, and "jokes" about a bounty on him.

If *I* was the official in the room, I think I would have gotten the message loud and clear. If Miller steps out of line even a hair, and you don't ring him, you can say goodbye to your schedule next year.

Sounds like Rush's opinion of his demeanor during this portion of the meeting, and the 10 other guys perception of his demeanor differ by about 180 degrees.

As does the question regarding whether he called out the coach by name or not.

THe ESPN article quotes officials who were in the room who said Rush did in fact specifically mention Miller, and only Miller:

Wow. So much to digest. And so much to discuss -- for a level (D-1) that few of us will see. And yet it touches us because we see ourselves in those officials, see our assignors in Ed Rush and see every coach we encounter in Arizona's Sean Miller.

So often on this forum, when anyone (fans, coach, media, other official) discusses in detail a call or non-call, many of us will say something like: "That is only one side. I'd like to hear that official's side."

Yet we rarely get to hear that side. The media doesn't hear it. The fans do not hear it. The coaches do not hear it. It might go into an internal report to a league, an assignor or a state office...but that's it. Most associations have a code or a rule that forbids officials from discussing their actions/calls/decisions in public. Only at the highest level (professional) do the leagues allow one person from the crew to speak about controversial calls. John Adams of the NCAA has gone on TV to explain calls/rulings (acting as sort of spokesman for the crew) in a few instances, but that is usually only at tournament time. We don't see or hear that viewpoint very often. At the NCAA level, we get videos that show crew errors -- not to point out flaws in the crew, but to re-enforce rules or points of emphasis for the rest of us -- an ongoing education process that is designed to make us better officials.

It is no accident that every network is trying to find another Mike Pereira, the Fox Sports analyst and ex-NFL official who is a huge hit as a commentator on rulings (made and missed.)

We hurt ourselves as officials with our code of silence. For those who keep referring to the original CBSSports report and its "anonymous source," I don't think you fully understand how the media works. This source is not anonymous to the reporter -- who has made a decision this person is to be trusted and "protected." If this source does not talk to the reporter, we do not know any of this.

I am not interested in the big picture politics behind the Big 12 and Ed Rush. But I do understand the many reasons this has taken hold. There are lessons for all of us in this.

Breaking Ranks
 

Alot has been written on this topic and great thoughts and emotions have been displayed. With 190 posts thought my turn to add something:)

I know a few of the PAC 12 officials personally and I can tell you that some feel that there has been a break in ranks so to speak leading to a divided group. They are trying to figure out who among their peers they can trust anymore and have to walk on pins and needles about what they say in the locker room.

At any level there are have and have nots and officials who are filled with anger and resentment beacuse they don't get the big games or state playoffs. We at times eat are own and I feel that officiating can be a rough and "dirty" business not because of the coaches or ADs but the way we officials treat one another...The Ed Rush incidents demonstrates this at a high profile level within PAC 12:(

This aspect of things probably will be the worst fallout. Code or no code it upsets me when grown people can't just take their gripes to the proper place. In this case, the proper place would've been Rush himself or, if you're not comfortable, Rush's boss. Yes there's risk at doing that - though there shouldn't be - but either of those is better than running to the press. Plus, if you're not the only one who has issues you go as a group.

The ironic thing would be if a replacement comes in who the disgruntled officials still don't like.

If you always professional then you don't have to worry about what you say in the locker room, correct. ;)

At least that's what one poster who has yet to have an opinion on this subject once said.

A-EFFING-MEN!!!

In the course of going about our regular jobs as sports officials, there are things that we might say that to coaches, players, or others would be misinterpreted, which is exactly what happened to Rush. This is why you don't go repeating things that were said — not because what was said was nefarious in any way, but because it can be easily misconstrued.

Rush's situation is akin to one of us in our pre-game saying, "Last time I was here we had issues with the home coach being out of the box too much, let's address that early, warn, then whack."

The statement on its own, to officials, is innocuous.

To a coach or player ... And definitely to a scumbag sports writer ... It would be turned around as "targeting" the coach!!

THAT is what Rush was saying about the "code", which is another statement that was ironically immediately twisted into something it didn't mean, just like the original comments that got him into trouble in the first place.