I agree also but Rush worked in a larger spotlight than this so he has to be smarter. I've heard tons of stories fom older officials about assignors putting them on certain certain games to "send a message" to a coach who'd been a PITA but that was 25-30 years ago. There are way too many media outlets for people to snitch/squeal/vent. Even if the anonymous official didn't like the schedule he received from Rush that doesn't diminish what was said if it's true.

Remember the quote: “The appearance of impropriety is every bit as bad as the impropriety itself.”

I agree he should have been smarter than that, but it was still a joke. It'll probably cost him his job, but it shouldn't.

And I disagree with your quote. Actual impropriety is worse. It's not even close, IMO

He said it twice, on consecutive days, and the very day he said it the second time, Miller gets T'ed up for reportedly saying "He touched the ball" when in fact, the UCLA player did in fact touch the ball.

I think Rush was joking about paying anyone for giving Miller a T, but it seems pretty clear he was NOT joking about making sure Miller got a T if any situation came up where it could be even remotely justified. The message was sent, and heard.

So yeah, "he was joking" in that he was not really going to pay anyone off. But he was not joking that he wanted Miller T'ed or run, I suspect. And I suspect his officials didn't find it a joke either.

I wasn't in the room, but I suspect you're right, and I don't have a problem with it either. If the coach has been a dick, then I see no problem with a supervisor reminding the staff to take care of it.

I agree with this and your earlier thought on impropriety. I've heard the same [The appearance of impropriety is every bit as bad as the impropriety itself.] thing so many times it makes me laugh. I think it's a very stupid line and way of thinking and it just means to add fear and hinder officials from doing the right thing when it needs to be done.

I also think we, as a society, are to damn sensitive and love to blow things out of proportion.

It obviously was a joke, but a joke that mostly officials would understand. How often do we joke or brag about giving a coach a T and we either never give the T or we joke about how it was we gave the T in the first place. I think where he made the mistake was that he felt no one would go to the press. Well everything in on video, tape and what you say in private company will be mentioned in public (or has the potential).

Peace

I don't think there is any problem with a supervisor telling his staff they need to take care of a problem.

I think there is a problem when the message seems to be that they should be looking to run the guy, even if he isn't a problem in this particular game.

"54 tends to arm bar when the ball comes in - let's watch that and call it if it happens again" is very different from "Hey, lets ring up 54 next time we get any kind of chance at all, because I am pissed that you guys didn't call him for the arm bar before".

And what Rush said sounds a lot more like the latter than the former. And I don't think that is ok at all.

If Rush had a problem with Miller, it should be "Here are three examples in the last month where I think Miller should have been given a T. You guys are not taking care of this, and I expect that if something like this happens again, you WILL take care of it".

It should not be personal, ever. And "I will give you $5,000 if you run Miller!" sounds pretty damn personal.

Depends on the situation. This leans a little more towards the impropriety itself because Miller was rung up. If Arizona wins the game and/or Miller doesn't get a T then it stinks a little bit less but it still has an odor.

We as officials also operate on the "appearance of..." theory all the time. That's why, for example, at the NCAA level you tell assignors where you went to college. They don't want anyone thinking you might be compromised in any way. Rush trying to get his point across the way he did looks bad. We can tell he's joking but some non-officials may not be able to or want to and, unfortunately, those folks are our clients.

I don't watch any PAC12 ball, but if Miller was such a PIA, and such a problem, why was this his first tech of the year? What has he done to be targeted? Did he complain about officiating in the press or something?

In and of itself this is no big deal, but combined with the fact that he got T'd up in crunchtime for a relatively minor outburst, it just looks bad. Rush may have been joking that he would give someone $5,000, but the message was clear; someone please take care of that Miller guy.

1. I'd like to see video of the situation that got him the T before I cede the point that his outburst was minor.
2. It sounds very much like it was not the first time he should have been given one. Sometimes, ABS can accumulate over a few games. Should it? No, but it happens.
3. Even if it was minor, it could have been ABS from that game. I'd have to see that.

It was such a funny joke, that after "telling" it in the meeting on Thr., Rush "told the same joke" on Friday...hmmm.

Yea, sure...it was a joke.

Wonder if Rush will think it's a joke when the PAC-12 commish tells him he's fired.

I'm not saying the appearance can't have some of the same consequences as actual impropriety. But it is certainly not equally as bad.

The PAC 12 has conducted its investigation and Rush has not been fired....yet. Now the story has gone national (ESPN this morning).

Comments were unacceptable. The cash and trip were hyperbole sure, but the meaning wasn't. It takes officials out of the role off unbiased arbiter to one that is a biased enforcer of a vendetta.

Someone asked how one can rise to such a position with this kind of arrogance or attitude. It should be noted he did not rise to this position. He was lowered to it.

That said, I have no issue with the "you guys aren't handling your business - you need to handle it if he gets out of line again" approach. I have huge issue with the way THIS issue was handled. After the Doneghy mess, this only puts us all in a worse light.