Heh.

:D

Keep in mind Adam and me have been here a long time. We are #1 and #2 on this site. :D

Peace

Keep in mind #1 and #2 in number of posts.

Quantity != Quality :)

It's All Teed Up For You Mark Padgett, Give It A Good Whack ...
 

Great. More ammunition for Mark Padgett.

Brad, you cut me so deep.

If you don't think the comments are serious, let them lie. If someone's intent was just to get a reaction, and they don't get one, they will go away. If that was not their intent, and they see no one responding to them, perhaps they will be less nonsensical in the future.

One can hope, at least.

These are exactly my thoughts. Rush should be fired by the conference. We already aren't trusted by the public in general, and this just makes it worse. And like JRut, you can talk all day about how you "Don't care what the public thinks", but in this situation, it does matter.

I don't think he should be fired, but I'll be surprised if he isn't. I also think the idiot who leaked the joke should be let go by the conference. This isn't whistle blowing, it's spite.

Slippery slope. One guy quit before the tournament who worked the last 9 consecutive championship games. Two former Final Four officials opted to work smaller conference tournament games rather than the Pac-12. You cannot have that much internal strife with that many accomplished veterans without very serious problems with the entire organization. Larry Scott thought the organization was sick/weak, and brought in Rush to fix it. Rush made it worse, whether these comments came out or not. Bad hire that needs to be rectified regardless.

If it matters why does he still have a job? It must not matter that much. And this is not the Rutgers sitaution at all. There was no public funds going to this indiviual in the same way. ;)

Peace

You made your bed, you lie in it!

I was seriously surprised that ANYONE had more than JRut!!

Not sure why, I just passed JR in number recently. And Snaq, I mean Adam passed me some time ago. You obviously have not been coming to this site very often. :D

Peace

You must not have been around college basketball officiating very much. There is ALWAYS that much strife with a change in coordinators. New coordinator means changes, different game assignments, some get less, some get more ... and some get disgruntled.

Same thing has happened over and over in different leagues as new coordinators have taken over in the last 5 years. Completely standard.

I don't know that your assessment of why Rush was brought in is all to on target either. Seems like you are just conjecturing ... unless you have some kind of insider info.

Just look at what happened in the BIG a few years ago. The entire staff looks very different than it did when the previous guy was in that position. And all I heard for 2 years is officials complaining about the staff and who got left off the staff by fellow officials.

Peace

You're not sure why, but your instincts are pretty spot on! :)

Been busy working ... and for the past two years that hasn't included officiating, so I only show up to stir things up and start the occasional duplicate thread!

I know why I passed JR, but not sure why you thought I was at the top. It took me some time to pass other guys that are still with us. ;)

Peace

Assume you are talking about the Big 12? Hard to decipher when using "the BIG" and "previous guy" :)

It is ALWAYS that way when a new coordinator takes over ... When Kelley took over the Metro there was a guy that worked the tournament championship the year before that received ZERO games the next year!!

When a new coordinator comes in everything changes — with the exception of bitching and moaning ... that never changes.

Mystery solved. Thanks. I was wondering what happened to the ever present snaqwells.

Glad to know he's still involved.

What exactly does "snaqwells" reference anyway? It always invoked a box of snack crackers to mind whenever I saw it.

Didn't think it would take you that long —*don't you have a cushy government job? :)

The usage of BIG is often a internet usage to describe the Big 10 because of their logo. Sorry I forget I am dealing in mixed company.

But the situation with the Big 12 also caused some controversy but that supervisor assigned 4 leagues. So there was some people rumbling when he took over. A lot more people were affected by that change than anywhere else I can think of.

Peace

I wish, then I would make more an hour.

Peace

And just to add MY $0.02 to the Ed Rush thing...

I hope the league keeps him. It was a joke. Let's not turn it into more than what it was.

Ed is the consummate educator — he's 71 years old and could be doing lots of other things, but he loves officiating and officials and wants to keep making contributions to the game.

Every encounter I have ever had with Ed has been positive. When I was a young official he personally stuck his neck out for me in a situation he didn't have to — for no reason other than that he cares about officials. I'll have to consider telling the story sometime (it is a DOOZY) ... but that encounter told me everything that I need to know about Ed.

So, here's hoping the crazy-ass sports writers, coaches, and fans don't get their way based on their own perceptions of what occurred, conveniently molded to fit their preconceived notions.

That's what I thought at first, but was that change just a couple of years ago? Thought it was longer than that ... but I suppose you are right.

Maybe you should write it as B1G :)

I'm sure ... some negatively, some positively.

Well people in this part of the country use it often and it is known. So maybe, but probably not. ;)

And yes positively for some. But usually you hear from the people that are slighted more than anything.

Peace

I just heard that Ed Rush resigned as coordinator of officials for the Pac-12.

http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/...stigation.html

True. It just hit ESPN. It is fully appropriate that he not hold that position anymore after his unprofessional behavior.

It still does not change the fact it does not appear anyone took him seriously. It also does not change the fact that supervisors will still instruct their officials to do things they were unwilling to do on their own. And if this was over the top, then any time a supervisor tells his/her staff to do something then we better have articles on those instructions when something is called based on those instructions. It makes little difference to me if this was Rush or some other no named guy, but there will be similar comments like this in the future and like everything the public will over react when they hear something behind the closed door. It is like people like sausage until they find out how it is made.

Peace

No one took him seriously. Even though the coach in question got a T. Some would argue a weak T. And wasn't it the first one of the year? I agree no one took him seriously about Cancun or 5k

The only people saying it is weak are those that do not officiate after they heard these comments. I am not sure I have ever heard why he got the T but from the coach trying to say he did not curse. Now how many times have we all heard that line before?

Peace

He had to go. If you try to look at it objectively there was no way he could stay. Maybe some of his fellow refs didn't take his comment seriously but this is about the public trust in the Pac-12 and therefore he needed to get the boot/or leave.

Didnt one of (or the) snitch officials say it was a weak T?

I 'd like to see the full tape of what led to the T.

There's a big distinction between instructing your staff to take certain actions and what Rush said, joking or not. It was over the top.

Again, I personally don't have a problem with what Rush said but once it became public, he had to go.

I'm going to assume that most other supervisors are not going to put themselves in the same position. Rush could have gotten his point across in a much better way. Sucks that there was a rat in the room but that's life.

And I don't think the public is really overreacting here. Sometimes perception is reality and it's a bitch.

You mean anonymous source that did not claim he was on the game, but knew the official that gave the T personally? Then go to the media and tell them what I think but had no first hand knowledge? I guess that makes it weak by default.

Peace

Miller actually took as much responsibility in the press conference for it as was reasonable for him to take, I thought.

He said he should not have done anything to even make it possible to get a T, but that he didn't really understand what it was that justified it.

He wasn't saying "Hey, I didn't curse, so you should not T me!" He was saying (and I paraphrase) "I don't know what I did - I wasn't out of the box, I didn't curse, I didn't attack him verbally, I just said 'HE TOUCHED THE BALL!'"

Then he went into the famous "HE TOUCHED THE BALL" rant.

And he was right, btw - the UCLA player DID touch the ball.

Now, it turns out that it may be the case that Miller had heard about the comment made by Rush before the game, and hence before the press conference. Which would make it all a bit more interesting, and in which case I actually am pretty surprised Miller didn't flip out even more than he did in that press conference.

Great press conference...

No, it doesn't make it weak by default but it also doesn't make the only people calling it weak "those who do not officiate."

I have no idea if it was a weak T or not. Obviously I wasn't on the floor and I haven't even seen a full clip of the tape.

But like BNR said before, if Rush's comments arent out there then the T is a total non issue.

If he wanted to resign then I am OK with that. It is not like he had been there long to warrant him staying. I am just saying that right or wrong supervisors make points and often make points in different ways. Some use humor. Some are vague and some are very specific. I have been to many camps where supervisors and clinicians are very direct and use language the public would be "outraged" by if they heard in or out of a college conference. And I think what tells it all is that someone went to the media which appears because he was upset of his standing. A loyal person would not have done that or would have kept his issues in-house. Because if the Pac-12 was about transparency, they would give the public the reports on why Miller was T'd and the correspondence as well. But they are not going to do that anytime soon, because it is easy to scapegoat the officials and not the coach that may have acted inappropriately.

Peace

I don't disagree with any of that.

I've heard all kinds of colorful comments behind closed doors as well. And I'm the type of person who enjoys them.

But sometimes colorful comments can go wrong when they fall on the wrong ears. Unfortunately for Rush, he had a rat in the room.

The bottom line is that Rush repeatedly targeted a coach in his comments repeatedly and then that coach gets his first T of the year and only the 2nd T for any coach in the BCS conference tournys and rightly or wrongly, that T is going to be scrutinized.

And when that scrutiny publicly leads to calling into question the integrity and impartiality of the officials then I think there was no other result but for Rush to go.

All true and someone will find out who that "rat" is and people will not trust that person either. Even doing what you feel is right can have consequence. It would be one thing is the comment was taken seriously and the T was totally unwarranted, but there is a way to prove that and the Pac-12 did not see much to the claim as I am sure Miller was told why he got the T. You notice he is not talking about that much? Maybe he is not talking because he would be exposed for what he really did and said and the other events in the game.

Also keep in mind that it is very possible that other coaches and programs complained about the treatment of other coaches. Arizona most of the year was highly ranked and I would not be surprised that other coaches that did get Ts or were reprimanded might have pointed to the top program's leader as an example. I would not be surprised if Rush's comments about Miller were a culmination of other correspondence to Rush and he tried to get a point across in another way. I guess I am a realist, I just never think a supervisor makes these comments without some provocation in their role. Rush had a boss to listen to as well.

Peace

I know for a fact that Miller was fined for what he did & said to someone as he stepped off the podium after the press conference.

Are you saying he was not fined (only) for his comments about the T in the press conference?

Peace

From what I was told, he was fined not for his comments but what he did & said to a person after the press conference in front of some higher-ups from the conference office. It might be the reason why Miller hasn't said much about being fined.

Gotcha.

Peace

What about the Ref calling the T
 

Seems like Rush is taking all the heat and in my opinion he deserves it. I wonder why the ref that called the T isn't receiving just as much. Is he? I mean essentially people are saying that he called a T to get $5k. Does he make it through this unscathed?

People who claim they want integrity really do not know what that means. They are outraged, but only focus on a comment, but not the other complicated elements of this or any issue. I have said this before, Sports Journalism is probably the laziest of all Journalism on the planet.

Peace

Never mind.

You've hit on an important issue to this whole debacle of 'integrity'. The Ed Rush saga isn't just about what was said in a room to a group of officials and then having those comments misappropriated by an overzealous official--that happens in every association across America hundreds of times a year, if not more. This whole outburst was about power within the conference--specifically coaches power and how that power translates to who works games and how they work games. Under Rush me thinks the coaches had lost that power and that leads to scary times for a fraternity that has long enjoyed such power. That is why the whole issue of integrity as it pertains to officials based on these comments by Ed Rush laughable in context to a much larger problem of the integrity of officiating programs that are influenced by Coaches that TARGET (to use the hot word of the debate) officials via scratch lists either explicitly (associations or conferences that still allow literal scratch lists) or implicitly through the very real power that coaches throw around behind closed doors. If anyone doesn't think that Coach K, Bobby Knight, Digger Phelps, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, Bill Self, etc etc etc don't have weight that they throw around behind closed doors about officials that they don't like and therefore conveniently don't get due to the weakness of conferences they or you are either naive or complicit. Ed Rush's background as an NBA official, where assignments are made based on a much different systematic approach, came with concerns from the get go amongst coaches and 'veteran officials' alike. A whole generation of officials had finally made it on the old system of not rankling feathers just in time to reap the rewards and in comes a Supervisor that wants you to 'take care of bench Coaches!!!!!!', referee the defense, work on your rules and mechanics. Perish the thought. And when you didn't or couldn't based on your make up you were one or two, or maybe even three steps closer to the door. A year of rumbling had to lead up to this moment on both sides of the fence, coaches and veteran officials alike. And if your conference integrity is based on a system such as one that Coaches have say in who works and who doesn't then you don't have integrity to begin with because by its very nature that compromises the officials ability to handle situations with disregard to punitive measures on the backside. Which leads us to JRuts comments on lazy sports journalism whose members covet access to the coaches like Sportscenter anchors covet hair dye. So when a reporter hears a spiteful referee talk in the same manner/vein about a supervisor they have already been hearing rumblings about its easy to throw around terms like Bully and control freak. For a reporter this had to be the motherlode....Butter my apple with the coaches of the conference I cover, get collaboration of an anonymous referee and lead a witch hunt all in one story. For me this is a sad day for officiating. For once we as a community had a commissioner willing to stand by its officiating community, much more so than many on this board to be honest, and willing to see what happened for what it was...a misuse of language, a joke that missed its mark, admittedly badly so.

Careful folks, glass houses and all. Think long and hard next time that snappy little quotes floats its way to the top of your noggin when dealing with an all powerful coach lest you receive the very punishment that many of you called for here in your comments, namely the exact punishment that befell a coach that physically, mentally and verbally abused his players for multiple years. If that doesn't show how the two groups are viewed and treated I don't know what does. And the most hurtful thing of all is that we as a community can't or won't stand up for ourselves and support one another when one of us is in the crosshairs for something that deserved reprimanding but most certainly didn't warrant losing a job over.

Jeff, you are the smartest and most articulate guy in here, but you are way to narrow on this. In this instance, it's hard to defend the official or Rush. Miller does not have a reputation for being difficult to deal with, or profane on he bench. From what I have been told by folks who worked his games at Xavier, he is high-energy who asks questions--exactly what officials should want. You have to take him at his word when he feels he got screwed getting T'd for trying to get Irving to ask a partner if the ball was touched or not. Second, Rush got upset with Miller earlier this year, because when a crew of Rush's favorites made a mess of the ASU-UA game this year, Miller was cryptically critical of the officials, to where mockery was evident. His ego is too big,always has been, and he got pinched.

There were 13 (10 edit) guys in the room. Several of the conferences' top officials were not working the tournament--some by their own decision. It is probably known who went to the media, and I'd bet several of the 13 (10) are just fine with it. Many of them are now commenting and mentioning "mutiny" if Rush stayed. Life goes on.

The higher you go, the quicker the fall is if you are unprofessional towards coaches or ADs and you get pinched for it. No Pac-12 guys working this weekend. They'll be better for Rush resigning.

Read what's out there tonight. Still feel this way?

I have no idea what Miller's background is or actual reputation in the officiating community. So I would not take his word for anything without knowing him in detail. I just know coaches say things that are not true. On the baseball board there was a situation where a coach apparently misrepresented a conversation with an umpire to the media. So forgive me if I am a little skeptical of a coach telling the entire truth in a press conference. And I really am skeptical when the person says, "All I did was say...he hit the ball....he hit the ball....he hit the ball..." I am sure more went on in that conversation. And we also know coaches that ask questions that are unreasonable or silly. Now maybe he is a great guy, but that also does not mean that someone was not happy with his behavior. Again jealousy is just as much of a problem in the coaching ranks as it is with fellow officials. I just think there is a lot to this and Rush was made to be the fall guy for what might have been going on with many other levels.

Peace

The person who got me into officiating told me Wednesday that an extremely high profile official said this story will get worse. Now I just heard on late night radio that more officials are coming out against Rush and that he was not joking.

Could not disagree more. The sports media has taken this story and made it into something it wasn't. It completely lacks any kind of context ... and the only sources the sports media has cited are an anonymous (most likely disgruntled) official and Tim Donaghy. It's shameful.

The T was for being out on the floor*—*waving his arms around and yelling at the officials didn't help his cause either. You can see in the video that he is out about 3-4 feet on the floor ... then the video goes to replay ... then there is a whistle a few seconds later. So, not sure how far out on the court he got while protesting before getting whacked.

I noticed you quoted earlier about we are defined on how we act when no one is watching. The Commissioner of the league has been on several national shows on air stating that Miller wasn't fined for his post game press conference rant, but instead for the profanity laced comments he made to a conference staff person as soon as he walked off from said press conference. I always thought our character was revealed on how we handled adversity and how we treat those that are perceived to be below us, i.e. a conference staffer. So in comparison, a misplaced joke up against taking out your frustration for an disputed unwarranted technical foul through verbal abuse. The former loses his job, the latter a fine. As an Oracle your reporting has holes in it. In one you claim through language an intimate knowledge of Rush's ego, maybe being from Valley Forge and Rush from Pennsylvania you've had dealings with him? But then on the backside you report from referee's you know, i.e. word of mouth, that Miller is a great guy, who just so happens to verbally abuse staffers when he himself has been dealt a mis-justice--arguably. Seems like solid ground to be comparing the character of both men on to me for sure.

yes I still feel the same way about how our two groups are treated and that coaches have unreasonable power over how officiating programs are implemented nation wide at a multitude of various levels.

From Fischer: Separating facts from perception in the Ed Rush controversy - Pac-12 Post:

“He didn’t think the officials were doing the job of containing the coaches, that coach decorum was getting out of control – not solely focused on Coach Miller, but several coaches. As part of that banter this discussion was had about, ‘What do I have to do to get you guys to enforce the rules? To ‘T’ a coach up if he won’t listen to the warning? Do I got to give you a trip? Money?’

“Our investigator asked very, very pointed questions and it was clear that no one thought that there was a real bounty. Ed was trying to shock them into being more firm in order to make a point.”

This is exactly the context that this story has been lacking. Instead, sports writers have run with the "Targeting Arizona / Miller" idea ... and the "Bounties on Coaches" ... completely misrepresenting the comments and turning them into something they were not.

It is a complete overreaction, but you are right that it is par for the course.

Except he was.

Also, coaches always act like they have no idea what they did to receive a tech.

Yes. He did. They kicked it big time. As a coach he should know that that play is not getting overturned —*it cannot be reviewed. Too bad, so sad. Yes, it sucks. There is nothing that can be done about it at that point ... so why keep yelling "HE TOUCHED THE BALL!!!"???

Maybe there should be a way to overturn that play ... I don't know. But until there is, there is no point in disputing it. That's on him.

No way he knew. The Pac-12 tourney was in the middle of March —*this story just broke a few days ago.

I think refs talked to refs who talked to refs ... and someone talked to a buddy of his who is a sports writer and the article was written.

Don't forget Tim Donaghy... he probably thought the tech was weak too. Of course, hard to really tell with the small TVs they have in jail.

No. That is not the bottom line. That is what was reported in the sports media, with zero proof, through hearsay.

The Pac-12 made it clear that Rush did NOT target Miller in his comments.

Also, the notion reported in the media that his comment was repeated on two days is highly disputed.

Of course there's going to be an overraction from the public (non-officials). Even without media coverage we're not the best-liked people on the planet. We shouldn't be surprised because anything we do that even hints of being unfair is considered a capital offense, especially by anyone in the sports media. All we can do is try to spread knowledge when we can. I know I try since I'm in the media but it's not easy.

Because the T was warranted.

He never thought he was getting $5k. Nor did anyone else.

His resignation is probably of the "I don't need this garbage" variety. Happy retirement, Ed.

I do not listen to that dirtbag so I have no idea what his take would be on this issue. But it is nice to know he had something to say.

Peace

This is so true.

Fans are outraged at the implied conflict of interest of being rewarded for giving a technical foul to a coach — what about the flipside?

Do you think that officials never consider the consequences of a technical foul? That they have the same team coming up in a few weeks ... and who knows how many times for the rest of the season? That they don't want to be taken off of those games? Giving a technical foul might cost you thousands of dollars.

I was personally taken off of a game because I whacked a coach. He clearly deserved it — was on the floor, yelling at my partner across the floor about a call. It was not even close. My partner was gutless and did nothing. But it was a clear tech — so clear that I was calling it without even thinking — just automatic.

Never gave it another thought until I was called a few days later and taken off a future game for that team. So sorry, but we don't have a replacement game for you—too bad you already booked your flight. You can lose that money in addition to the game fee that you won't be getting.

That is complete and utter bullshit. And that happened at the small D1 conference level — you think it doesn't happen in the big leagues??? Don't kid yourself.

Maybe based on what has been written by the sports media. What you are not considering is how badly that story has been spun for their own purposes —*it does not represent the truth. There is no video, no recording, no corroborating witnesses.

They quote a single anonymous official who they say was in the room, but who knows for sure, plus Tim Donaghy. Not exactly solid proof.

Why do I have to take him at his word? Are you kidding me???

Coaches LIE. All the time. To serve their own purposes. Not all coaches, but plenty of them —*especially when it comes to interaction with officials.

Yeah, well, my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night, soooo.... :)

AP interview with Ed Rush
 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Former Pac-12 Conference coordinator of officials Ed Rush says he was just trying to "lighten the mood" in a tense locker room when he "jokingly" made offers of $5,000 or a trip to Mexico for any referee who called a technical foul on Arizona coach Sean Miller during the league tournament.

In his first interview since reports surfaced of the incident that forced his resignation, Rush told The Associated Press on Thursday night that the comments were "absolutely, 100 percent said in jest." He believes the remarks were leaked out by officials who were unhappy with his overall handling of the Pac-12 program and wanted to tarnish his reputation.

Rush said his remarks were part of an overall "point of emphasis" to crack down on coach misconduct on the sideline after Arizona's win over Colorado in the Pac-12 quarterfinal. In the course of that presentation, Rush said he cracked down on the officials who worked the game - Verne Harris, Michael Reed and Rodrick Dixon - for not disciplining either Miller or Buffaloes coach Tad Boyle for their behavior.

"I said, 'The game cried out for a bench warning. It would have been very simple to take care of that. It cried out for bench warnings,'" Rush said in a phone interview with the AP. "Another crew was waiting in there, getting ready for the next game. I would say there was a level of tension in the locker room, just because the disappointment that they worked this game but they didn't take care of something that was a point of emphasis.

"So in an effort just to lighten the mood, I said to them, 'Hey, guys. What's it going to take? Do you think we could give you a trip to Cancun or maybe $5,000? Or who wants what? And now they're all laughing, which is basically what I wanted to do. So I said, 'I know you guys, you probably want $5,000, you want the money, you won't take the trip to Cancun. So I'm going around, 'What would you take?' At that point, I said, 'By the way, you know my wife's not going to go for this. I'm going to have to pull this off the table.' They all laughed, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, bud.' That was it, and I walked out."

An investigation done by the Pac-12's head of enforcement, Ron Barker, found that every official interviewed confirmed "nobody thought they were getting a reward," Scott said. But Rush couldn't survive the constant swarm of criticism from fans and media this week once the comments became public in a CBSSports.com report.

The 70-year-old Rush, a longtime NBA referee and the league's former director of officiating, had been a consultant to the Pac-12 since 2007 before becoming conference coordinator of officials last May. He said he offered his resignation to Scott by phone Thursday afternoon once it became clear it was going to be "difficult to rebuild trust" of coaches, players and the public.

ESPN.com, citing anonymous sources, also reported officials did not believe Rush was joking. In response, Rush told the AP some officials were unhappy with his overhaul of the official program, especially when he told veterans that assignments in the league tournament would be based on merit instead of seniority.

"That was wrong place, wrong time, wrong audience," Rush said. "See, where I come from, in the NBA, there's a code that you definitely follow. You never, ever take the conversations in that locker room outside. I learned that code in 1966. Mendy Rudolph taught me that. You talk to the NBA officials, they all follow the code.

"There's a few guys (in the Pac-12) who didn't follow that code. They missed that part, and that's a shame. That's a very important part of the bond and the profession. Shame on me for not knowing that, but I used poor judgment. So that's my regret. Other than that, we got after it. We spent a lot of time. We definitely made some inroads in the right direction."

Which is why I would love to see a stronger response to the media. When you issue a statement and try to let it blow over it implies that you did something wrong. It perpetuates the belief that what was reported is true. If it is not true, or if it is being spun in a way that makes it much, much worse than what actually happened, it needs to be addressed.

That's what happened here — by not categorically denying that Miller was targeted (he wasn't), the sports media was allowed to keep that narrative going ... which the fans took and ran with.

What's unfortunate is that the fans, especially Arizona, now actually think they are better off. They didn't even know Ed Rush's name before last week, but believe they are capable of passing judgement on his character and integrity based off of a few quotes from an anonymous official in a sports article.

Why? Because it fits what they already believe.

Perhaps or perhaps there is more substance and truth to the accusations than several here wish to admit.
I agree with your point of view on situations such as that and am sorry to hear that you had a spineless conference supervisor who wouldn't back you for taking care of business. Hopefully, that person is no longer in that position.
Funny response, but let's see if the info posted by Badnews turns out to be accurate, and if so, you will be the one looking for BBQ sauce that goes well with shoe leather.

This is exactly the spirit in which I imagined it being said. Of course, it went from one official to another, then to another, and by the time it reached the sports media it was a "BOUNTY"

Give me a break. There is nothing to this story, but the sports media made it into something to serve their own purposes. And officiating is worse off because of it.

That's what I was going for :)

I don't think the story will get worse at all. There won't even be a story anymore. The sports media achieved their goal and now that Ed has resigned it is no longer interesting for them.

Besides, I don't know how the story can "get worse" when there is nothing to the story to begin with. It was made up in the minds of sports writers based on the rumblings of a single disgruntled official.

CODE??? What a bunch of BS! This is the core reason why Rush needed to get out of officiating. It's not 1966 anymore. The college game has become a BIG time money maker for universities and coaches. How people involved with officiating conduct themselves and what they say is held to a different standard than a couple of generations ago.
Code??? That is nothing more than a way to say cover-up. It is a shame that some of these old-timers don't understand that the society of today doesn't adhere to their past ways of doing things secretly in back rooms, but insist that people be accountable for what they say and how they act in the context of their professional duties.
What Rush advocates above and the way that he thinks is sad. It would be like saying that those at Rutgers shouldn't have spoken up about the treatment from the coaches and instead should have kept it in-house. His way of thinking is the problem here. The mentality IS the good ole boy network of protecting others within the circle without question, even when they are wrong.

Sooo...you're using a media story to show that what the media is reporting may be "something it wasn't". Is the media overreacting or are they a good source of information? You appear to be doing a lot of speculating and passing it off as fact.

Sounds like SEVERAL officials from this recent ESPN piece, which was published about four hours ago.
Pac-12 Conference ref boss Ed Rush resigns after technical foul bounty scandal - ESPN Los Angeles


Had Rush not resigned or been fired, there was a good chance a mutiny among Pac-12 officials would have occurred. ESPN spoke with a number of officials from the conference on Thursday who requested anonymity for fear of assignment reprisals or loss of wages. A number of them told ESPN they were worried Rush would hold any comments over them.
...
Officials confirmed that Rush went into the meeting before the UCLA-Arizona game and was banging a chair up and down, demanding the officials perform at a higher level. And then, according to the officials, Rush hurled a boxed lunch against the wall after the game, nearly hitting one of the officials in the head.

"It was absolutely a form of bullying," one official said.

...

Another official said the Pac-12 investigator talked to the 10 officials in the room, but not Scott.

"We are a tight-knit group of guys," one official said. "We can't change what happened. A lot of officials didn't want to be in this league if Ed Rush were retained. Some officials have options with other leagues, some don't."

You could not have possibly interpreted this more incorrectly.

No, I'm using direct quotes from the very central person in the story ... to balance out the hearsay from an "anonymous source".

As I said, "the context that this story has been lacking"

Of course, this doesn't fit the sports media's preconceptions about officiating, so it won't get near the same amount of play tomorrow on ESPN or Twitter.

Nev, are you saying there's stuff we say in the locker room regarding how we deal with players/coaches that we know isn't supposed to leave the locker room?

I don't. I make every effort to not say anything about a coach, player, or team in a lockerroom (or a restaurant, at a party, etc.) which I wouldn't say while face-to-face with those people.
When one is known as an official, there are always people watching and listening, so it is intelligent to not make comments which could reflect unfavorably upon your impartiality, judgment, or integrity.

Unfortunately for him, Mr. Rush made comments in such a setting which when communicated to others made his role in the officiating process of today undesirable.

Stopi it!!!

Please do not tell me that in a pre-game where you talk about the attitudes of a coach or how you would handle a player we have dealt with or have a reputation, then not sure what could be talked about.

I know in the post season it is not unusual that we have people come in our locker rooms that are not assocated with the teams playing and I do not want to say a lot of things in front of those people because I know someone might hear us talk about the teams, how they play, what they run and draw conclusions when they do not hear the entire conversation. The public does not know what kinds of things we do to prepare for the game, get on the same page or discuss even the strategy of the games and I can see how those things would be assumed as bias or some favoritism. I have even been in several conversations where at halftime we might disucss why we did or did not T a coach or player or how we will deal with the situation moving forward. The public would think we were putting out a "bounty" if they heard those conversations.

Peace

In the privacy of the locker room you don't talk about behavior of the coaches or who could / might be a problem? You don't talk about such things at halftime after a chippy first half?

I find this very hard to believe. Just like JRut, we've had visitors to the locker room at halftime or people in a room next door and we have to be very careful we keep our voices down or even wait until the people clear out of the area.

That is how things work in every business. The victim mentality works for nobody. I wish you the best of luck.

Coaches lie, players lie, and officials lie. It happens. We can disagree. I will believe Sean Miller over Ed Rush. You kick a call, you have to give the coach a little leeway. Not middle of court F-bomb leeway, but Miller was not completely out of line. An evaluator is giving Irving a double minus on that T, and dinging the crew for missing that call.

You sound bitter about your T deal. It happens. Keep doing what you do, and if it is meant to be, you'll ascend and prove the coach wrong.

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.

Not necessarily. It doesn't even work that way in OUR business, depending on the conference or association. Some allow coaches to have a huge influence over officiating assignments, including "scratches" to prevent certain officials from working their games. Those scratches lead to a big conflict of interest for officials when working games.

Other conferences and associations limit coach influence or disallow it completely.

With this and your other comments about Ed, it's you that sounds bitter.

It's amazingly hypocritical to say that we have to take Sean Miller at his word, but not apply the same standard to Ed.

I don't think anyone has disputed the kicked call ... Nor the tech, except within the context that the official called it because he was bribed — something in my opinion that is completely false.

Kicked call. Not a great T. That's not what this thread is about though.

[QUOTE=TheOracle;889298You sound bitter about your T deal. It happens. Keep doing what you do, and if it is meant to be, you'll ascend and prove the coach wrong.[/QUOTE]

Just because I adamantly believe that something is wrong does not make me bitter. I am not bitter towards anyone about it — not the coach nor the coordinator ... It's simply the system and what is accepted that needs to be changed.

And I appreciate the pep talk, but I took a year off from officiating last year ... Which turned into two this year. Focused on other things now, so I don't really see myself going back to it — too much of a headache.

But I do think that your statement about ascending if you keep doing the right things is true ... It's just going to happen elsewhere for me than officiating. Well, on the court anyway.

And there you have it — you are choosing to believe that Ed is lying. Who knows why. Maybe you have a vendetta against him??? It sure sounds like you are not a fan.

You are choosing to believe an anonymous, likely disgruntled, source who's account contradicts what Rush has said. The Pac-12 did its own investigation, interviewed EVERYBODY, and got the story of what really happened — a joke that was not targeted at ANYONE, but that was about bench decorum in general. That is also what Ed said in his interview, which was too late to sway any public opinion since the anonymous source's version has already been out for days.

I was also personally told by someone in the Pac-12 office that the statement was NOT repeated twice ... Another mad up lie either by the source or the sports media.

Obviously people are going to choose to believe what they want. When fans and coaches and sports writers believe the worst about officials, I expect it. When officials do the same, I'm disappointed.

Ed Rush is 72 years old and has made huge contributions to officiating — certainly more than anyone on this board. He assisted with training for the PAC-12 for the past 2-3 years before being the coordinator ... Simply trying to help better officials. Through a career as an NBA official, then coordinator of NBA officials, then coordinator of the Pac-12 the only bad things the media can say about him are these recent comments, which were completely perverted from the truth, and a 10+ year old remark from Mark Cuban about Dairy Queen.

That someone could be maligned so quickly in the sports media based on a single anonymous source is frightening. (Do you think they would EVER do that to a coach?!) ... That officials buy into the spin right along with everyone else, is disappointing.

ESPN: Ed Rush interview
 

ESPN is advertising that it will air an interview with Ed Rush tomorrow.

I would have posted this in the previous thread about him and the PAC12, but some mod closed it. I don't see why. There was good discussion taking place and no one had posted improperly. Re-open it and move this post there!

I had closed it as I thought it had run its course. Consider it open.