Trouble Bruin in the Pac-12 - & it Ain't UCLA!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Whatever your opinion on this, I think we ALL can agree that Ed Rush forgot the three forms of communication:

1) Telephone
2) Telefax
3) Tell-a-ref

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Andy

My point was that we will never know the whole story of why the T was issued. All we have is Miller's comments about what he said....we don't know what he may have left out or what he did or said that earned the T.

This story comes out and now he can play the "they're out to get me" card, when the T may have been rightly deserved.

If this official was one that didn't routinely issue T's, doesn't that make it seem like this T was earned? That's my take and I will support the officials.

Sean Miller made his comments about the T right after the game. No one gave it a 2nd thought other then a couple officials on Facebook who thought the T didn't fit the game.

No one would be thinking about this T on April 2nd if not for Rush's comments. What's this have to do with "supporting the officials"? Support the officials all you want. But don't blame any integrity hits on Miller, he didn't create the situation that's in the news. Ed Rush and an anonymous official did that. So a former official and a current official are to blame for any "intergrity" problems that will result from this story.

[icallfouls]

An interesting article in AZ

Here in PAC 12 country, this is all over the talk-show circuit. When the PAC 12 has a $1.2b TV contract, the ramnifications are significant

[JeffM]

Obviously, Ed Rush's comments were ill-advised and will likely cost him his job. I don't think he intended to pay any official for giving Miller a technical.

If Rush deemed it necessary, I do think it was appropriate for him to tell the officials to use the technical foul as a tool to manage the game and to point out examples of times when the officials should have given a coach a technical foul. I think it would also be appropriate for Rush to remind the officials that game management is an important component of their evaluation.

In my opinion, the NFHS rulebook (I don't have the NCAA rulebook) isn't clear enough on what deserves a technical. It would be helpful if there were a clear statement that a coach may only question specific calls and a direct technical foul should be awarded to any coach that uses a curse word when talking to an official, questions the integrity of the official, or questions the competency of the official.

As it is, a lot of coaches seem to think they can say or do anything as long as they avoid one of the magic words.

I gave two technical fouls this year - one to a JVB coach who didn't heed warnings when repeatedly questioning why so many fouls were being called on his team that was pressing full court - and one to a HS rec coach who wouldn't get off the floor after being told not to. Neither coach thought they deserved it because they didn't curse at me.

[OKREF]

If you look at the picture with this link. Miller looks totally surprised that he was getting a T. The look on his face says a lot. Just sayin.

[OKREF]

Article from ESPN. PAC 12 commish saying Rush shouldn't be fired.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If you look at the picture with this link. Miller looks totally surprised that he was getting a T. The look on his face says a lot. Just sayin.

And what does that mean? He probably was surprised because he got away with other stuff and now he got popped.

There can be several things in place and be true at the very same time. He could have been targeted and he could have gotten a warranted T. These are not mutually exclusive situations automatically.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JeffM

I gave two technical fouls this year - one to a JVB coach who didn't heed warnings when repeatedly questioning why so many fouls were being called on his team that was pressing full court - and one to a HS rec coach who wouldn't get off the floor after being told not to. Neither coach thought they deserved it because they didn't curse at me.

If he was told not to get off the floor, and then he didn't, wasn't he just following instructions?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also do not think the profession has not taken any more of a hit than anything else. ... I do not think anything has been damaged by this anymore than other things.

Maybe not "damaged", but you can bet EVERY coach from D1 down to U10 AAU is going to think "Those guys have it in for me" (just like they did for the Arizona coach) every time he/she gets rung up for acting like a jacka$$.

In some sense, this is worse than the Donaghy saga because he was involved with organized crime and betting...two concepts that were pretty unlikely and far removed from a high school game. "Targeting" a coach for inappropriate behavior is a concept that almost every HS coach can own and relate to. Next season should be interesting.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Maybe not "damaged", but you can bet EVERY coach from D1 down to U10 AAU is going to think "Those guys have it in for me" (just like they did for the Arizona coach) every time he/she gets rung up for acting like a jacka$$.

In some sense, this is worse than the Donaghy saga because he was involved with organized crime and betting...two concepts that were pretty unlikely and far removed from a high school game. "Targeting" a coach for inappropriate behavior is a concept that almost every HS coach can own and relate to. Next season should be interesting.

Yup.

I was a varsity asst coach for 2 years for a guy who has been a very successful HS coach and who I consider a friend and still talk to on a regular basis.

I went to watch one of his games last year and afterwards we were talking about a number of things, including the officiating. He swore up and down that one of the officials "had it in for him" and has had something against him for years. I tried to explain that officials don't really think or operate like that but he was convinced.

A situation like this gives validity to those claims. Of course some coaches are going to think like that regardless but we shouldn't be doing things on are end that lend any credence to this notion. And unfortunately that's what Rush did here.

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

If he was told not to get off the floor, and then he didn't, wasn't he just following instructions?

You're right....I whacked him after twice telling him to get off the court and he failed to...Actually, I probably would have had more patience had he not complained about an obvious foul with his team leading 16-4.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by JeffM

In my opinion, the NFHS rulebook (I don't have the NCAA rulebook) isn't clear enough on what deserves a technical. It would be helpful if there were a clear statement that a coach may only question specific calls and a direct technical foul should be awarded to any coach that uses a curse word when talking to an official, questions the integrity of the official, or questions the competency of the official.

This was addressed by the NCAA in some detail this year. This is the instruction women's officials were given. (I thought this was excellent advice and should be mirrored by the NFHS.)

Bench Decorum
Guidelines (to be added to the Appendix in the Rules Book):
Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Coaches and bench personnel are expected to adhere to the specific rules set forth in Rule 10-4. Repeated or prolonged violations of these rules should result in a technical foul being assessed against the coach or other bench personnel. More egregious conduct violations, while inside or outside the coaching box, should be properly and consistently penalized with a technical foul without warning.

Examples of egregious conduct violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Comments directed at or referring to any game official that question the integrity of an official (i.e., repeated references to the number of fouls called against each team; suggesting an official is “cheating” a team, etc.).
2. Profane, vulgar, threatening, or derogatory remark s or personal comments relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation directed at or referring to any game official or opposing player/bench personnel.
3. Prolonged, negative responses to a call/no-call which is disrespectful or un-professional and includes, but is not limited to: thrashing the arms in disgust, dramatizing contact by re-enacting the play, or running or jumping in disbelief over a call/non-call.
4. A negative response to a call/no-call including, but not limited to, approaching/charging an official in a hostile, aggressive or otherwise threatening manner, emphatically removing one's coat in response to a call/no-call or throwing equipment or clothing on to the floor.
5. Continual criticism during a game regarding the same incident after warning by an official. Officials should permit certain behavior by the head coach who engages in spontaneous reactions to officiating calls and non-calls provided the coach remains in the coaching box and the reaction is not prolonged, profane, vulgar, or threatening. At the official’s discretion, recurring spontaneous reactions by the head coach may result in a warning with subsequent incidents resulting in a technical foul. When complaints become more public or the attacks personal to the official, there should be less discretion exercised by the official.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

This was addressed by the NCAA in some detail this year. This is the instruction women's officials were given. (I thought this was excellent advice and should be mirrored by the NFHS.)

Bench Decorum
Guidelines (to be added to the Appendix in the Rules Book):
Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Coaches and bench personnel are expected to adhere to the specific rules set forth in Rule 10-4. Repeated or prolonged violations of these rules should result in a technical foul being assessed against the coach or other bench personnel. More egregious conduct violations, while inside or outside the coaching box, should be properly and consistently penalized with a technical foul without warning.

Examples of egregious conduct violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Comments directed at or referring to any game official that question the integrity of an official (i.e., repeated references to the number of fouls called against each team; suggesting an official is “cheating” a team, etc.).
2. Profane, vulgar, threatening, or derogatory remark s or personal comments relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation directed at or referring to any game official or opposing player/bench personnel.
3. Prolonged, negative responses to a call/no-call which is disrespectful or un-professional and includes, but is not limited to: thrashing the arms in disgust, dramatizing contact by re-enacting the play, or running or jumping in disbelief over a call/non-call.
4. A negative response to a call/no-call including, but not limited to, approaching/charging an official in a hostile, aggressive or otherwise threatening manner, emphatically removing one's coat in response to a call/no-call or throwing equipment or clothing on to the floor.
5. Continual criticism during a game regarding the same incident after warning by an official. Officials should permit certain behavior by the head coach who engages in spontaneous reactions to officiating calls and non-calls provided the coach remains in the coaching box and the reaction is not prolonged, profane, vulgar, or threatening. At the official’s discretion, recurring spontaneous reactions by the head coach may result in a warning with subsequent incidents resulting in a technical foul. When complaints become more public or the attacks personal to the official, there should be less discretion exercised by the official.

That is a great list. Well thought out and specific...and that's why you won't see anything like it coming from the Fed. They prefer to keep the concept abstract and nebulous...thus forcing the onus down to the local official to define unsportsmanlike behavior...if it doesn't have to do with tobacco, taunting, or profanity...we're pretty much on our own to define it.

[Adam]

I like it well enough I'm going to incorporate it into my high school game.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Whatever your opinion on this, I think we ALL can agree that Ed Rush forgot the three forms of communication:

1) Telephone
2) Telefax
3) Tell-a-woman

I fixed that for you.