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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

JRut, we all know officials who say "i owe him one" or "i've got one in my pocket for him next time I see him" or something to that effect. We don't always know if they are serious or not.

It's one thing for a single official to say that/think that. It's SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when the Supervisor of Officials makes specific comments about a specific coach and then, serious or not, ties a financial "reward" to that statement. Of course we can't know for sure if he was serious or not.

BUT THEN IT RISES TO ANOTHER LEVEL when the coach in question is "wacked" at a critical juncture of the game by an official who was in the meeting and doesn't give very many T's (per statsheet.com, he worked 11 games this year in which a T was issued (which puts him outside the TOP 100 officials in T's given this year) - it doesn't track which official called a T).

I would think a Supervisor of Officials would have a hard time surviving an incident like this with his job secure.

I am not defending the comment and without the comment there would be hardly a question of the T at all other than on fanboy sites. I can see a supervisor saying that "We need to address the conduct of (fill in the blank) coach." I can see that taking place even in a crowded room. But when you ask to pay off someone if they do something, then you lose credibility when that comment gets out. And I am not going to take Miller's take on what he said or did not say. Now maybe the supervisor put the conduct of Miller in the head of the officials, but that does not mean he was not warranted to be penalized. Miller plays the "I did not curse" game that coaches play as if that is the reason they get T'd up.

I T'd up an assistant coach this past season and the head coach told the tournament director that the person I T'd up was, "A disciple of Christ" as a suggestion how nice this guy was and that basically he did nothing wrong (Yes that is what he told him). When I told other officials what happened to them it was a no-brainer T to them. And this was a Catholic school and conference where the F-word is used as an adjative in normal conversation on any given Friday night. And Miller's reaction was no different than other coaches and I doubt he was a choir boy and said nothing at all.

I am sure there were multiple reports over the year of Miller's behavior and no one was addressing his behavior and in a colorful way this was addressed by the Rush. Heck you are from this state and after the 1A-2A weekend, the adminstrator told a bigger room of coaches, players and officials during the 3A-4A State Finals, "For those that feel they need a warning before given a technical foul, consider this your warning." And all of that was in relation to what happen in the 2A game and how the state felt the officials did not take care of business appropriately in their opinion. I think Rush should have said something like this rather than offering a payout with his comments.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But when you ask to pay off someone if they do something, then you lose credibility when that comment gets out.

There it is. What confuses me is how someone gets to such a lead role without knowing this. Especially in this day and age when everything is taken too seriously (sadly, IMO), don't people know there are some things you can't joke about?

And this is coming from an Arizona detractor. Not sure how old Berkut is, but I'm still holding a grudge from the '86 CWS. (Maine had a 7-0 lead on Arizona in the series opener, but lost 8-7 on a walk-off homer in the bottom of the ninth, 3-2 count. Arizona won the national championship. Maine hasn't been to the CWS since.)

[Adam]

Everyone in the room knew he was joking.

One guy realized his mommy can't help him get better games, so he went to a reporter (or league official) instead.

Was the joke in poor taste and ill-advised? Sure. But it was a joke.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Everyone in the room knew he was joking.

One guy realized his mommy can't help him get better games, so he went to a reporter (or league official) instead.

Was the joke in poor taste and ill-advised? Sure. But it was a joke.

I agree.

Peace

[The_Rookie]

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

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.
...(

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Adam

Everyone in the room knew he was joking.

One guy realized his mommy can't help him get better games, so he went to a reporter (or league official) instead.

Was the joke in poor taste and ill-advised? Sure. But it was a joke.

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.”

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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.

[ballgame99]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Adam

Everyone in the room knew he was joking.

One guy realized his mommy can't help him get better games, so he went to a reporter (or league official) instead.

Was the joke in poor taste and ill-advised? Sure. But it was a joke.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.