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

[zebraman]

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

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zebraman

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

Ed Rush resigns as Pac-12's head of officials | College Sports | The Seattle Times

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

[JRutledge]

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

[Judtech]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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

[mutantducky]

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

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

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I wasn't out of the box

Except he was.

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

Originally Posted by Berkut

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

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.

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

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.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not sure I have ever heard why he got the T

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

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

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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