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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

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

I wish, then I would make more an hour.

Peace

[Brad]

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.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

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

[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.

[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

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...

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.