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

[JetMetFan]

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."

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

"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."

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

"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."

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.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

You could not have possibly interpreted this more incorrectly.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.