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

[Berkut]

I don't think anyone doesn't think Rush was joking in that Irving won't be checking his bank account for a $5,000 deposit.

I think the officials in that room were quite certain the message being sent behind the joke ("If you get the chance, you damn well better bang or run Miller") was no joke.

Put it all together - Rush is in there slamming chairs around, throwing things, generally having a tantrum. He is making it clear that he is PISSED.

And then he specifically mentions Miller by name, and "jokes" about a bounty on him.

If *I* was the official in the room, I think I would have gotten the message loud and clear. If Miller steps out of line even a hair, and you don't ring him, you can say goodbye to your schedule next year.

[MD Longhorn]

Sounds like Rush's opinion of his demeanor during this portion of the meeting, and the 10 other guys perception of his demeanor differ by about 180 degrees.

As does the question regarding whether he called out the coach by name or not.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sounds like Rush's opinion of his demeanor during this portion of the meeting, and the 10 other guys perception of his demeanor differ by about 180 degrees.

As does the question regarding whether he called out the coach by name or not.

THe ESPN article quotes officials who were in the room who said Rush did in fact specifically mention Miller, and only Miller:

Officials confirmed that Rush made the "joke" twice during the Pac-12 tournament on Thursday in a meeting and then again Friday after the Arizona-UCLA game when Miller was given a technical on a double-dribble call. The technical foul ended up being the difference in the game with UCLA beating Arizona by two. Miller was then fined $25,000 for his behavior, but Pac-12 officials say it had to do with Miller being warned.

"Ed Rush doesn't joke," said one official. "To say it was a joke is absolutely not true. If he meant it in jest, then he had time to correct it the second day and he didn't. And the only coach he mentioned was Sean Miller."

Officials confirmed that Rush went into the meeting before the UCLA-Arizona game and was banging a chair up an down, demanding the officials perform at a higher level. And then, according to the officials, Rush hurled a boxed lunch against the wall after the game, nearly hitting one of the officials in the head.

[BayStateRef]

Wow. So much to digest. And so much to discuss -- for a level (D-1) that few of us will see. And yet it touches us because we see ourselves in those officials, see our assignors in Ed Rush and see every coach we encounter in Arizona's Sean Miller.

So often on this forum, when anyone (fans, coach, media, other official) discusses in detail a call or non-call, many of us will say something like: "That is only one side. I'd like to hear that official's side."

Yet we rarely get to hear that side. The media doesn't hear it. The fans do not hear it. The coaches do not hear it. It might go into an internal report to a league, an assignor or a state office...but that's it. Most associations have a code or a rule that forbids officials from discussing their actions/calls/decisions in public. Only at the highest level (professional) do the leagues allow one person from the crew to speak about controversial calls. John Adams of the NCAA has gone on TV to explain calls/rulings (acting as sort of spokesman for the crew) in a few instances, but that is usually only at tournament time. We don't see or hear that viewpoint very often. At the NCAA level, we get videos that show crew errors -- not to point out flaws in the crew, but to re-enforce rules or points of emphasis for the rest of us -- an ongoing education process that is designed to make us better officials.

It is no accident that every network is trying to find another Mike Pereira, the Fox Sports analyst and ex-NFL official who is a huge hit as a commentator on rulings (made and missed.)

We hurt ourselves as officials with our code of silence. For those who keep referring to the original CBSSports report and its "anonymous source," I don't think you fully understand how the media works. This source is not anonymous to the reporter -- who has made a decision this person is to be trusted and "protected." If this source does not talk to the reporter, we do not know any of this.

I am not interested in the big picture politics behind the Big 12 and Ed Rush. But I do understand the many reasons this has taken hold. There are lessons for all of us in this.