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

"WOW!" is all I have to say about this article:

Pac-12 head of officials investigated for targeting Arizona's Sean Miller - CBSSports.com

Looks like the New Orleans Saints aren't the only ones to place "bounties" on people....:)

I am a Arizona alum, and have spent quite a bit of time talking on the Arizona hoops board about that entire debacle during the UCLA, and trying to explain why that T might have been given under those circumstances, and that, no there isn't any conspiracy or ulterior motive to "get" Miller just because he got a critical T at a very odd point in the game.

Now I just look like an idiot.

Well unless he gave the official in question the money or the trip, I really do not see the big deal.

And based on what I saw, Miller went nuts and got popped. That is a normal every day of the week call that I have seen a lot this year and he was worse than the other incidents.

Peace

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.

Yeah, it matters not whether he was joking or serious. Does every official who heard him (and his hoping tog et mroe games from him in the future) know he was joking?

Was this one of those "HAha, I am totally joking. Exept not really" kind of jokes?

I am kind of amazed a supervisor would say something like this, if for no other reason than if the coach in question does then get a T, it calls the legitimacy into question.

And of course the T in question was very...odd. And led to Miller going off in a press conference (which he has never done). And then the head of the Pac-12 fined Scott $25k as a result, which has never been done.

All this, and then we find out that before the game the supervisor of officials "jokingly" told his officials to get Miller?

Yikes, that is definitely not good.

Turnover sparks Sean Miller technical foul - pac-12.com

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=N2ZXU3YTouJeK4-zPrw6giQUqKyFot5r&playerBrandingId=88290922e1bd439 e9c78d992872b3dd3&width=960&deepLinkEmbedCode=N2ZX U3YTouJeK4-zPrw6giQUqKyFot5r&height=540"></script>

Sounds like someone isn't happy with their assignments.

Bingo

Ed Rush Targeting A Coach?
 

Report: Pac-12 head of officials targeted Arizona coach

This certainly doesn't sound good.

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

About the only time I've seen officials "get in trouble," is when they run their mouth and the wrong person overhears. The running of the mouth is generally accompanied by a fairly large ego. Sounds like this phenomenon applies to supervisors too. Hard to tell if Ed Rush really thinks this situation is really going to go away (we're moving on) or if he is just praying that it will.

Good grief.

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

It obviously was a joke, but a joke that mostly officials would understand. How often do we joke or brag about giving a coach a T and we either never give the T or we joke about how it was we gave the T in the first place. I think where he made the mistake was that he felt no one would go to the press. Well everything in on video, tape and what you say in private company will be mentioned in public (or has the potential).

Peace

I don't think there is any problem with a supervisor telling his staff they need to take care of a problem.

I think there is a problem when the message seems to be that they should be looking to run the guy, even if he isn't a problem in this particular game.

"54 tends to arm bar when the ball comes in - let's watch that and call it if it happens again" is very different from "Hey, lets ring up 54 next time we get any kind of chance at all, because I am pissed that you guys didn't call him for the arm bar before".

And what Rush said sounds a lot more like the latter than the former. And I don't think that is ok at all.

If Rush had a problem with Miller, it should be "Here are three examples in the last month where I think Miller should have been given a T. You guys are not taking care of this, and I expect that if something like this happens again, you WILL take care of it".

It should not be personal, ever. And "I will give you $5,000 if you run Miller!" sounds pretty damn personal.

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 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.

1. I'd like to see video of the situation that got him the T before I cede the point that his outburst was minor.
2. It sounds very much like it was not the first time he should have been given one. Sometimes, ABS can accumulate over a few games. Should it? No, but it happens.
3. Even if it was minor, it could have been ABS from that game. I'd have to see that.

It was such a funny joke, that after "telling" it in the meeting on Thr., Rush "told the same joke" on Friday...hmmm.

Yea, sure...it was a joke.

Wonder if Rush will think it's a joke when the PAC-12 commish tells him he's fired.

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.

The PAC 12 has conducted its investigation and Rush has not been fired....yet. Now the story has gone national (ESPN this morning).

Comments were unacceptable. The cash and trip were hyperbole sure, but the meaning wasn't. It takes officials out of the role off unbiased arbiter to one that is a biased enforcer of a vendetta.

Someone asked how one can rise to such a position with this kind of arrogance or attitude. It should be noted he did not rise to this position. He was lowered to it.

That said, I have no issue with the "you guys aren't handling your business - you need to handle it if he gets out of line again" approach. I have huge issue with the way THIS issue was handled. After the Doneghy mess, this only puts us all in a worse light.

I heard the ESPN report this morning....first time I had heard about this situation.

Ed Rush came and spoke to my officials group several years ago, when he was supervisor for the NBA. Nice guy, good speaker. He also made some references to players and coaches in the NBA at that time that were considered PITA and how the officials would "handle" them...everybody in the room knew it was in jest and funny. Just something officials do amongst themselves.

What pisses me off is that the "integrity of the officials" is being called into question. We get Sean Miller on TV saying "All I said was "He touched the ball" and I get a T for that..." We don't get to hear the officials side of the story and we won't ever get to.

Just heard on Dan Patrick, talking to Wichita State coach. Coach thinks he should be gone.

They are also talking about the targeting of coaches/players by some officials.

This train is picking up speed.

And everyone who ever had a grudge against Rush, or any other official, is going to come out with their own conspiracy theory about how the officials are out to get them.

For the record, this is why I never buy any conspiracy theory. Someone will always be disgruntled and speak out.

Easy. There are coaches in conferences that act up and officials let is slide because they feel that giving a T would hurt them professionally because of who he is and the school he comes from. I did see Arizona games several times this year and Miller does rant a lot and probably after several situations officials were asked about his behavior. I bet this was just a long line of stuff where Rush felt officials were giving him a pass. Remember NBA guys were never afraid to T up a coach and even a player. I am not going to say Miller was worse than other coaches in that league, but I can understand why Rush would feel that the officials were not doing their job.

Peace

Then he needs to learn how to communicate. First, the conference championship is not the time to suddenly get religion. Second, words matter.

I had a high school assignor tell me before a game a couple of years ago that if there were any problems we were to deal with it and he would back us completely. My take from what he said (this was at halftime of the the JV game, when I had just arrived for the varsity game) was that he had complaints that some officials were not taking care of business and he wanted to say it loud and clear that he had our back. There was nothing in his statement, tone or mannerism that anyone could take as anything against any coach or player.

This year, I heard of an assignor tell an AD that he had complaints about a coach from several officials. The AD said if the coach is such a problem, then how come he has not received one technical foul? When I shared this story with some officials who work that league, at least one said that was accurate: that he had not issued a T in one game where it was probably warranted. Now...there was never a conversation, memo or anything else to officials that said: this coach is a problem, deal with it. But if the assignor is hearing these reports (and maybe even observing the behavior himself), then he should be making clear to his officials of his expectations. If that is all Ed Rush was doing, that is correct. But timing, location, tone and words matter. From what I have read (and I will accept that it was supposed to be a "joke"), he still failed on virtually every one of those counts.

The memos I saw this season from the NCAA and from my college assignors about bench decorum and dealing with coaches were not echoed by any high school assignor. I know some officials say they are proud they have not called a T in many years; others almost brag about how many they call. If there is a level of expectation from our assignors, then I say they need to be able to tell us that.

So you are telling me you have never been with a group of officials and no one in that meeting ever made a comment about a coach or player or school?

I know I have been in that situation and never took those situations that seriously. And he could have communicated this better, but obviously someone went to the press (and did not want to be identified) by telling what happened in the room.

No one prior to this incident was claiming Arizona was targeted in any way or that there was some conspiracy about a T or the actions in that game. The press conference after the game in the Pac-12 Tournament was a typical coach complaining what happened in the game like you saw with the Baylor Coach. Miller tried to act like he did not curse so that was the reason he should not have gotten the T. And if no money or trips were included in the comments I seriously doubt we would know this even took place.

Peace

Of course I have been with that group of officials. Some coaches are "known" to be problems and officials do talk about them...and what the coach, said, did, etc. and how that was dealt with. I find this helpful in my preparation for any game.

But there is a big difference between talk amongst officials and a talk (some would say "instruction") from a supervisor/assignor.

Fellas - the facts are simple:

- Ed Rush, in a meeting on Thr. of the conference tournament, told game officials he would pay $5,000 or give them a trip to Cancun to anyone who "rang him up" or "ran him".
- Ed Rush said the same thing in a meeting the next day, Friday.
- On Friday, one official (who was present in BOTH meetings) assessed a T to the very same coach (AFTER an incorrect call went against Arizona).
- Per a PAC-12 official, the game official who assessed the T doesn't normally give people a T (in fact he worked only 11 games this yr w/ a T; which ranks him tied for 144th nationally).
- The ONLY T that Miller got during the year was in this game.

When you think about it, here's where it gets even more suspicious.

During conference tournaments, aren't players and coaches even more emotional than during the regular season? The officials that are selected to work these games not only get plays right, but more importantly, have the ability to manage players/coaches during incredibly tense situations.

During the BCS conference tournaments this year (PAC 12, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC, & Big East), do you know how many times a coach was assessed a T?.....

TWICE: Arizona's Miller and UCLA's Howland (vs Oregon in the Champ. Game).

During the 68 total tournament games played, some of the most volatile and boisterous coaches in America weren't penalized...yet a guy who had not received 1 T all season gets one AFTER the Supervisor specifically targets him in a meeting - not once but TWICE?

You're right....it WAS a joke after all.

Not if the supervisor has seen behavior over and over again and officials were allowing this coach more leeway than anyone else. We must remember that Arizona was probably on national TV more than anyone else in that league and unlike many of our games, ever game probably has an evaluator or someone that reviews the games, so it is possible that Rush was tired of how officials were not doing their jobs. How often do we talk on this site about how we cannot believe an coach was not T'd or player's action were not penalized? Rush unlike us is the supervisor and he has the right to tell his staff to do their job. That does not mean that the way he communicated that was not over the top, but it does appear to me he was joking. Unless we have some evidence he paid that official any money or trip then it obviously was hyperbole to make a point. I have no problem if that point had the message sent. And we still do not know what Miller did or did not do in that situation.

Peace

Regardless of the bad timing and wrong environment to make such a "joke", wouldn't a SUPERVISOR need to have a better sense of how his "joke" was going to be interpreted? I can understand a couple staff officials kidding around about collecting a reward...but the SUPERVISOR??? Pretty astounding to me.

Perception is reality. I think twocentsworth is dead-on when he ties everything together. That is how a lot of the public will see it and how ESPN will portray it. Ed Rush has backed himself into a corner.

It was a dumb comment. In this day and age, dumb comments don't die. This is going to be fun to watch.

On a related note, this wouldn't have happened if officials (at all levels, not just the NCAA) would learn to penalize inappropriate bench conduct.

"I didn't see it..." "my partner was closer..." "It didn't fit the game...." "It wouldn't have made the game better..." "The coach was on the other end of the floor when he was berating us...." "I've seen worse..." "He didn't say any swear words..." "I prefer to manage the situation instead of giving a T...."

All excuses to not have the guts to take care of business.

I predict the first T in the PAC-10 will go like this:
Coach sees a call he feels is questionable
Coach asks official if Rush paid him to make that call
Coach gets T
Coach asks how much Rush paid him to give the T
Assistant Coach takes over coaching duties the rest of the night.

Every close or 'controversial' play made by officials supervised by Rush will now be endlessly, and some would argue appropriately, by everyone. How does that not harm officiating?

Or my favorite: Man, that coach is getting on my nerves. Someone should T him.

Let us not go on about what the public thinks. Many of the public felt the NFL had no right to penalize the Saints for their actions either. I put little stock in what the public thinks on an issue where they never have direct knowledge of how a profession works.

Peace

agree with this 100%

I will use the term "interesting," vice "fun" for how I will watch in unfold. I will take no pleasure in it, regardless of how it turns out. Makes me answer more questions at work......hey, what do you think of.........

Unfortunately, public perception IS what matters. If the public is aware of this, and it is being discussed nationally, it hurts the credibility of not only PAC 12 officials, but officials in general. The correlation is similar to the Donaughy betting scandal. The NBA sought to distance itself as far as possible from it. If the public believes that officials are being directed to target individuals that is their reality. If they think officials are affecting the games, they will stop going.

Rush planted a seed that Miller should get a TF. The reward was probably the only thing that might have been a joke. In the end, Miller got a TF, he predisposed the officials (put a hair trigger on the game) about a specific individual.

Of course had this information not been "leaked" we would not even know about it.

Miller's T was an irrelevant news story until Rush's comments came out. It's Rush's fault if Pac-12 officials take an intergrity hit.

It matters to a point. It is not the end all be all of anything.

So you have never been told by anyone that a specific behavior is to be penalized? Better yet you have never heard a coach or specific situation described as something that needs to be addressed?

You never in a pre-game talked about the antics of the coaches or a specific coach as it relates to the game in question?

Peace

My point was that we will never know the whole story of why the T was issued. All we have is Miller's comments about what he said....we don't know what he may have left out or what he did or said that earned the T.

This story comes out and now he can play the "they're out to get me" card, when the T may have been rightly deserved.

If this official was one that didn't routinely issue T's, doesn't that make it seem like this T was earned? That's my take and I will support the officials.

Ill support the official too.

It doesn't surprise me that the majority here support the official or even Rush.

What does surprise me is the lack of understanding that our profession has taken a hit over this. THAT is what is wrong with what Rush said.

I think that speaks to BNR's point. Rush's comments make it seem just as likely that the official was compelled to give the T against Miller and it may not have been earned.

I don't really have an issue with Rush's comments in and of themselves but in this day and age you just can't make those comments at a meeting like that with so many ears. And it really does compromise the integrity of the officials in many people's views and, like it or not, that has some consequences. At the end of the day, I don't think Rush will, or necessarily, should survive this.

But the real issue I have is with whatever official leaked what was said in the meeting. As others mentioned it sounds like someone wasn't happy with their schedule or had some other axe to grind. But the comments were made and now that they're out there.......I don't know. I think they will end up costing Rush his job here. It's unfortunate but that's how it goes some times.

When one of the top 3 officials in the conference quits citing "personal differences with the direction of the officiating program in the Pac-12" prior to this incident going public, and anonymous sources spilling the beans to the media regarding Rush being a "bully", the organization is in big trouble not from just public perception, but from within as well. Rush tried to change the culture too quickly, and with his general lack of people skills, screwed himself. If an official made that comment? They'd be gone. Even worse from a supervisor. Integrity and character is defined by what you do when nobody is looking. Well, a disgruntled person pulled the curtain back on Ed Rush. So be it.

Damage Control
 

Email from Rush's son, Ed, Jr.:

Here at the Court Club, we have received several messages in regard to the recent news stories surrounding (and in support of) Ed T. Rush Sr.

In an effort to clear the air ... and to be open with our members, I thought it would be appropriate to address you directly to dispel any rumors and clear any doubt.

Here is the official report from Pac-12 conference commissioner Larry Scott,

"I can confirm that following the Pac-12 Men's Basketball Tournament, we received a complaint that Pac-12 Coordinator of Officials Ed Rush offered game officials inappropriate incentives for being stricter with Pac-12 coaches," Commissioner Scott said on Monday.

"I consider the integrity of our officiating program to be of the highest importance and immediately ordered a review of the matter. Based on the review, we have concluded that while Rush made inappropriate comments that he now regrets during internal meetings that referenced rewards, he made the comments in jest and the officials in the room realized they were not serious offers. Following our review, we have discussed the matter with Rush, taken steps to ensure it does not happen again, and communicated our findings to all of our officials."

You can read the entire post on the PAC-12 website:
Pac-12 commissioner responds to officiating complaint > Pac-12 Conference > Basketball (M)

In other words, the comments were not intended to be serious. Nor were they taken as serious. The Pac-12 did not take them as serious. And nor should you.

In retrospect, having to do it over again, would Ed Rush Sr. have made those comments?

Of course not.

But then again as officials, we all make hundreds of comments a year in the locker room, which are never intended for the ear of the public media.

All I recommend is to keep a clear mind, think independently, and perhaps even place yourself in the situation.

Last, you should always remember that officials are together on everything that happens in the public eye. A bad call or a mis-spoken word can often bring a level of undeserved of discredit to the officiating community at large. These are things you will hear from the sidelines and from the stands.

How you react this situation will be your decision...and I am confident that you will let integrity be your guide.

As such, I encourage you to be in support of your fellow colleagues and to be circumspect when thinking through allegations from the nameless and anonymous.

Best,
Ed Rush Jr.

P.S. This letter was written by Ed Rush Jr, not Ed Rush Sr.
It was my initiative and was written by me alone. So, if
anyone other than a Court Club member is reading this (i.e.
anyone from the media), you do not have my permission to use
this article, nor to mistakenly quote Ed Rush Sr. from of this article.
We have the same name, but mine ends in "Jr." so be sure to
get that straight.

P.P.S. To our many Court Club members who have responded
with phone calls, letters, and texts of support, I offer my
sincerest thanks. You are why we do what we do...and I
appreciate you all more than you know.

Officiating basketball is not a profession for most, if not all, of the posters here. Since we do not make a living doing this it is an avocation. More importantly, this incident will have little to no impact on any of us as officials. The people in the stands already have their minds made up about the overall quality and integrity of officials before they walk into the gym. The people (fans, coaches, adminstrators, and players) involved in the game that are going to be problems to deal were going to be jackasses whether or not this incident ever came to light.

My point exactly

I do not think supporting the officials or not is the point. I just know in experience I have had that things are said behind closed doors and the public would be surprised if they heard those comments.

I also do not think the profession has not taken any more of a hit than anything else. Just go to a fan site and you would see a lot worse said about official for things that are assumed and never public when it comes to an accusation of a conspiracy. There are people in this world that will think everyone is out to get them or has some conspiracy going on and it will involve politicians, the media or officials. I do not think anything has been damaged by this anymore than other things.

Peace

VaTerp, are you a Court Club member?

Whatever your opinion on this, I think we ALL can agree that Ed Rush forgot the three forms of communication:

1) Telephone
2) Telefax
3) Tell-a-ref


:)

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Peace

Sean Miller made his comments about the T right after the game. No one gave it a 2nd thought other then a couple officials on Facebook who thought the T didn't fit the game.

No one would be thinking about this T on April 2nd if not for Rush's comments. What's this have to do with "supporting the officials"? Support the officials all you want. But don't blame any integrity hits on Miller, he didn't create the situation that's in the news. Ed Rush and an anonymous official did that. So a former official and a current official are to blame for any "intergrity" problems that will result from this story.

An interesting article in AZ

Here in PAC 12 country, this is all over the talk-show circuit. When the PAC 12 has a $1.2b TV contract, the ramnifications are significant

Need clearer rules on what should be called a technical
 

Obviously, Ed Rush's comments were ill-advised and will likely cost him his job. I don't think he intended to pay any official for giving Miller a technical.

If Rush deemed it necessary, I do think it was appropriate for him to tell the officials to use the technical foul as a tool to manage the game and to point out examples of times when the officials should have given a coach a technical foul. I think it would also be appropriate for Rush to remind the officials that game management is an important component of their evaluation.

In my opinion, the NFHS rulebook (I don't have the NCAA rulebook) isn't clear enough on what deserves a technical. It would be helpful if there were a clear statement that a coach may only question specific calls and a direct technical foul should be awarded to any coach that uses a curse word when talking to an official, questions the integrity of the official, or questions the competency of the official.

As it is, a lot of coaches seem to think they can say or do anything as long as they avoid one of the magic words.

I gave two technical fouls this year - one to a JVB coach who didn't heed warnings when repeatedly questioning why so many fouls were being called on his team that was pressing full court - and one to a HS rec coach who wouldn't get off the floor after being told not to. Neither coach thought they deserved it because they didn't curse at me.

If you look at the picture with this link. Miller looks totally surprised that he was getting a T. The look on his face says a lot. Just sayin.

Article from ESPN. PAC 12 commish saying Rush shouldn't be fired.

And what does that mean? He probably was surprised because he got away with other stuff and now he got popped.

There can be several things in place and be true at the very same time. He could have been targeted and he could have gotten a warranted T. These are not mutually exclusive situations automatically.

Peace

If he was told not to get off the floor, and then he didn't, wasn't he just following instructions?:D

Maybe not "damaged", but you can bet EVERY coach from D1 down to U10 AAU is going to think "Those guys have it in for me" (just like they did for the Arizona coach) every time he/she gets rung up for acting like a jacka$$.

In some sense, this is worse than the Donaghy saga because he was involved with organized crime and betting...two concepts that were pretty unlikely and far removed from a high school game. "Targeting" a coach for inappropriate behavior is a concept that almost every HS coach can own and relate to. Next season should be interesting.

Yup.

I was a varsity asst coach for 2 years for a guy who has been a very successful HS coach and who I consider a friend and still talk to on a regular basis.

I went to watch one of his games last year and afterwards we were talking about a number of things, including the officiating. He swore up and down that one of the officials "had it in for him" and has had something against him for years. I tried to explain that officials don't really think or operate like that but he was convinced.

A situation like this gives validity to those claims. Of course some coaches are going to think like that regardless but we shouldn't be doing things on are end that lend any credence to this notion. And unfortunately that's what Rush did here.

You're right....I whacked him after twice telling him to get off the court and he failed to...Actually, I probably would have had more patience had he not complained about an obvious foul with his team leading 16-4.

This was addressed by the NCAA in some detail this year. This is the instruction women's officials were given. (I thought this was excellent advice and should be mirrored by the NFHS.)

Bench Decorum
Guidelines (to be added to the Appendix in the Rules Book):
Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Coaches and bench personnel are expected to adhere to the specific rules set forth in Rule 10-4. Repeated or prolonged violations of these rules should result in a technical foul being assessed against the coach or other bench personnel. More egregious conduct violations, while inside or outside the coaching box, should be properly and consistently penalized with a technical foul without warning.

Examples of egregious conduct violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Comments directed at or referring to any game official that question the integrity of an official (i.e., repeated references to the number of fouls called against each team; suggesting an official is “cheating” a team, etc.).
2. Profane, vulgar, threatening, or derogatory remark s or personal comments relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation directed at or referring to any game official or opposing player/bench personnel.
3. Prolonged, negative responses to a call/no-call which is disrespectful or un-professional and includes, but is not limited to: thrashing the arms in disgust, dramatizing contact by re-enacting the play, or running or jumping in disbelief over a call/non-call.
4. A negative response to a call/no-call including, but not limited to, approaching/charging an official in a hostile, aggressive or otherwise threatening manner, emphatically removing one's coat in response to a call/no-call or throwing equipment or clothing on to the floor.
5. Continual criticism during a game regarding the same incident after warning by an official. Officials should permit certain behavior by the head coach who engages in spontaneous reactions to officiating calls and non-calls provided the coach remains in the coaching box and the reaction is not prolonged, profane, vulgar, or threatening. At the official’s discretion, recurring spontaneous reactions by the head coach may result in a warning with subsequent incidents resulting in a technical foul. When complaints become more public or the attacks personal to the official, there should be less discretion exercised by the official.

That is a great list. Well thought out and specific...and that's why you won't see anything like it coming from the Fed. They prefer to keep the concept abstract and nebulous...thus forcing the onus down to the local official to define unsportsmanlike behavior...if it doesn't have to do with tobacco, taunting, or profanity...we're pretty much on our own to define it.

I like it well enough I'm going to incorporate it into my high school game.

I fixed that for you.

I attend a camp every single year that is a college camp for D2 and every year with college officials there are coaches thrown out of a game at an AAU tournament. And the coaches often do not know they are dealing with experienced officials and do not realize we are all not from the same place. So what else is new?

This will not even last until the summer in media coverage.

Peace

If coaches think we hold grudges, you'd think they'd behave themselves better.

Yep. You do not have to worry about a grudge when you behave professionally and sportsmanlike.

Peace

Nevermind that they also don't define "profanity" and everyone's line there differs as well.

Not really. That's sort of the point of a grudge. A coach could slap his hands together after a whistle because his player did something stupid. The official thinks he's smacking his hands because he didn't like the call. If they have a grudge, they are giving the T.
Unless you propose coaches just sit there and have no reaction to plays from their team......:D

If a coach sits and is very respectful, does not yell or asks reasonable questions every game, then it would be hard for me or anyone to develop an grudge against you in the first place. I know several coaches that are like that and when they do question a call, they are like EF Hutton when they speak.

And some people would feel that doing what you described as over the top and should be T'd in the first place. Again, you do not have to worry about it if you act appropriately. I see too many coaches that hardly say a word to officials good or bad and no one seems to have a grudge or even mentions them as a problem.

Peace

Do coaches really think grudges come from something like this? I find that hard to believe.

Honestly, I wonder why it's acceptable for coaches to yell at (kick dirt on, etc) referees at all. Does it EVER get a call changed? HELL no. Does it possibly make things WORSE for the coach in the long run? Probably. Seems a rather pointless activity to me, and one that all sports would benefit from getting out of the game.

Probably not. But what may be appropriate to one may not be appropriate to others. Officials are people, and some have lower threshholds then others.

For a T, certainly. And this might be why some coaches think there's a grudge, if I call a T for less than he got away with last week with another official.

My point is, if coaches really thought we held grudges, they should behave as if we might. They don't, so I don't think they really think that. I think they know better, and would rather say the ref had a grudge than admit he'd been getting away with poor sportsmanship until he ran into the official ready to take care of it.

I have had coaches that act just like that, tell partners I do not like them (usually a bad coach of a bad team), then get every call from me the next time. So I love it when coaches actually think I care about them. Most of them will not be around long enough or at best I will get them when they have no control I will show up, like post season or a tournament.

Peace

This reminds me of a thread we had a while ago where we discussed professionalism by officials and professionalism by coaches.

One poster said as officials we always have to be aware of what we say b/c it can come back to bite us in the a$$. He said we have to watch what we say even when we're in the locker room b/c you never know who is on the other side of the door. Another poster derided his position as ridiculous and nothing ever said in that kind of environment would ever have any repercussions.

Well guess that poster wasn't so ridiculous after all.

No problem with what Ed Rush said. Now did the official who called the T get the money or trip? I would take the money. I hope he did. Its no difference than other officials at the half talking about certain plays and to watch out for certain players who may be too aggressive etc. So they just T Sean Miller when it was appropriate. Much to do about nothing.

Interesting. I completely disagree with every statement in this post. Are you actually an official? Or did you just post this nonsense to see the reaction?

You are kidding right?

There is a big difference between saying, "this coach has done things that should have been T'd up this season" and "the first guy to T him gets a trip to Hawaii." C'mon man!:rolleyes:

I agree Hawaii is over the top. Cancun would be more reasonable. Ha;)

Most absurd thing I have read on this board.

I'd be shocked if Rush is back in the pac-12 next year despite this support
Larry Scott, Pac-12 commissioner, backs Ed Rush regarding controversy with Sean Miller - ESPN


I hate douche-bag coaches, owners, etc but come on people there is absolutely no way that this guy should be the pac-12 coordinator of officials. He's had his time, move on.

Frankly, I hope they back him for two reasons.

1. A little push-back against coach power at that level is a good thing.
2. Not rewarding the poor official who didn't get scheduled that championship game and decided he just couldn't keep this to himself.

Rush made a mistake, but this shouldn't be a career ender like working for the mob.

Besides, I can think of worse things than coaches thinking an official might hold a grudge over previously unaddressed tantrums.

Friendly reminder to refrain from personal attacks. Remember, kindlier gentlier forum and all that.

got a little chuckle from this comic- Pearls Before Swine

Pearls Before Swine Comic Strip, March 28, 2013 on GoComics.com

Agree 100% but afraid that media frenzy and bloggers and tweeters could lead to Ed being taken down

Not even close to the most absurd thing I've read on the board.

Not even close!!!

Peace

Ok, ok, my bad.