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

[twocentsworth]

"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....

[Berkut]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[twocentsworth]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[blindzebra]

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

[tjones1]

Sounds like someone isn't happy with their assignments.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Sounds like someone isn't happy with their assignments.

Bingo

[grunewar]

Report: Pac-12 head of officials targeted Arizona coach

This certainly doesn't sound good.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

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

[zebraman]

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.

[Adam]

Good grief.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But when you ask to pay off someone if they do something, then you lose credibility when that comment gets out.

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.)

[Adam]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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