Ed Rush is the head of referees in the PAC12. He offered $5000 or a trip to Cancunto any referee who gave Arizona coach Sean Miller a technical during the Pac12 basketball tournament. When caught, Rush said he was joking so I guess it was a coincidence that Michael Irving (a referee that rarely gives out technicals) gave Miller his first technical of the year for arguing a double-dribble call. It is indeed fortunate that there is no question as to the integrity of the call as Arizona lost to UCLA by two points in that semifinal game.
Recognizing that clearly everyone knew that it was a joke the Pac12 Commissioner Larry Scott supports Ed Rush recognizing that Rush (jokingly) offering a bounty was an oopsie-doopsie and just like when the burgler that robbed my house was in front of the judge, he was really sorry for the misunderstanding.
I thought that was an awfully questionable T call at the time. This certainly doesn’t cast a good light on the incident. Did Irving really think he was going to get a 5K bonus for calling that T? Doubtful. But did that “joke” put in his head that his boss was looking for a T against Miller? That seems pretty likely. Smells like some bullshit to me.
I remember the press conference with Miller after they lost. He was very confused as to why the technical was called since he merely said: “He touched the ball”, in reference to the defender (and why it shouldn’t have been called a double dribble). I thought to myself that Miller must be leaving something out from his version of the story. Apparently he wasn’t.
This is not looking good for the Pac12. Who knows, maybe even the double dribble was only called to get a rise out of Miller and “create” a technical.
The OP has a link to a Forbes story that’s reporting on something that was written in a CBS Sports story that is based on information received from “a source”.
So I think there’s still room to wonder if we know all the facts.
As far as I can find, the only thing Rush has publicly said is “Larry’s made a statement. I’m in concert with what he said. We’re going to move on from there.”
Not really. They investigated and stated “Rush made inappropriate comments”.
The people in the room know what was said. Commissioner Larry Scott wasn’t in the room but he’s spoken to all of the people who were there and heard what they said. You and I only know what we read in a third hand account from a single anonymous source. So I’m not going to claim I know enough to make a judgement call on this.
The standard should not be if you’re accused of a wrong-doing, you should be punished. It should be if you’re accused of a wrong-doing, you should be investigated and then if you’re found guilty you should be punished. And the investigation shouldn’t just be a rubber stamp to the accusation.
Rush won’t speak about this. That’s up to his superiors, as is almost always the case in these situations. And Scott went on an ESPN radio show and pretty much confirmed every single thing that Rush has been accused of saying. Not only that, but no one has denied that it happened. Certainly Rush hasn’t denied anything. Scott never did, either.
The only questions remaining are whether Rush singled out Miller by name and whether anyone took him seriously. How do you claim the comments were “in jest and the officials in the room realized they were not serious offers,” when an official clearly thought they were serious enough to call a technical foul on coach Miller that not one single person thought was legitimate even at the time.
So to me, this comes down to whether Rush singled out Miller specifically. The above strongly indicates that Rush did. Even if Rush hadn’t offered any money or incentive, just directing referees to target a single coach for focus is a fireable offense to me, if true. It makes the playing field lopsided.
I love the “just joking” defense, by the way. Because it’s so effective… like when someone makes a comment about the cut of a woman’s blouse in the office. Or when phoning in a bomb threat to a government building. Go to a busy shopping mall and start shouting “fire!” and see how far “just joking” gets you. Good thing this is just silly sports!
Read my first post. I said “If the story is valid, then Rush should be permanently suspended from all officiating.” So it should be clear I’m not condoning this type of thing.
But I’m also not going to say that Rush must be guilty just because somebody said so.
So as a juror with at least three witnesses saying he said the statement and neither he nor his boss deny it you would still acquit since he did not confess?
There were three anonymous sources for an article that were referees in the room that told what Rush said in the meeting. Other reporters have confirmed that the referees believed Rush was serious in that he wanted the coach Ted up.
Why do you assume that? The article refers to “a source within the Pac-12 officiating group” “one referee in attendance” and “the ref”.
I think the most obvious interpretation is that we’re talking about one individual. If three different individuals had made these statements, there’s no reason why the reporter would have referred to all three of them in the singular. He does for example write that “sources confirm” when he reports that Irving was present at the meeting. But in all the references to what was said, he never refers to any sources in the plural.
For Little Nemo, I don’t have the link to the first article that came out but the journalist was interviewed on many of the sports radio shows and he claimed he had interviewed three of the refs in the room.
As for why he had it out for Miller, I’m not really sure but it sounds like Rush will make personal vendetta against anyone he feels has insulted him so it’s hard to say what percipitated this.