[mbyron]

Garth, based on Rich's history of posting, I believe that he does know better.

The lie to the umpire is one issue, and incontrovertible, it seems to me, IF one admits that the coach was coaching and not merely checking on his player.

So everything hangs on whether he was coaching. To me, that question turns NOT on the content of what the coach says, but on whether he's delaying the game in saying it.

In the OP, he is: he's standing (or whatever - motionless) next to the player and requiring the game to await the end of their conversation. IIRC, in Rich's second case, the coach is already off to the dugout, and the over-the-shoulder advice will not delay the game.

Pretty heavy weather on this issue, but I think there's a valuable point here: not everything an O-coach says to his players warrants charging him with a conference. The criterion I was taught is whether he's holding up the game.