[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If the point is that, by rule, a coach, who changes his mind after interrupting the game and coming out on the field, is not to be charged with a conference, then I disagree. An earlier post suggested that this is an official interpretation, but nothing so far in this thread substantiates this point.

The point of limiting defensive conferences is to limit interruptions to the game. If he's asked me to stop the game, then I'm within the letter and spirit of the rule to charge him with a conference, no matter how many words he has with his defense.

On the other hand, if the point is that it's within my discretion to choose not to charge a conference, given that the coach does not in fact confer with his players, then I'd agree with that.

It's a judgment call and is based on fairness, like all rulings are supposed to be. If one operates with that brand of rigidity, things get unneccessarily contentious.