It's all about intent, action and perception
 

The analogy drawn to the jump stop is faulty. A play that is legal by rule should not be called a violation no matter the crowd's reaction. But spiking the ball is a sportsmanship issue. Sportsmanship is not as well defined as traveling, and the nature of sportsmanship has much to do with how one person's actions are perceived by others.

While we would never allow the crowd to make a traveling call for us, we cannot automatically dismiss the crowd from the sportsmanship discussion. Playing to the crowd and inciting the crowd are sportsmanship issues. If a player or coach is trying to show us up, whom is he trying to show us up too? We commonly penalize these actions partly because of their impact on the crowd. It's game management.

A person's reaction is most often rooted in their perception of another's action. A1's intentions in spiking the ball are almost irrelevant. It is A1's actions that will impact the game. Similarly, the official's action or inaction in dealing with A1 will impact the game.

I'm not arguing for an automatic T on this. But if A1's actions are likely to damage the game, I think he needs to be whacked no matter what his intent.

A1 needs to find ways to vent his frustration that do not appear unsporting to the other participants, because in sportsmanship, perception is reality.

Just my $0.02 :)

Other coach got the same talk from my partner next trip down. Both coaches were starting to go ape on us for a second.... and the players we're starting to act like there coaches.... you know the circle.

Sounds like the true sh!t creek to me!