Amazed and
 

What amazes me through out this thread is that is that there are some people who would light this coach up with a flagrant foul for his actions here -Yet while on the court will let a coach, stand up and gesture and whine and stomp around to the point of making an A$$ out of himself and showing the offical up and with rules written almost verbatum for the situation on their side will not deal with it?

I would pretty much bet that if a coach pulled this kind of stunt in the locker room he wasn't an angel on the sideline in the first half either.
Was it dealt with then? These issues usually just don't pop up out of nowhere in the locker room - If this guy was an angel in the entire first half and you whack him for what he did in the locker room, you need to be pretty sure it wasn't a rah rah speech - no mater how ill advised.

I see where folks minds are not going to be changed here, I'm going to do things my way with Rut and that side, and Nevada you guys can go your route in how you deal with this.
If you ever actually T someone up for this please post the entire incident including what happens as a result of the T.

Thanks

Funny thing, I did not say the rules forbid anything (and you will not find such language from me). I said you did not have specific rules support to give a T for words said in the locker room. And that is why I said I had jurisdiction to file a report with my state. I even went on to say that you can do whatever you like. I do not have to work with any of you and answer for the fall out. ;)

Peace

There is a huge difference between a coach and player saying something directly to you as an official (during or after the game BTW) then saying something that may be heard through a wall.

And let us put the electronic equipment thing to bed. I have never seen anyone use or gone into anyone's locker room to find out if they are using such equipment during halftime. And in order to know this, you either would have to walk by a locker room or office this was done in, or you would have to go into their locker room to inspect this action. Not only have I never seen this called, I have never heard of this called. The fact that you have to give an obscure rule to justify giving a T for something overheard, gives more fuel if you ask me to my argument.

As I have said to the "no it all" earlier, you can do whatever you want. But in my opinion if you have to find obscure rulings to unrelated situations to justify your actions, you have the right to do so. Do not let me stop you from doing what you feel is right. Then again, you will have to deal with the consequences of your "ruling" and how you are perceived by much more than the coach, but maybe your assignor, the administration or association because you used a rule that people do not agree across the board. When you have this much disagreement here, do not assume that you will not have people have similar disagreements with your actions. At least in my position, I do not see anything clear that says this is what is wanted. You are not creating a situation where you seem to know this is the appropriate action. And if the NF or any other jurisdiction wants this penalized, they can add the language to the rule or ruling that makes it clear this is unacceptable (like they do often with other actions by players and coaches).

Peace

My point was that seeking language that in absolute in either way is futile.

I only asked you to provide language forbidding a T here, which we both know doesn't exist, because you asked ldub for language that saying that this is always a T and twice on Sunday. Asking for that is equally pointless.

So my question was aimed at refuting your tactic not of the substance of your question. When the shoe is on the other foot, you rightly admit that you can't fill it either.

JRut wasn't asking for an absolute. He was asking for specific rules support. You can't give any. You can only give generic rules support.

Why can't you accept the fact that, for some people, that's not enough to justify calling a TF?

There is a big difference from condemning people for not applying the rules (as you do all the time) and saying there is no specific rules coverage for a very specific situation. I am not condemning anyone for their position. And in the original post, the question was asking what “we” would do if this happen to us. I am certain the question was asked that way because the person had an honest disagreement with his partner. The question was never listed as what the rule was nor was there an interpretation to support their actions. The fact that you cannot give a rule suggests that you are using only a personal interpretation. And for me I need a little more than "Because I say so, it is a flagrant foul."

Peace