The first one shows we have jurisdiction in the locker room. The 2nd is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not arguing that you should. I'm arguing that you can.

So you also then are arguing that it's OK if you don't, right? Just asking because you are kind of confusing me (yeah, yeah, I know it doesn't take much. Shutup.).

It shows we can WHEN the coach uses electronics to gain an advantage. I think you are reaching here. Either way I would not call a T, but I sure as hell wont give the coach much latitude in the second half.

Mark this OP was brought over to the baseball side as well.

So here's my question

Forget about the comments made about officials.

Suppose you heard the following:

Hey Jimmy (who is the last person on the sub list) Tommy (on the other team) is "kiliing us" I want you to "take him out"

I believe this sort of "stuff" happened at the University of Minnesota many moons ago. Can't remember the coach but it was a pretty gruesome story.

In Conclusion: You as officials hear this coach tell one of his HS players to do harm to another player on another team.

What do you do

Me: Assuming I heard a baseball coach tell one of his players to take out another player. Coach is done and report filed.

Pete Booth

There are only two scenarios where you would possibly have a rule infraction in the locker room. Unsporting behavior (the OP) and illegal use of media.

The case play tells us specifically we can call the T in one. It's silent on the other. I don't think it's much of a stretch to use the precedent from the case play and apply it to the OP.

It's more than a stretch to claim we don't have jurisdiction here. It's a leap.

Me too.

You keep omitting this part for some reason.

Because it doesn't tell us anywhere that our jurisdiction is limited to this one rule. That's the reason, I believe I've already stated that.

Case plays aren't designed to cover every single possible situation. Since this situation isn't very common, it's easy to explain why it's not specifically addressed.

There is no rule or case play that says our jurisdiction does not extend to the locker room at half time. Let me repeat my main question here:

Where does it say we don't have jurisdiction here?

Think of this: Referee goes to tell coach that there are 3:00 left in half time. Coach yells, though the door, "Fu@# you!"

I'm calling that T.

If I had a nickel for every time that I heard a coach make that case after getting whacked...

During the game the coach stands up and yells, "Keep working hard guys, I know that it's 8 on 5 out there." He isn't directly addressing the officials. His comments are to his players, right? :rolleyes:

Get real.

Maybe a T here is not the choice course of action, but it's awfully hard to argue that we dont have rule support to do so with the following:

ART.2...The official's jurisdiction, prior to the game, begins when they arrive on the floor. The official's arrival on the floor shall be at least 15 minutes before the scheduled starting time of the game.

ART.3...The official's jurisdiction extends through periods when the game may be momentarily stopped for any reason.

ART.4...The jurisdiction of the officials' is terminated and the final score has been approved when all officials leave the visual confines of the playing area.

ART.1...Penalize unsporting conduct by any player, coach, substitute, team attendant or follower.

Maybe the electronic device in the locker room caseplay is provided to show we do have jurisdiction during half time. For that specific situation &/or any other unsporting conduct.

The rules c l e a r l y state when our jurisdiction is over. I believe they would've added the words except during half time if that was the case.

Let's no go assuming that the committee used logic when putting the rules together. :D

Oh really?

Says to his players "move your feet, these refs are calling ticky-tack fouls on our end".

That could be interpreted as saying we weren't calling ticky-tacks on the other end. But interpretations are in the ears of the interpreter, I guess.

I was just killing the notion that we can't penalize commentary that isn't directed towards us even though it's about us. That was your defense on this stance, correct?

[QUOTE=BillyMac;562569]Many years ago, as I was running past the home team's bench, I heard the head coach yell to his point guard, "Get your f***ing head in the game", after she had the ball stolen, leading to an easy score. It was intended for only her to hear, but I heard it, as did a few girls on the bench. On the way out that night, I reported this to the athletic director, telling him that I thought it was inappropriate, particularly on the high school level, especially with female players. He told me that he appreciated the information, and that he would take care of the matter. I guess he did, because I've never heard that coach use a curse word since that night.

Glad the outcome was good, but I'm not letting that one go. He said it during the game and was heard by the official. I'm whacking him.

[QUOTE=Ch1town;562788]

Oh really?

Says to his players "move your feet, these refs are calling ticky-tack fouls on our end".

That could be interpreted as saying we weren't calling ticky-tacks on the other end. But interpretations are in the ears of the interpreter, I guess.

I was just killing the notion that we can't penalize commentary that isn't directed towards us even though it's about us. That was your defense on this stance, correct?[/QUOTE]

Yes in this stitch. In others no. But i honestly wont take offense to what your coach said in your stitch if he says it once in his huddle. If he screams and yells it and makes a scene and hes showing us up then sure. But this was something just his team and I heard, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he's frustrated, and attempting to coach. If he repeats then I will address him.

With all due respect, I said nothing about a huddle.

On defense in the 1st half, coach of Team B says to his players "move your feet, these refs are calling ticky-tack fouls on our end".
This type of commentary continues a few more trips down the court.

Again, not talking directly to us, but it is directed at us.

I would ask him to move on from that point after the second time -- if he says it again he earned the T.

The Ohio State incident from 1971? Bill Musselman was the coach and Dave Winfield was a player for the Gophers.

Assuming that's the incident to which you are referring.

let's not forget the infamous John Cheny Temple/St Joseph game where he sent in a goon to foul, which ended up with a player breaking an and not being able to play in the post season.

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS THREAD IS STILL GOING!:confused:

This thread is degenerating in a thread where we are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Let us get back to the original situation (apples), a boys' H.S. varsity game played under NFHS Rules: The Home Team's lockerroom is adjacent to the game officials' dressing room; and due to poor "architectural design," the wall between the dressing room and the Home Team's lockerroom is not soundproof. During halftime the Home HC rants to his team about the officiating and naturally the officials can hear his tirade.

The are two basic groups in this thread:

(1) Officials that want to charge the HC with a TF and some of these officials would even say the TF should be a flagrant TF. The officials in this group have quoted a number of NFHS Rules that give the game officials to "take care of business" in this situation.

(2) Officials that will "ignore" the HC's conduct in his team's lockerroom.


This thread has now extended to conduct courtside (oranges). Ladies and germs (gentlemen) courtside conduct is not the same as conduct inside the sanctary of the lockerroom.

As everybody knows, I am in Group (2) along with Rut and Daryl among other officials. Group (2) officials understand that the seriousness of the Head Coach's conduct in the lockerroom. BUT, with very few rare exceptions (see my OP per the NCAA's position of HC's conduct in timeout huddles; this is one of these rare exception) game officials are persona non grata in a team's timeout huddle.

If one wants to punish the HC for his halftime lockerroom tirade there are ways without baiting him or minipulating the rules of the game.

I want to repeat my advice to the Group (1) officials and that is DO NOT go there. No matter how many rules are quoted there really is not rule support for charging the HC with a TF for his conduct in the lockerroom. Furthermore, I would advise the game officials to do what Daryl and I do when we encounter this type of situation, and belive me Daryl and I have been in this postion many times, laugh about it. I think it is funny that the coach would waste valuable time with his players to go bonkers about the offidciating.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, I appreciate your opinion and value your thoughts on all things basketball (except as it relates to the dreaded Buckeyes). However, only one side here has provided any rules support. Group 2 has not provided a single rule that relieves officials of jurisdiction in the locker room during half time. Not a single rule or case play or official interpretation has been provided.

Where is this sanctuary rule?

I'm not saying the call is the wisest in all circumstances, but in a case where the coach is entering into a profanity laced tirade accusing the officials of all sorts of cheating.... Well, let's just say the rules support jurisdiction here even if it should be used prudently.

I still don't know if I'd call this T, by the way.

I see a few options.
1. Call the T immediately.
1a. Make it a flagrant.
2. Wait til coach comes out from half time and call it then.
2a. Make it a flagrant.
3. Wait til the half starts, call the T and inform him it's for what he said at halftime.
3a. Make it a flagrant.
4. Put coach on a short leash.

I can see the reasoning for all three. What I can't see, obviously, is the logic behind some sort of sanctuary status for the locker room during half time.

Snaqs:

Daryl explained it very simply: We are not in the lockerroom because we are not supposed to be in that lockerroom. We do not know who said what in the lockerroom. As I also said that with very rare exceptions we are not to stick our noses in a team's huddle either. As I have stated before, I am known as a real hard-a$$ when it comes to decourum, but I am mystified as to why there are officials who want to go down this path. We, as officials, have enough problems with on-the-court issues to be worrying about boogers in the lockerroom at halftime.

MTD, Sr.

That is flat out wrong.

The officials are in charge no matter the location. It doesn't matter if the officials are in the parking lot, bathroom, bleachers, hallway, locker room, or on the court...until the game ends the officials have jurisdiction to call fouls; there is no limitation to where the foul can occur.

If one doesn't call the T, that is their choice. But you should not be going around spreading some myth that whatever goes on in the lockerroom is fine.

Mark, we're not talking about boogers here. We're talking about a coach dripping with snot (to continue this disgusting metaphor).

To repeat the legalese someone else brought up. There is an expectation of privacy in the locker room just as you have in your car driving down the road that protects you from unlawful searches and seizures. But if the cop who pulls you over for speeding smells marijuana reeking from the car; you've lost the expectation of privacy.

The OP had a coach very loudly and very profanely, obviously (to the officials in the room) directing it towards the officials in the adjacent room, calling the officials cheaters. Language and accusations that would earn an easy flagrant if he said it from his huddle during a timeout.

BTW, I think we've hashed this out about as far as we're going to, so I will respectfully disengage at this point.

And, in spite of my earlier comments about your Buckeyes, I am grateful that their elevation allowed my Hawkeyes to go to the Outback Bowl this year. :)

If that is flat out wrong, show me the interpretation or case play that says this has to be a T all the time and twice on Sunday?

The problem is you will not find such an interpretation. Which is why I said that all these quoting of rules only assumes that the NF supports such and action. The NF wanted action to be taken with huddles and they said so with an interpretation. I have never read any interpretation in any sport that supports the actions in which you are advocating. Now if you want to show a specific reference, be my guest. Just do not try to tell me or anyone that we have to follow your logic just because.

Also, my answer was always about what I would do in the situation. I do not care what others would do unless I was on the game. It is one thing to follow an official in the hallway; it is another when the coach is possibly unaware of what is overheard in the locker room.

Peace

What are you talking about? Did you read what I wrote? I responded to MTD. He said there is no rule support and I said that was wrong. Then you come along and ask me to show you a case play which says it has to be a T "all the time". Why would you ask me to show you that when I wasn't even discussing the play? MTD was making up rules saying that there is some type of sancutary rule where the officials do not have jurisdiction during halftime. I told him that he was wrong.

What I am talking about, is you have not shown a rule that supports such action. You have no interpretation from any organization and to suggest that Mark is wrong is misleading, when you have no such evidence on the other view point.

Again, I am just waiting for an interpretation on this subject that supports a T given (through the walls) in a locker room, where you are not present.

Peace

ART. 1 . . . The officials shall make decisions for infractions of the rules committed within or outside the boundary lines.
ART. 2 . . . The officials’ jurisdiction, prior to the game, begins when they arrive on the floor.
ART. 3 . . . The officials’ jurisdiction extends through periods when the game may be momentarily stopped for any reason.
ART. 4 . . . The jurisdiction of the officials' is terminated and the final score has been approved when all officials leave the visual confines of the playing area.

The officials' jurisdiction starts when they arrive on the floor. It extends until the final score is approved, even if the game is momentarily stopped. The jurisdiction applies within or outside of the boundary lines (everywhere).

During halftime the officials jurisdiction has not yet ended as the final score has not been approved. The locker room falls under the location of "outside of the boundary lines" which is a location which the officials have jurisdiction over. Therefore the officials can penalize acts which occur inside of the locker room.

What constitutes a technical foul in the locker room is a different discussion.

Do you know what an interpretation means?

That means that there is an actually wording on a specific situation that is outside of the rulebook. Usually the casebook gives interpretations. That means that the NF clearly has addressed a situation where we can give a T in the locker room. And I do not read a specific rule that says coaches can be given Technical Fouls for comments in the locker room.

You are assuming that the NF (or any organization) wants us to give Ts for what people do in their locker room outside of a very specific situation dealing with electronic equipment. And all the examples of official's jurisdiction, involve things that take place on the court and in your presence. If you are in a room next to another room, that is not something that takes place in your presence.

I compare this circumstance to the rule that was put in about pulling out your jersey (in frustration). That was not ever considered a T other than personal tolerance or interpretation. You are taking an obscure rule to apply to a very specific situation that has never been addressed by the NF you have shown me. Now the rules give you the right to make some judgments that are not stated in the rulebook, but that is a stretch to take a situation like this and start giving Ts. But in my state any action that is considered out of bounds or unsportsmanlike outside the court, can be handled with a "write up." And this is why I said what I would do. I never told you what you should or should not do. ;)

Peace

Bust through the wall like John Madden (old Miller Lite commercials) and issue the Flagrant T?

UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR
*2.8.1 COMMENT: Unsporting tactics, in general, involve relationships
between opponents, between the players and officials, between the spectators
and officials, between the players and spectators, between the coaches and
spectators, and between coaches and officials. In some situations, it can also
apply to the relationship of a player to teammates, and to the coach and members
of the team. For example, profanity on the part of a participant, coach or
member of the team is considered to be an unsporting act, whether or not the
profanity is directed at any individual or is merely a means of “letting off steam.”
(10-1-8; 10-3-6; 10-4-1)

Ok, try the reverse. YOU provide a rule or interpretation that FORBIDS a technical foul in this situation.

I'll be waiting...

Let's say the officials have to walk through the team's locker room to get to their dressing room. At halftime a team member in the locker room verbally abuses one of the officials as he walks by. Are you saying this is not a T as it was in the locker room and the only locker room Ts are those dealing with electronic equipment?

That would happen in the presence of the the official therefore it would be easy to enforce.
you have to be present to call the foul, standing outside the lockerroom and hearing it is not being present.

THANKS! Oh wait, you mean the "other" Mark. :o

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