I already knew how Rut would come down on this. He has a demonstrated history on this forum of taking the path of least resistance and a lack of desire to deal with unsporting behavior. He seems to want to just go with the flow. Therefore, I find it most ironic that his signature line seems to be in admiration of people who took the difficult path in order to do what they believed was right and change our society. How we live with and treat each other was important to those people. Sadly, I guess Rut is willing to enjoy the fruits of their labors, but doesn't have what it takes to do something similar when called to action or at least stand up with them. Of course, I've completely given up on him and ignore most of his posts. I already know that the character of that individual doesn't warrant any of my time.


It is the position of MTD that shocks and disappoints me.

How he can write that, yet advocate not levying the penalty of a technical foul against the coach completely baffles me.

I always thought of him as someone who cares about sportsmanship in the HS game and the proper conduct and manners of people. He certainly has talked of how he raised his sons in an upstanding manner on this forum. Certainly the mission statement of the NFHS of developing good citizens has to mean something to him or he wouldn't have been as involved in HS athletics as he is for as long as he has been. Therefore, it truly puzzles me that when a coach is clearly delivering the wrong message to the young men under his tutelage that he would advocate that the official not step in with a clear and firm action that the youngsters can see in contrast to the poor behavior from their supposed role model. At the HS level coaches are supposed to be teaching more than just the game, and officials clearly have a role in promoting sportsmanship. In this case, the coach isn't properly fulfilling his role as a steward of his young charges. He isn't simply criticizing the calls or performance of the officials, but with his 8 v. 5 comment is actually calling them cheaters. Furthermore, he is directly telling the youngsters on his team that those three adults are intentionally being cheating them. I don't know of a more insulting comment that a coach can make than to impugn the personal integrity of a game official. This offense, in front of the very youth for which the coach is supposed to be setting a good example, is unconscionable and calls for sterner action than just a behind the scenes filing of a report. The kids won't see the report, but they do see the action and hear the words of the coach, and that needs to be contradicted by public punishment so that the kids understand that this behavior is wrong. This situation is about doing what is right for the kids.
Lastly, two other comments.
1. I don't agree with not penalizing the coach for this offending speech, but getting him for something else in the second half. To me that fails to deal with the heart of the matter. It is akin to the federal government getting Al Capone for income tax evasion. I say penalize what should be and don't look for something else to make up for it. That's not justice or addressing the problem head on. That's skirting the issue.

2. MTD referenced the coach using inappropriate language which can be heard outside of the huddle during a time-out and wrote that it was an NCAA position. In fact, the NFHS takes the very same position. This appeared as a POE in 2004-05.

Inappropriate language. The committee is concerned about the use of inappropriate language by players, bench personnel, coaches, officials and spectators. Each group has a responsibility to the game and to each other to demonstrate civility and citizenship.
The team huddle is not a safe haven for coaches' bad language. Players are not permitted to "let off steam" by using profanity, even if it is not directed at an opponent or official. Being angry at oneself is no excuse. Officials are not exempt either. Inappropriate references to players or coaches are not acceptable. Game administrators must also pay particular attention to fans. A game ticket is not a license to abuse.

Again we are referring to something out in the open and directly under the jurisdiction of the officials ...

If the comments were made in the huddle and I heard them OH YEAH - coach has a seat belt on the bench or possibly in their bus for the ride home!

But I still say the locker room is OOB, Nun Ya, off limits, what ever, that is an admistrative officials area to deal with.

I am with Nevada. If the coach is speaking/talking/yelling with the intent of the official to hear, the coach does not get a free pass.

But if you can show me an official specifically has jurisdiction over the teams locker room I'll jump on board.
Because based on this logic - if you go back into the locker room at the 6 minute mark and the team is in there and the coach is giving his Rah Rah speech in the same locker room and he says, go out there and kick their
F^(#&@g A$$e$ and you hear it, you have to Whack him for that !

Intent ?
Who says it is for the officials to hear?
The coach isn't on the floor - you can not see him - maybe it is just a pep talk - that is a tough call to say he intends it.

Read the OP, in the official's judgment, it was intended for the officials.

He already has, in this very thread:

out in the open with I believe the legal term would be "no expectation of privacy." I may be reading into this but I am seeing this as the comment was made to the official.


in a locker room there is "an expectation of privacy " for a team, and no where does it say the official has authority over what goes on inside the locker room, that is not directly related to some other violation of the rules that I am aware of.

the offical thinks it is intended for their benifit - and I do not doubt it. I just do not think that it is sufficient for you to T this coach up.
I do not disagree that it is a terrible thing that he does, I just do not think you have any jurisdiction over it once they go behind the closed doors of that locker room.

It's the official's judgment that matters on that point.

Please see the case play Nevada posted showing officials have jurisdiction behind closed doors.

I'm going to keep posting this until you at least address it.

An easy way to tell if someone takes themself too seriously is when they question someone's morals because they disagree with them on a subject as trivial as the rules of basketball.

10.1.3
addresses the use of electronic media directly, and does not give the official authority in the dressing room w/o the use of electronic media occuring.

It is also another of those unenforcable rules - since without direct knowledge of the communication or review occuring, there is no way to determine that it has happened, unless you search the dressing room, and to the best of my knowledge you have no authority to do that.

In this sitch presented, the OP says he judged the coach to be speaking to the officials through thin walls.

Who says it is for the officials to hear? - Anyone else ever hear a coach say, "But, I wasn't talking to you." After whistling up a T?