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