Angry Coach at Halftime

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Snaq -- are you referring to the situation with the electronics (because that doesnt apply) or 10.4.1 SITUATION B: where its in a public hall and not in THEIR locker room where they have an expectation of privacy. Neither of these cover a T in this situation.

So SNAQ where does it say YOU SHOULD????

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.).

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The first one shows we have jurisdiction in the locker room specifically over the use of electronic equipment.

You keep omitting this part for some reason.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.