Angry Coach at Halftime

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

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

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

there really is not rule support for charging the HC with a TF for his conduct in the lockerroom

Originally Posted by LDUB

That is flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[LDUB]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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?

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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?

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

I'll be waiting...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

I'll be waiting...

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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