Wow... what an enormous pile of nonsense.

ANY Tech for something a coach says "could" become a he said she said ... he "could" claim it as a figure of speech, and he "could" say you misheard him (heck ... this happens all the time!) but it doesn't matter - you heard it, and you have the responsibility to act on it. You T this IMMEDIATELY, and eject, and report.

It doesn't matter what the coach claims. There is not equal authority out on the court between coaches and officials. We are the judge, jury and executioner. If we hear it, that's it - period.

Instead of the 'punch him in the face' comment you have this instead.

A1 fouls B1 on a rebound, let's say it's a 'hard' foul. Coach B tells B1, "if he does that again, put him on his a$$", and you hear the coach say this. Same penalty for the coach as in the OP?

Hard to say. I will definitely address it: it's probably an unsporting T, but probably not flagrant. "Retaliate!" is not quite the same as "punch him in the face!"

Why is this a pile of nonsense? At what point do we draw the line when we do and do not penalize what a coach says? Several posts have stated phrases that coaches use that we ignore. I know that if/when I hear something akin to this, my red flag goes up and I make sure we as a crew are on the same page and on 'heightened alert'.
I gave an instance where I would toss the coach immediately, but the OP was more vague. Was the coach responding to a player who caught a cheap shot and was telling them to punch the player in the face if it happens again? Was the coaches team up and he was telling his players now was the time to "Punch them in the face" for the knockout? Is the coach exhorting his team to toughen up and punch the other team in the face defensively? Same to a player. All of these are phrases I have heard coaches use even though I think there are better phrases to use to get the point across.

Jud, first off ... if "Punch him in the face? (regardless of what happens beforehand) is not across your line, I strongly suggest that you redraw it. It's been stated above (and accurately) that just telling a kid to punch another kid is a crime in some places.

Second - it was really the rest of your post that was complete nonsense. You can't justify not giving a tech because the coach might disagree with you, and it would end being he-said-she-said. That's so far down the bottomless pit of absurdity, I can't even fathom thinking this way. ALL of your justifications for not Teeing this guy up and/or tossing him were nearly as absurd.

I agree 100%. Since this would be something I would toss a coach for, I would want to make sure it was a 100% righteous ejection. There are too many instances of "yeah,but.." ejections from both officials and supervisors. "Yeah, it was good by rule, but...______ ; could you have warned, ignored, are you sure, its hard to see on video etc" While I will treat a "T" like any other foul, ejections, again IMO, are at a whole other level. Because once you get in a pi%&$ contest with the state association, I don't just want to win, I want to win BIG with no doubt and destroy the credibility of that coach for questioning my decision. OK maybe that is my ego, but I have had to do it a couple of times and there was no doubt that what I did was correct, and that the coaches recollections of events were not 'borne out by the game video'. Love that phrase!

Wow. Not trying to pile on here... but based on this post, you have your priorities completely out of whack. "Going to the state" and what happens there should have no bearing on whether your appropriately officate your games. CALL THE GAME. Let the rest fall where they may.

I don't think there's much ambiguity here. I've never heard a coach use "punch in the face" as a euphemism for "finish them off." Further, specifying the request to punch a specific player (B1) pretty much removes any ambiguity you might have felt was present.
Personally, if I think it might be some sort of poorly chosen euphemism, I might consider a regular T. But the way the OP is presented, the coach is done.

Consider it this way, by tossing the coach you're making it clear that his actions and words aren't going to be tolerated, and you're making it significantly less likely that A1 will follow his coach's directive.

Again, I won't say it's automatic, but I can't imagine a scenario where this doesn't get a flagrant T in my game.

I am pretty happy with where my line is drawn. As for 'being a crime' one of the things you would have to prove would be that there was no other way to interpret that type of instruction. It can be easily proved that the phrase used can have multiple meanings depending on the situation. There was also no action based on the comments so you could not prove intent either. But I digress. Again, I don't like the terminology but you would be hard press to make it criminal
As for you second point, hopefully I clarified what I meant and why I said the 'he said/she said' thing. If not, I can try again.

And if, after you simply "warn" the coach, A1 proceeds to punch B1 in the face, how are you going to respond to the state telling you that you should have taken care of business?

Don't think you are piling on at all. I do call the game and let the chips fall where they may. If I have to toss a coach, I make sure that it is for a VERY good reason b/c it is going to go to another level and you better have your ducks in a row. Again, I am only discussing ejections, not garden variety "T's"

Good point. I am not sure I said I would warn the coach but I haven't re read my posts. I believe I stated I would either toss them right away, or share info on what I thought I heard with my crew so we would have our antenae up. What i know for sure would be that I would have a VERY quick whistle on ANY contact especially involving those players.
However, would it be any different if you A) Simply "T'd" the coach and the player still punched or B) Ejected the coach and the player still punched? The end results are still the same. This is where some hypotheticals then go awry. In A would you toss the player AND the coach even though you already T'd the coach for the infraction? In B, should you have sent the player off along with the coach?
Too many what if's.....

If you don't even warn the coach, I think you're taking an even bigger risk that A1 follows his orders. Personally, I prefer the type of warning that will resonate over a career; a flagrant T. Player gets to see an object lesson in sportsmanship. Coach gets to think about his words; and gets a very clear lesson for future games on what's intolerable.

And, if it was simply some ill-advised euphemism, then he can explain to the state that he wasn't being literal when he said to punch B1 in the face and they can decide whether and when he can coach again.

I almost forgot: if I, for whatever reason I can't fathom, decided to give the coach a standard T, it would come with a warning. Here's how I imagine that would play out:
Coach: "Punch B1 in the face."
Me: whack!
Coach: "It's a figure of speech, I wasn't being literal."
Me, after I report it to the table: "Good, because if he follows through, not only will he be charged with a flagrant, but you'll get another T and it'll also be flagrant."