Silly Contradiction

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not dancing around anything. Following that logic, anytime a coach opens his mouth he is "trying to influence a call" and therefore should never address an official.

It is the judgment of that individual official whether or not a coach is trying to influence a decision based upon that official's interpretation of the conversation. It's that simple to me. And to compare this to the physical act of an assistant coach being on floor is quite ludicrous, IMHO.

Not anytime he opens his mouth. If he asks, "why wasn't that a foul" or "did you see that travel," then I'll take that as a legimate question. But I can't see "that's a foul" or "that's a travel" or "you have got to call that carry" as anything but an attempt to influence our decisions. The fact is, to me, this violates the letter of the rule.

That said, I don't really deal well with a coach playing Jeapordy, either, but that's a matter of judgment and HTBT.

I'm not saying we should call it, or even address it, because doing so until he violates the Ps (persistent, personal, or profane) is going to severely limit one's schedule. I just concur with Camron that this is a case where we do not follow the letter of the rule.

Now, whether it gets applied to the AC coming onto the court is a different matter. Personally, I'm not inclined to want to toss an AC who actually came onto the court to control the fight. However, I'm also not inclined to ignore this very clear interpretation, and if I have a fight this year and an AC comes on to help, he'll find himself outside the gym for the remainder of the game. I doubt it will be that big of a deal, since the HC will likely want him watching little Johnny in the locker room.