This isn't true. Reading the riot act can work. VALJ just gave you an example. I've done it with similar success except with captains in basketball.
Delivering the message that the officials have determined that the normal approach to calling fouls is not having the desired approach and are about to take draconian measures can wake up the players and get them to change their ways. It won't always work but it works enough that it's worth doing.
Also, it's not about a power play between the officials on one side and coaches/players on the other. We don't have to challenge for authority; we already have it. One of the best pieces of advice I've every received on officiating is that we don't have to have the last word, because we have the last say.
I think you have to consider the context in which the "confrontation" so to speak, is to occur.
The original post has this "confrontation" or discussion- call it interaction- after the coin toss, but before the game has started. The example VALJ game was after the game had started and there had already been issues.
Other than some childish behavior, the legality of which is open for debate, no fouls have occurred in this situation. I feel that the procedure I outlined would be more effective in defusing what is BECOMING a volatile situation. VALJ's example ALREADY is one, so tactics may need to change somewhat.
As of this moment, in the original discussion, no one has committed a foul, why treat them as if they have?
