Incident in NJ

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by jchamp

So the rule that penalizes throwing punches wouldn't extend to this action? Nor would the rule that allows the Referee to make necessary rulings for situations not specifically mentioned in the rulesbook? I don't think that the NFHS thought players would use their opponents equipment as a weapon. Violence like that shouldn't be tolerated, period. I'd rather write up the ejection report than explain why that kind of person isn't off the field.

Clarification: I am merely addressing the difference in an unsportsmanlike and a flagrant personal foul as it pertains to this play. The OP referred to this as an UNS foul. It is not by defintion and UNS, but rather a flagrant personal foul. so in answer to your question, NO, not by definiton. "Unsportsmanlike" fouls deal with only fouls of the "non-contact" variety. Although this was certainly unsportsmanlike behavior in street and human terms, it does not meet the rule book definiton of an UNS foul because it involves contact. This NJ player foul was, by definition, a "contact foul" and an appropriate ejection was certainly covered by the flagrant personal foul rule.

We are talking here merely about definition by "rule book" and their consequent live ball vs dead ball enforcement implications. If this is ruled and UNS foul, then a single UNS foul does not warrant an ejection (must have 2 UNS fouls to warrant an ejection.) However, just one flagrant personal foul (which this one was) warrants and ejection.