Unsportsmanlike vs personal foul

[PTReferee]

Needing help with differentiating the 2 for this situation. Well after the play,  A1 pushes B78 in the back, knocking him to the ground. I had always been taught that if there was physical contact, call a personal foul.  But recently was taught that any non-football related act,  even if it involved contact, should be called UNS.  Thoughts?

[AlUpstateNY]

Needing help with differentiating the 2 for this situation. Well after the play,  A1 pushes B78 in the back, knocking him to the ground. I had always been taught that if there was physical contact, call a personal foul.  But recently was taught that any non-football related act,  even if it involved contact, should be called UNS.  Thoughts?

NFHS: 2-16-f: offers some additional discription of "Non-player & USC" fouls that may offer assistance, with, "a non-contact foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress."

[Logical]

That is a DB PF.
You were initially instructed correctly. UNS are noncontact. It specifically states noncontact in 2-16-f and 9-5 heading

[ncwingman]

By rule, yes, it's a personal foul.

In practice, repeated DB PFs in a chippy game that's getting out of hand can get "graduated" to UNS. None of the individual acts are specifically ejection worthy flagrant, but repeated post-whistle cheap shots are clearly distracting from the game itself. If there have been repeated instructions to knock off the post whistle shenanigans they're now violating 9-5-1f, even with "contact". By making them UNS, that's the warning shot that the next one is disqualifying.

Games like that are, thankfully, rare and you should stick to them being DBPF unless they are obviously not.

[CalhounLJ]

By rule, yes, it's a personal foul.

In practice, repeated DB PFs in a chippy game that's getting out of hand can get "graduated" to UNS. None of the individual acts are specifically ejection worthy flagrant, but repeated post-whistle cheap shots are clearly distracting from the game itself. If there have been repeated instructions to knock off the post whistle shenanigans they're now violating 9-5-1f, even with "contact". By making them UNS, that's the warning shot that the next one is disqualifying.

Games like that are, thankfully, rare and you should stick to them being DBPF unless they are obviously not.

Yep. We call them DBPF on the first but write down the number for personal reference. If the same kid keeps pushing and hitting late and stirring up trouble we will elevate to USC pretty quickly.

Usually it’s only one or two that get the rest agitated. Remove the troublemaker and you remove the trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zebrastripes]

I consider DBPFs like intentional/F1 fouls in basketball. There's no DQ/EJ for committing more than one, but if the offender is continuing to put crap in the game, rule the action as flagrant and get rid of him.

A lot of times with dead ball pushing/shoving that is beyond the "timeframe" for typical UNR, there are unsporting words being used by the perpetrator(s). That's good enough to make the dead ball fouls UNS rather than DBPF.

This is one of the many areas where it makes no sense that FED refuses to adopt the NCAA rule, which allows UNS for dead ball contact that is well after the normal playing action is over.

[bossman72]

Needing help with differentiating the 2 for this situation. Well after the play,  A1 pushes B78 in the back, knocking him to the ground. I had always been taught that if there was physical contact, call a personal foul.  But recently was taught that any non-football related act,  even if it involved contact, should be called UNS.  Thoughts?

This is the actual NCAA rule, so someone is probably telling you to apply it to NFHS, which you can't do.  Any contact automatically makes it a personal foul in NFHS.

[ncwingman]

I consider DBPFs like intentional/F1 fouls in basketball. There's no DQ/EJ for committing more than one, but if the offender is continuing to put crap in the game, rule the action as flagrant and get rid of him.

The major concern, which I've voiced before, is that you unintentionally set up a double standard when the coach appeals the ejection by taking the play out of context. As a standalone play, the "he's done it 12 times already!" is removed and it doesn't appear as a flagrant personal foul and ejection worthy - or contrasting, if B56 was ejected for a post whistle shove, why wasn't B73 or A82 also ejected for something similar (...the coach asks disingenuously).

This is one of the many areas where it makes no sense that FED refuses to adopt the NCAA rule, which allows UNS for dead ball contact that is well after the normal playing action is over.

I agree. If you don't want to just copy the NCAA language, add a line to make for repeated violations of 9-4-3 either an UNS foul or disqualifying on their own.

[AlUpstateNY]

The major concern, which I've voiced before, is that you unintentionally set up a double standard when the coach appeals the ejection by taking the play out of context. As a standalone play, the "he's done it 12 times already!" is removed and it doesn't appear as a flagrant personal foul and ejection worthy - or contrasting, if B56 was ejected for a post whistle shove, why wasn't B73 or A82 also ejected for something similar (...the coach asks disingenuously).

There will never be an end to creative minds asking disingenuous questions or making foolish comments.  In reality, however, they really don't matter. The judgment, and decision, that if, and when, an action rises to the level of a flagrant personal contact foul is made EXCLUSIVELY by the calling field official, as defined by NFHS: 2-16-c.  The authority to make such decisions is designated by NFHS: 1-9.

[HLinNC]

Any flagrant PF can result in DQ so there is that always that arrow in your quiver.

"Graduating" to USC crosses over into make $#!+ up territory.

[zebrastripes]

The major concern, which I've voiced before, is that you unintentionally set up a double standard when the coach appeals the ejection by taking the play out of context. As a standalone play, the "he's done it 12 times already!" is removed and it doesn't appear as a flagrant personal foul and ejection worthy - or contrasting, if B56 was ejected for a post whistle shove, why wasn't B73 or A82 also ejected for something similar (...the coach asks disingenuously).

Any competent state association will laugh in that coach’s face when he appeals the player’s suspension after learning the offender had committed multiple other personal fouls even if the one that triggered the DQ wasn’t that bad “in a vacuum.” Context matters and fortunately people who understand officiating understand that.

And I’ll say again, if there is anything nonphysical, i.e. words or gestures that allow me to make the foul UNS, that’s what I’ll be calling all day long. If I’m asked after the game why I didn’t call it a PF when there was contact, my response will be “He called him a b*tch when he shoved him.” The people whose opinions I care about would fully support that.

[BIG UMP]

Don't mess up and change a rule.  This is a DBPF, if it continues rule x number flagrant and eject.

[Ralph Damren]

A good rule of  on DBPF/DBUSC is : If the slight contact would not be a foul during a live ball, then in should be USC.

EXAMPLES...

Big ole' Bubba and Tugboat unpile, there is a slight bump = nothing to see here  , move on.,

Big ole' Bubba and Tugboat unpile, there is a slight bump and Bubba yells: "YOUR GRANDMA IS A SPUD-CHUCKER  " (SPUD-CHUCKER = potato thrower, slang in Northern Maine) = USC. Bubba is now on secret probation  .

[NVFOA_Ump]

......  if there is anything nonphysical, i.e. words or gestures that allow me to make the foul UNS, that’s what I’ll be calling all day long. If I’m asked after the game why I didn’t call it a PF when there was contact, my response will be “He called him a b*tch when he shoved him.” The people whose opinions I care about would fully support that.

Agree 100%!  If there are "multiple fouls" contact plus verbiage that crosses the line then this is a USC without question.  If the physical contact component is egregious then I've got 2 fouls in order of occurrence, PF and USC.

[Bubba Ump]

The scenario I see is the late hit. PF. Offended player yelling "Spud Chucker" UF.  They cancel.. Play on.  Spud Chucker then blasts late on the next play. PF. And now we have multiple "Spud Chuckers" Being thrown around.  Would love to be able to give them an equal billing on my card after the first DBFs.  The best scenario is to go deaf after the first PF and tell Bubba that I might have heard something and please don't make me get my hearing back....  Close games solve a lot of problems but we earn our $$ in blowouts...