I just noticed something:
In the IPG, Unsporting Conduct —Major (Aggressive, violent, harassing or abusive behavior) entitles you to a Match loss.
In the JAR however, such behavior entitles you a Disqualification from the tournament, which is a more severe punishment.
This doesn't feel right.

One could maybe argue that the emphasis in regular events is on fun so these behaviours are more disruptive there than in competitive events, but even that feels like a far fetched claim.

I think that the IPG is a bit more strict than you are reading it as.

Originally posted by Zohar Finkel:

In the IPG, Unsporting Conduct —Major (Aggressive, violent, harassing or abusive behavior) entitles you to a Match loss.

Aggressive & violent behaviour are Aggressive Behavior, which merit Disqualification.

Harassing & abusive behaviour are USC-Major, but note that USC-Major is not always “just” a Match Loss - it contains these 2 very important clauses:
It is possible for an offender to commit this infraction without intending malice or harm to the subject of the harassment.

If the offense was committed with malicious intent, the player displays no remorse, or the offense is repeated at a later time, the penalty is upgraded to Disqualification and removal from the venue.

So if a player is intentionally engaging in harassment or abusive behaviour, they will be Disqualified for it.

The penalty for “Aggressive, violent, harassing or abusive behavior” is a DQ at all levels.
The difference is that the IPG prescribes a Match Loss for (for example) casually and non-maliciously using a racial slur, whereas the JAR stipulates that the player should be "educated and asked to stop immediately“, then Disqualified if they do not. So the JAR is actually more lenient, as the ”path" goes ask to stop->DQ, whereas the IPG goes ML->DQ

Check out the Annotated IPG for more detail on this.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Oct. 31, 2014 09:09:33 PM)