PDA

View Full Version : Preventing the QT???



The Fat
09-01-15, 11:01
Would you PK and/or YC blue 14 for his actions in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fecmMxCk5IA&app=desktop

TheBFG
09-01-15, 11:01
I'm not a Brown fan, he has far too much to say for himself, one of those that seems to think people aren't allowed to tackle him, BUT I have to say well done for not taking a dive when the frenchie "stuck the nut on him" as I'm sure one of our wendyball players would have done!

didds
09-01-15, 12:01
given that danny care got a YC for doing exactly that the season before (2?) ...

well, Care actually tossed the ball into the crowd, but really what's the difference between hiding the ball behind the back then tossing it to the floor a few metres away?

didds

FlipFlop
09-01-15, 13:01
You can't see in teh Video if the QT is actually on.

I see nothing really wrong with the entire incident up to the point where Brown is bending over to pick up the ball, and he is then pushed by Huget.

Up until that point Huget has taken the ball into touch, and is slowing down the retrieval by Brown, and Brown is saying let me have the ball. Huget correctly drops the ball, so he can't be PK'ed or YC'ed for that. But the push by Huget actively pushes Brown away from the ball, and prevents him picking it up, and by this point the QT is unlikely to be on. It is also a flash point.

Card - depends on if the QT was really on. And previous. And...... But highly probably not to card it. And if the players had been "good as pie" up to that point I might even just have a word.

TheBFG
09-01-15, 13:01
what you don't see on this video is that Huget actually makes contact with his head on Brown, it's only a slight contact, but it's there!

Browner
09-01-15, 13:01
I'm not a Brown fan, he has far too much to say for himself

Thankfully, his on field performance outweighs that view of his chatter.

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/9224877/six-nations-englands-mike-brown-voted-player-of-the-tournament

Browner
09-01-15, 14:01
You can't see in teh Video if the QT is actually on.

I see nothing really wrong with the entire incident up to the point where Brown is bending over to pick up the ball, and he is then pushed by Huget.

Up until that point Huget has taken the ball into touch, and is slowing down the retrieval by Brown, and Brown is saying let me have the ball. Huget correctly drops the ball, so he can't be PK'ed or YC'ed for that. But the push by Huget actively pushes Brown away from the ball, and prevents him picking it up, and by this point the QT is unlikely to be on. It is also a flash point.

Card - depends on if the QT was really on. And previous. And...... But highly probably not to card it. And if the players had been "good as pie" up to that point I might even just have a word.

Aren't QTIs always 'on' , by definition?

The thrust of Law is clear, it encourages QTI's and seeks to discourage players preventing them. I cant imagine anyone not thinking that Huget wasn't engaging in QTI prevention activity.

PS... Why he didn't boot the ball into row Z when he gathered it?, lord alone knows. Would have served him better, but hey ho, would be less interesting for us.

FlipFlop
09-01-15, 14:01
Browner - I suspect you are deliberately being obtuse.

A QTI is always "on" in law. But if all the other England players had stopped playing, and were now starting preparing for the LO, then there is no way that Brown would take a QT. So the immateriality of what happened is reduced.

crossref
09-01-15, 14:01
my answer would be PK + can't really see from the video if a YC is merited, to me it does depend on whether Huget was blocking a potentially try scoring opportunity.

Browner
09-01-15, 14:01
A QTI is always "on" in law. But if all the other England players had stopped playing, and were now starting preparing for the LO, then there is no way that Brown would take a QT.

(2) So the immateriality of what happened is reduced.

Flip Flop - if QTI opportunity is denied, then that is Fact, rather than it being a declination.

Notwithstanding that, MBs urgency suggests it was on, and most usually the thrower decides based on 'his' assessment of risk v reward.

PS.....
2) does this mean .... increased materiality ? :biggrin:

didds
09-01-15, 14:01
we can't see if there are any french players aside from Huget there either... and the QT to oneself is ALWAYS "on"

didds

crossref
09-01-15, 15:01
we can't see if there are any french players aside from Huget there either... and the QT to oneself is ALWAYS "on"

didds

yes, but to me preventing a QT is a PK, preventing a QT in the red zone when there is a try scoring opportunity is when I might think YC. If there was five french defenders on the 5m line, Brown wasn't going to take a QT, even to himself.

Browner
09-01-15, 15:01
IMO, the French 'centres' stop chasing back. so it likely that if Huget gives up the ball to Brown then there is a 2v1 infield ( so lineout can't form Quickly ) and a QTI TRY SCORING likelihood is IMO begging to be taken.

Someone with editorial skills better than me will post the 1second leading up to Hugets catch/gather, from which a judgement can be me made as to the likelihood that *******io & co will upspeed beyond their lazy turn & retreat to be in a position to deny the urgent chasing English.

So, the more I consider Hugets deliberate preventions, the more it looks like YC also.

didds
09-01-15, 16:01
looking at that clip, there are 3 whites chasing into the corner and 2 blue, one of which is huget himelf. One of the whites is clearly slowing to leave the QT option on. In fairness of course the QT to himself was not going to be on... but its in effect Brown & Huget in touch and 2 v 1 approaching the LoT.

didds

Dickie E
10-01-15, 00:01
I see nothing really wrong with the entire incident up to the point where Brown is bending over to pick up the ball, and he is then pushed by Huget.

Up until that point Huget has taken the ball into touch, and is slowing down the retrieval by Brown, and Brown is saying let me have the ball. Huget correctly drops the ball, so he can't be PK'ed or YC'ed for that. But the push by Huget actively pushes Brown away from the ball, and prevents him picking it up, and by this point the QT is unlikely to be on. It is also a flash point.

Card - depends on if the QT was really on. And previous. And...... But highly probably not to card it. And if the players had been "good as pie" up to that point I might even just have a word.

The first push is by the White player so hardly fair to penalise Blue for the subsequent push

Dickie E
10-01-15, 00:01
Under the right circumstances, could preventing a QT lead to a penalty try?

OB..
10-01-15, 01:01
The first push is by the White player so hardly fair to penalise Blue for the subsequent pushThat first push is because Huget is preventing him from getting the ball (Huget is holding it behind his back). When Brown tries to go past, Huget first sticks out a leg, and then gives Brown a substantial push.

There can be be no doubt that the sequence of illegal events was started by Huget keeping the ball from Brown.

Browner
10-01-15, 02:01
Under the right circumstances, could preventing a QT lead to a penalty try?

Why not.

Imagine, 7 white shirted attackers chasing a punt, lone blue defender is forced to run into touch ...won't release the ball to 15white who will 'probably' lob it to one of his teammates to score unhindered by any other blue defender close enough to prevent it.

I'd give it, 'probable try' enough for me.

Dickie E
10-01-15, 02:01
That first push is because Huget is preventing him from getting the ball (Huget is holding it behind his back). When Brown tries to go past, Huget first sticks out a leg, and then gives Brown a substantial push.

There can be be no doubt that the sequence of illegal events was started by Huget keeping the ball from Brown.

You seemed so adamant in your view I thought I'd have another look.

I now wonder exactly what "prevents opposition player from getting the ball" means.

If I ask you for the ball and you don't give it to me, is that "prevents"?

Or do I actually need to try to grasp the ball?

If the latter (which is my view) then the Blue player had already dropped the ball by then (albeit not in the most convenient location for the White player but so what?). He didn't throw it away.

Either way, hardly C&O.

The Fat
10-01-15, 10:01
That first push is because Huget is preventing him from getting the ball (Huget is holding it behind his back). When Brown tries to go past, Huget first sticks out a leg, and then gives Brown a substantial push.

There can be be no doubt that the sequence of illegal events was started by Huget keeping the ball from Brown.

I think you'll find that Huget's leg going out is because Brown pushes him slightly off balance (they are both now standing on a hard surface wearing studded boots which as we all know is akin to wearing roller skates). It is a natural body reaction when someone pushes another person on the shoulder.
As soon as Brown touches him, Huget drops the ball straight down. Are some of you arguing that he must hand the ball to Brown?
If Brown had held Huget and forced him into touch and had a hand on the ball, Huget would have to release the ball to him immediately. That didn't happen. Huget voluntarily ran the ball into touch. When Brown got to him and made contact, the video is on 12 seconds. The video clock is still showing 13 seconds after Huget has dropped the ball straight to ground.

Phil E
10-01-15, 10:01
Fat
So essentially what you are saying is that we have a little game going on.
If I can get a hand on the ball, you have to release it to me.
If I don't get a hand on the ball, you don't.
So we have the ridiculous and inflammatory situation of one player holding the ball at arms length, or moving it behind him, such that the other player can't get a hand on it.
I don't buy tour argument.

The Fat
10-01-15, 11:01
Fat
So essentially what you are saying is that we have a little game going on.
If I can get a hand on the ball, you have to release it to me.
If I don't get a hand on the ball, you don't.
So we have the ridiculous and inflammatory situation of one player holding the ball at arms length, or moving it behind him, such that the other player can't get a hand on it.
I don't buy tour argument.

What I'm saying is that when Brown got to Huget, Huget released the ball directly straight down. He didn't throw or kick it away or thow it over the fence or toss it to hit another person, he released the ball within approximately 1 - 1.5 seconds.

If Brown had a hand on the ball, Huget would have had to simply let go of the ball.

I take the same view of this incident as St Nige took, although my chat on the run would have been worded differently

Browner
10-01-15, 12:01
If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

Fat is seemingly arguing that that because Huget wasn't held/dragged/pushed/grappled into touch( instead he was shephearded/pressured/chased into touch... Is that forced? Hmnn, it could be interpreted as such )
that 'forced' hasn't been established and therefore Law doesn't apply.

IMO that is to microscopic an interpretation, my preference is that players should be discouraged from taking any action that amounts to delaying the opponents from exercising their wish/attempt to continue the game quickly, as that is the sole purpose of a QTI.

As soon as Huget held the ball behind his back and obstructed Brown from taking it - the offence was committed.

OB..
10-01-15, 12:01
What on earth do you think Huget was trying to do? He hides the ball behind his back and then drops it behind him. When Brown tries to go past he pushes him away.

To me it is blindingly obvious that he was trying to delay Brown getting the ball.

Dickie E
10-01-15, 13:01
What on earth do you think Huget was trying to do? He hides the ball behind his back and then drops it behind him. When Brown tries to go past he pushes him away.

To me it is blindingly obvious that he was trying to delay Brown getting the ball.

I guess Nigel, his AR, the Fat and I will have to disagree. Live long & prosper.

OB..
10-01-15, 13:01
I guess Nigel, his AR, the Fat and I will have to disagree. Live long & prosper.
Counting heads? Irrelevant.

Two extremes:
(1) Immediately after crossing into touch, Huget turns round and politely offers the ball to Brown.
(2) Once in touch, Huget runs round the pitch saluting the crowd while still carrying the ball.

Somewhere between the two we have to draw a line. Where do you draw it?
I don't expect Huget to go out of his way to help, but I do expect him to release the ball once in touch, without being deliberately awkward.

Browner
10-01-15, 22:01
Let's amend the topic slightly, OB - if you are assessing and witness that incident ( remember the game score) how do you record it? Critical/incidental ? Law error? To be discussed or not?

The Fat
11-01-15, 00:01
Let's amend the topic slightly, OB - if you are assessing and witness that incident ( remember the game score) how do you record it? Critical/incidental ? Law error? To be discussed or not?

Based on how NO handled it?

ddjamo
11-01-15, 14:01
I am with OB. I am not sure what I would have done but it wouldn't have been to ignore the intentional offense.

OB..
11-01-15, 19:01
Let's amend the topic slightly, OB - if you are assessing and witness that incident ( remember the game score) how do you record it? Critical/incidental ? Law error? To be discussed or not?I don't know what thw guidance is at that oevel, but atr my levels I would expect the referee to penalise it.

Browner
12-02-15, 15:02
Good old NO, he seems to quickly learn from his errors. Albeit this player was ' a wee tad' more obvious that Hugets delay on this QTI prevention

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KvwuYPwM3UA

crossref
12-02-15, 15:02
Good old NO, he seems to quickly learn from his errors. Albeit this player was ' a wee tad' more obvious that Hugets delay on this QTI prevention

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KvwuYPwM3UA

Brian Moore did an interesting tweet on that incident saying that the scottish player could have prevented the QTI legally by passing the ball to the AR (so that someone else had touched it, and QT therefore no longer on).

Who would agree, and who would give a PK for that as well?

FlipFlop
12-02-15, 15:02
The AR should not touch the ball. I would suggest that deliberately giving hte ball to someone else, is not releasing the ball to the opposition. And is preventing a PK, so a potential PK.

I wasn't sure the incident in the clip should have been a PK. I don't think the French were close enough to the ball, etc. for it to be material. But prefer that this gets given, than incidents like the other one don't get given.

Browner
12-02-15, 21:02
Brian Moore did an interesting tweet on that incident saying that the scottish player could have prevented the QTI legally by passing the ball to the AR (so that someone else had touched it, and QT therefore no longer on).

Who would agree, and who would give a PK for that as well?

I would, the player knows the ARs status, and all these gamesmanships need to removed from the game in the same way cynical offences are being.