Preventing the QT???

What would you do?

  • PK only

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • PK and/or YC

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Just a talking to

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#1
Would you PK and/or YC blue 14 for his actions in this video?
[video=youtube;fecmMxCk5IA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fecmMxCk5IA&app=desktop[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheBFG

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#2
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

, Resident Club Coach
#3
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/switzerla
#4
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#5
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!
 
#7
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/switzerla
#8
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#9
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.
 
#10
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:
 
Last edited:

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#11
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#12
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.
 
#13
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

, Resident Club Coach
#14
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#15
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
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#17
The first push is by the White player so hardly fair to penalise Blue for the subsequent push
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.
 
#18
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#19
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#20
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.
 
Last edited: