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 .

Phil E

, Referees/Trains Referees in England
#21
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#22
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
 
#23
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a player carrying the ball is [/FONT]forced[FONT=fs_blakeregular] into touch, that player [/FONT]must release the ball to an opposition player [FONT=fs_blakeregular]so that there can be a quick throw-in.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]


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. [/FONT]
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#24
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#25
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..

, Advises in England
#26
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.
 
#27
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?
 

ddjamo

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/canada.pn
#29
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..

, Advises in England
#30
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.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#32
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/switzerla
#33
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.
 
#34
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.