The Gospal of Nigel Owens

[Daftmedic]

We could start a thread on Wayne "the pipe cleaner" Barnes. The destroyer of forwards?

- - - Updated - - -

Cousin - it's time to sit down with your dear wife and explain your obsession with a gay, Welsh referee. I'm sure she'll understand though him being Welsh might be tough on her.

He is a jolly chap.

 

[Browner]

OMG It's catching......., " puppy dog eyes" :wtf:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DxacfG8aH4w

 

[crossref]

Sorry, but the halo slipped off , when....

Huget deliberately held onto the ball to prevent a QTI v Mike Brown & England.

Instead of showing the whole world that Law 19.2 ( i ) must be enforced to erradicate such willful gamesmanship he instead chose to play the Preacherman to the watching millions , presumably his "future Tee Shirt Sales " are more important than correct Law application !!?!

For those that don't remember .....

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fecmMxCk5IA

Now on that incident
- I basically liked the way he spoke to the two players about the pushing and jostling He shouldn't call them immature, they are porfessional sportsmen -- but other than that he wasn't cracking jokes or other bon mot. Calm clear, emphatic.
- But it should have been a PK - and possibly a YC - against Huget for failing to release the ball for a quick throw.

So pegleg, on that instance
- Style: good (but immature is a bad choice of word)
- Substance : poor.

 

[Browner]

But isn't that the problem, Hugets actions were the catalyst for NO to become involved , and when he did his desire to deliver his scolding muscled past his desire to deal with the initial 'deliberate delaying' offence ( don't start me on the backboneless AR! Wtf was he not doing)

It's when those instances happen, then his 'celebrity aspiration' is questioned. & now we have Davies ( presumably influenced by NO style) replicating it ! .....or maybe he was inventing his own?

As an aside - I have less problem with Davies because he backed up his decision ( whether if was correct isn't this debate) , than i do with AJ's theatrical head grasping ( playing to the audience)which shows another subtle-yet increasingly seen side to decision dissenting:nono:, that of the non verbal dissent challenge .

Italian footballers took decision exasberation/pleading to ugly heights, AJ stepped on that ladder , albeit at a lowly rung level !
TEotWedge.
Cut it out.

 

[Dickie E]

But it should have been a PK - and possibly a YC - against Huget for failing to release the ball for a quick throw.

Nah! Blue player released the ball, just didn't hand it to White player.

NO's handling of the situation was fine

 

[The Fat]

Nah! Blue player released the ball, just didn't hand it to White player.

NO's handling of the situation was fine

Agree Dickie.
Blue player released the ball (dropped it on the ground behind him), didn't throw it away and the law doesn't say that he has to present the ball to the white player. Would have been different if Brown had his hands on the ball. Huget would then be required to simply let go of the ball. Brown pushes Huget (OK only slightly) before Huget reciprocates.
Those who believe this is in YC territory are being a bit precious :smile:

 

[Browner]

[LAWS] [FONT=fs_blakeregular]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.[/FONT][/LAWS]

This law has one purpose & that is to facilitate a QTI, Brown wants to take a QTI, Huget knew that and was buying time for his teammates to get back into position.

 

[crossref]

Agree Dickie.
Blue player released the ball (dropped it on the ground behind him), didn't throw it away and the law doesn't say that he has to present the ball to the white player. Would have been different if Brown had his hands on the ball. Huget would then be required to simply let go of the ball. Brown pushes Huget (OK only slightly) before Huget reciprocates.
Those who believe this is in YC territory are being a bit precious :smile:

i dunno -
- I think Huget did delay his release, and then push Brown to prevent him from taking a QTI (PK)
- it was 5m from try line. from the video you can't really see if the QTI is on or not, but if the QTI was on, and England would have been in a potential try-scoring position then a PK in that situation might think about a YC.
Of course Brown's actions only served to focus everyone's attention on the push/shove match and away from the ball and QTI.

 

[The Fat]

[LAWS] [FONT=fs_blakeregular]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.[/FONT][/LAWS]

This law has one purpose & that is to facilitate a QTI, Brown wants to take a QTI, Huget knew that and was buying time for his teammates to get back into position.

Huget wasn't forced into touch, he voluntarily ran the ball into touch and as Brown got to him he dropped the ball straight to the ground. Brown then pushed him. Brown could have simply stopped and picked up the ball. If he had done that and Huget then pushed or obstructed him in any way, he would have been liable to sanction.

Scenario:
Same as in the video but Brown is say 5m away from Huget as he drops the ball to the ground. Are you saying that in such circumstances, Huget would be required to hold onto the ball and then hand it to Brown when he eventually arrives?

 

[RobLev]

Huget wasn't forced into touch, he voluntarily ran the ball into touch and as Brown got to him he dropped the ball straight to the ground. Brown then pushed him. Brown could have simply stopped and picked up the ball. If he had done that and Huget then pushed or obstructed him in any way, he would have been liable to sanction.

...

Not quite; Huget ran the ball into touch. He saw Brown coming and backed further away, holding the ball in one hand behind him. He then dropped the ball behind him and stayed between Brown and the ball (with a stance which implied "if you want it, come and get it if you think you're 'ard enough"), and when Brown pushed past him to pick the ball up, pushed him beyond it.

On its own, that looks like a YC, given the field position.

Brown, however, delivered a shove as he arrived which gave Huget an excuse for his apparently deliberate delaying tactics.

 

[The Fat]

Not quite; Huget ran the ball into touch. He saw Brown coming and backed further away, holding the ball in one hand behind him. He then dropped the ball behind him and stayed between Brown and the ball (with a stance which implied "if you want it, come and get it if you think you're 'ard enough"), and when Brown pushed past him to pick the ball up, pushed him beyond it.

On its own, that looks like a YC, given the field position.

Brown, however, delivered a shove as he arrived which gave Huget an excuse for his apparently deliberate delaying tactics.

Must be looking at different videos:wink:
My interpretation of the video is different to your interpretation of the video.
Maybe someone who is more tech savvy than me can set up a poll "Would you PK and/or YC the blue player for his actions?"

 

[RobLev]

Must be looking at different videos:wink:
My interpretation of the video is different to your interpretation of the video.
Maybe someone who is more tech savvy than me can set up a poll "Would you PK and/or YC the blue player for his actions?"

Law 19.2(i) says:

[LAWS](i) 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.[/LAWS]

At 13 seconds Brown is in contact with Huget's left arm, and the ball is in Huget's right hand, behind him from Brown.

At 14 seconds, Huget drops it - behind himself, away from Brown, by the advertising hoarding.

At 15 seconds, Brown's got past him and is reaching down for the ball, and Huget delivers a shove that knocks him past the ball.

Brown acts unnecessarily at the outset; but the suggestion that Huget is blameless doesn't bear scrutiny. He is forced into touch, but fails to release "to an opposition player". He delays release, and when the opposition player bends down to pick it up, he pushes him off the ball. That, in isolation, is a PK 15m in and, given the field position, a YC.

I wouldn't think a YC for Huget would be justified as the incident transpired. However, if Brown hadn't shoved as he arrived, but Huget had nevertheless acted as he actually did, I can't see a reason why he shouldn't be both PK'd and YC'd. It was a blatant and cynical delaying tactic.

 

[The Fat]

Law 19.2(i) says:

[LAWS](i) 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.[/LAWS]

At 13 seconds Brown is in contact with Huget's left arm, and the ball is in Huget's right hand, behind him from Brown.

At 14 seconds, Huget drops it - behind himself, away from Brown, by the advertising hoarding.

At 15 seconds, Brown's got past him and is reaching down for the ball, and Huget delivers a shove that knocks him past the ball.

Brown acts unnecessarily at the outset; but the suggestion that Huget is blameless doesn't bear scrutiny. He is forced into touch, but fails to release "to an opposition player". He delays release, and when the opposition player bends down to pick it up, he pushes him off the ball. That, in isolation, is a PK 15m in and, given the field position, a YC.

I wouldn't think a YC for Huget would be justified as the incident transpired. However, if Brown hadn't shoved as he arrived, but Huget had nevertheless acted as he actually did, I can't see a reason why he shouldn't be both PK'd and YC'd. It was a blatant and cynical delaying tactic.

So basically you're saying that, based on the actual video, you wouldn't YC Huget.
We agree. Now to work on Browner and crossref:wink:

 

[RobLev]

So basically you're saying that, based on the actual video, you wouldn't YC Huget.
We agree. Now to work on Browner and crossref:wink:

That's right - I'd PK (subject to possible reversal), but not YC.

 

[OB..]

If Huget's actions justified PK + YC before Brown retaliated, why would retaliation cancel the YC?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

And he said to the miscreant, "I don’t think we’ve met before, but I’m the referee on this field"

I cringed when NO said this to the Treviso? scrum half.

I suspect there was an very quiet Italian voice saying "oh f@c% off"

One man's witty bon mot is another man's insufferable prick (no pun intended :biggrin. NO treads a fine line.

 

[Browner]

Now to work on Browner and crossref:wink:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ZpHr5l0U0

 

[crossref]

So basically you're saying that, based on the actual video, you wouldn't YC Huget.
We agree. Now to work on Browner and crossref:wink:

I thnk I said all along it's a PK + would consider a YC depending on whether this was disrupting a try-cscorring chance, which you can't really tell from the video.

 

[RobLev]

If Huget's actions justified PK + YC before Brown retaliated, why would retaliation cancel the YC?

Because Brown got his retaliation in first, giving Huget some plausible deniability - he hadn't reached the stage of YC, in my inexpert opinion, before Brown started pushing and shoving, which took the focus away from the delay, and indeed arguably contributed to it.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I preferred Huget when he stuck to drawing Tintin's adventures.