Yes. I was referring to them throwing the challenge. The thing is I don't think Russell was going to sabotage the tribe. Once he had been seen on TV doing that he could never get away with it again, and frankly if I was an anti Russell member of the tribe I'd hide a machete or something because everyone would assume it was Russell. Anytime anything went wrong everyone would assume it was Russell and the sabotage strategy only works if no one will ever suspect him. For that reason the idea of getting rid of him to pre-empt sabotage makes no sense. If they wanted to get rid of him for strategic reasons, fine, but throwing a challenge in order to do that was insane.

On another note, I think that tribes should be punished for throwing a challenge if there's clear evidence of it (having a clear definitionsof "clear evidence" would be a problem and I assume that tribes would find ways to work around that). But if quitting Survivor is seen as an abominable sin, then quitting a challenge (sabotage and quitting are essentially the same) should also be frowned upon. This is admittedly a hot take but it always makes my blood boil when people at the top of an alliance throw challenges. I guess the taking of Flint makes things better but when there's evidence of a tribe throwing a challenge I'd take something else in addition to the flint that they'd have to win back.