An open letter to World Rugby.

[austingtir]

Every try from an interception is offside. Tries interception should be banned from Rugby union.

I semi agree with this but I do at a minimum believe that every intercept try should be dissected in the greatest detail by the TMO as alot of them are dodgy in some way or another.

 

[PAC]

Don't want to enter a debate regarding referees but just for my own understanding of the offside rules, how can the 1st try be offside ?
It looked to me as a careless pass from the Argentinian player.

 

[Kiwi_]

The Aussie try was fine, Argentina were just stupid and tried to play rugby at the wrong end of the park and got punished.

 

[PAC]

thanks Kiwi_ , I was wondering if I missed something.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't want to enter a debate regarding referees but just for my own understanding of the offside rules, how can the 1st try be offside ?
It looked to me as a careless pass from the Argentinian player.

Even if you go back to the previous phase (the last place where it would have been possible for Simmonds to be offside) he was onside at that.

Firstly, I'm not even sure if this is a ruck or a tackle.

It looks like it was "tackle only" (unless a ruck had been previously formed) because there weren't at least two players (one from each team) on their feet in contact over the ball. If its "tackle only" there is no offside anyway.

However, even if we grant that it was a ruck (lets argue that Douglas and the Argie player on his feet were in contact and therefore formed a ruck) the offside line would then be Douglas' hindmost foot, which I would judge to be no further back than where I placed the blue line... Both Hooper and Simmons are behid that line, therefore onside.

 

[PAC]

Thanks Smartcookie for your time and explanations. I looked at previous phases too where Simmons could have been offside but couldn't find any.
Hence my confusion to read in the original post that there was an offside on the 1st try and no one questioning this.

 

[gamine]

It isn't the fault of the refs or the players, the problem is the game itself. There can't be many games with so many laws, all with their complicated sub- clauses, where nobody, not players, refs or spectators are sure of what is, or is not, fair play.

Much of the current problems arose when the game became professional, and money came into the equation. The need to raise revenue led to a drive to make the game more 'entertaining' and thus law making went into overdrive, under the guise of 'modernizing' the game.

 

[TJAY]

It isn't the fault of the refs or the players, the problem is the game itself. There can't be many games with so many laws, all with their complicated sub- clauses, where nobody, not players, refs or spectators are sure of what is, or is not, fair play.

Much of the current problems arose when the game became professional, and money came into the equation. The need to raise revenue led to a drive to make the game more 'entertaining' and thus law making went into overdrive, under the guise of 'modernizing' the game.

Agreed, try explaing the rules to non rugby WC viewers, then when they start asking questions like 'why was that a foul' , and then I realised I didn't know as much as I thought.

Like a lot of other books in life, if the rule book becomes long and complicated, it can be interpreted in so many different ways.

It also becomes a lottery with so many rules to break, a lot of infringements do not get noticed at all, and sometimes the ones that do get noticed are borderline.

Players binned for deliberate knock on's, looks stupid when 1 minute earlier you spotted a player punching another player in the stomach and he's still on the field.

 

[gamine]

Agreed, try explaing the rules to non rugby WC viewers, then when they start asking questions like 'why was that a foul' , and then I realised I didn't know as much as I thought.

Like a lot of other books in life, if the rule book becomes long and complicated, it can be interpreted in so many different ways.

It also becomes a lottery with so many rules to break, a lot of infringements do not get noticed at all, and sometimes the ones that do get noticed are borderline.

Players binned for deliberate knock on's, looks stupid when 1 minute earlier you spotted a player punching another player in the stomach and he's still on the field.

The one that really flummoxes me is the law on the forward pass. At one time we were pretty sure what that was about - a pass that went forward. Then we had the lateral pass, which isn't forward, but certainly isn't backward, and now there is some equation to do with relative speeds of the players and the movement of the ball in the air. Just how many refs are qualified physicists? As for what happens at the breakdown......!!

 

[smartcooky]

The one that really flummoxes me is the law on the forward pass. At one time we were pretty sure what that was about - a pass that went forward. Then we had the lateral pass, which isn't forward, but certainly isn't backward, and now there is some equation to do with relative speeds of the players and the movement of the ball in the air. Just how many refs are qualified physicists? As for what happens at the breakdown......!!

First of all, let me address this point. There are no equations with relative speeds used to judge forward passes. All that is, is an explanantion of why the forward pass is judged the way it is. The reason is that when a player is running, the ball is already movng forwards at the same speed as the runner, therefore, if a forward pass were judged solely looking at how the ball travels over the grond, then in order for the passer not to pass fowards, he would have to throw it backwards at a considerable angle and speed to cancel the forwards momentum of the ball

Also, it is nothing new. Would it surprise you to know that the forward throw has been judged the way it is now, for at least the last 65 years. Before the advent of Laws being governed by the IRFB, the Rugby Union (now the RFU) was the Guardian of the Laws of the Game. What we now call "Clarifications in Law" (previously "Law Rulings") were at that time called "Case Law" and were published by the RU. In the 1949 edition of "The History of the Laws of Rugby Football" by Admiral Sir Percival Royds (a former England International, referee with the London Society, and President of the RFU) the author records quite a number of these Case Laws, including the following entry...

[TEXTAREA]1948. Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

The R.U.Decided: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball, which must be at the discretion of the referee."[/TEXTAREA]

What they are saying is that you judge a forward pass by judging the direction of the throw out of the passer's hands, not by the flight of the ball over the ground.

This is just as well, because if it were not so, the game of rugby would be nigh on impossible to play at any speed above walking pace. Back in 2008 I did a match analysis of passes thrown. However it was only one match, so some time ago, an ex-referee friend of mine, and I, decided to extend this study by analysing six randomly chosen matches. Over the course of several weekends, we watched all the matches from start to finish, counting the number of passes in each match, noting whether they were;

1. Thrown forward from the player.
2. Thrown backwards from the player but were caught or landed in front of where they were passed.
3. Thrown backwards and caught or landed behind where they were thrown from.

This sometimes required replay analysis, and sometimes it was obvious and no checking was required. Some were just too difficult to tell, even with replay, so we called them "indeterminate"

The results were interesting to say the least

Total passes over the six matches.............................. = 1408 (average 235)

Passes thrown forward from the player........................ = 19 (~3) 1.3%

Passes thrown backwards & caught/landed forwards...... = 582 (~97) 41%

Indeterminate (unable to tell if caught forward or not).... = 182 (~30) 13%

Passes thrown backward & caught/landed behind............ = 625 (~104) 44%

As expected, we noticed that the outside backs threw the vast majority of the passes that were thrown backwards and landed or were caught in front, while the scrum-halves hardly ever threw one of these at all. The wider out the player from the set piece or breakdown, the more likely they were to throw a "momentum" pass.

What this illustrated to us, was that if those referees who believe that a pass must automatically be forward if it travels forward over the ground truly judged passes in that manner, they would be blowing up for around 97 forward passes per match!! The absurdity of such a position is self evident. There are not enough minutes in a match to allow for the scrums to be ordered.

Even Rugby League recognises this...

[TEXTAREA]SECTION 10
KNOCK-ON AND FORWARD PASS
Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.[/TEXTAREA]

 

[TJAY]

^And that's just trying to explain one part of the game, a very basic part. No wonder the majority of the planet prefer football.

 

[ncurd]

^And that's just trying to explain one part of the game, a very basic part. No wonder the majority of the planet prefer football.

Yeah but that's just because some people don't understand/acknowledge conservation of momentum which is pretty basic part of physics (until you get to complex physics where it's hideously complicated but you can get by on the basic stuff).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

A quick question since we're at it: How many penalties due to poor scrumming must a ref tolerate before he shows a yellow?

 

[gamine]

First of all, let me address this point. There are no equations with relative speeds used to judge forward passes. All that is, is an explanantion of why the forward pass is judged the way it is. The reason is that when a player is running, the ball is already movng forwards at the same speed as the runner, therefore, if a forward pass were judged solely looking at how the ball travels over the grond, then in order for the passer not to pass fowards, he would have to throw it backwards at a considerable angle and speed to cancel the forwards momentum of the ball

Also, it is nothing new. Would it surprise you to know that the forward throw has been judged the way it is now, for at least the last 65 years. Before the advent of Laws being governed by the IRFB, the Rugby Union (now the RFU) was the Guardian of the Laws of the Game. What we now call "Clarifications in Law" (previously "Law Rulings") were at that time called "Case Law" and were published by the RU. In the 1949 edition of "The History of the Laws of Rugby Football" by Admiral Sir Percival Royds (a former England International, referee with the London Society, and President of the RFU) the author records quite a number of these Case Laws, including the following entry...

[TEXTAREA]1948. Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

The R.U.Decided: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball, which must be at the discretion of the referee."[/TEXTAREA]

What they are saying is that you judge a forward pass by judging the direction of the throw out of the passer's hands, not by the flight of the ball over the ground.

This is just as well, because if it were not so, the game of rugby would be nigh on impossible to play at any speed above walking pace. Back in 2008 I did a match analysis of passes thrown. However it was only one match, so some time ago, an ex-referee friend of mine, and I, decided to extend this study by analysing six randomly chosen matches. Over the course of several weekends, we watched all the matches from start to finish, counting the number of passes in each match, noting whether they were;

1. Thrown forward from the player.
2. Thrown backwards from the player but were caught or landed in front of where they were passed.
3. Thrown backwards and caught or landed behind where they were thrown from.

This sometimes required replay analysis, and sometimes it was obvious and no checking was required. Some were just too difficult to tell, even with replay, so we called them "indeterminate"

The results were interesting to say the least

Total passes over the six matches.............................. = 1408 (average 235)

Passes thrown forward from the player........................ = 19 (~3) 1.3%

Passes thrown backwards & caught/landed forwards...... = 582 (~97) 41%

Indeterminate (unable to tell if caught forward or not).... = 182 (~30) 13%

Passes thrown backward & caught/landed behind............ = 625 (~104) 44%

As expected, we noticed that the outside backs threw the vast majority of the passes that were thrown backwards and landed or were caught in front, while the scrum-halves hardly ever threw one of these at all. The wider out the player from the set piece or breakdown, the more likely they were to throw a "momentum" pass.

What this illustrated to us, was that if those referees who believe that a pass must automatically be forward if it travels forward over the ground truly judged passes in that manner, they would be blowing up for around 97 forward passes per match!! The absurdity of such a position is self evident. There are not enough minutes in a match to allow for the scrums to be ordered.

Even Rugby League recognises this...

[TEXTAREA]SECTION 10
KNOCK-ON AND FORWARD PASS
Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.[/TEXTAREA]

So according to the laws of physics, it is not possible, while running, to pass backwards without the ball traveling forward. If the receiver is parallel with, (or even very slightly behind) the thrower, is he in front of thethrower when he catches the ball? Presumably yes, as the ball has inevitably gone forward with the passer's momentum. Is this then a forward pass?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

So according to the laws of physics, it is not possible, while running, to pass backwards without the ball traveling forward. If the receiver is parallel with, (or even very slightly behind) the thrower, is he in front of thethrower when he catches the ball? Presumably yes, as the ball has inevitably gone forward with the passer's momentum. Is this then a forward pass?

There's a very good Youtube video from World Rugby on this. Just type in forward pass rugby and you will find it. I'm at work at the moment, otherwise I would post the video up.

 

[gamine]

There's a very good Youtube video from World Rugby on this. Just type in forward pass rugby and you will find it. I'm at work at the moment, otherwise I would post the video up.

Thanks, I have seen the videos and I understand the exposition , but that doesn't answer my question.

 

[Superalexmarket]

This the better way to explain the Theory of Relativity.

 

[gamine]

My question is about where the ball is caught. Presumably it is a forward pass if the ball is caught in front of the thrower. If the receiver is only very slightly behind, or even parallel, to the thrower, then surely, however the ball is thrown, it will go forward, (laws of momentum) and the receiver will catch the ball in front of the thrower. The examples on the video don't deal with this, as the receiver is always quite a way behind the thrower.

 

[ncurd]

It's a forward pass if the ball is "thrown backwards", by this it means if the passer of the ball was to travel at his current speed beyond throwing the ball, the ball would be behind him once it is caught, most players dramatically slow down after passing the ball giving the illusion it had been passed forwards where in reality the players has slowed quicker than the ball did with the backward motion of the pass. Ref adjudges by the motion of a players hands as it's the only visual way to whether he's done that or not.

 

[gamine]

It's a forward pass if the ball is "thrown backwards", by this it means if the passer of the ball was to travel at his current speed beyond throwing the ball, the ball would be behind him once it is caught, most players dramatically slow down after passing the ball giving the illusion it had been passed forwards where in reality the players has slowed quicker than the ball did with the backward motion of the pass. Ref adjudges by the motion of a players hands as it's the only visual way to whether he's done that or not.

I understand your point, but still no resolution of the parallel runner question. It is possible to throw with a backward motion of the hands, but the ball will still go forward, and be caught in front of the thrower. Thus, a forward pass that doesn't look like one if you are relying on the motion of the hands. I don't think I am the only one to have worked this one out!