Forward passes

[Maverick1987]

Does anyone else think the hands forwards/backwards rather than the flight of the ball make things more difficult ?

Wouldn't a straight the ball travelled forwards make it far easier on the referee/TMO ?

 

[Tony Manx]

Absolutely.....totally ridiculous to see what the hands are doing in comparison the the ball flight and I do not give a XXXX about momentum!

 

[Maverick1987]

Absolutely.....totally ridiculous to see what the hands are doing in comparison the the ball flight and I do not give a XXXX about momentum!

They take momentum into account for a late tackle ie. if someone is commited to a tackle before the target player has kicked the ball away but not for passes !!! It's madness i tell you !!! Haha

 

[Tony Manx]

I refer to the momentum where the ball actually "drifts" forward as a result of the momentum of the passer but the hands are going backwards when it treated as not a forward pass.. I am saying it should be a forward pass exactly because the ball goes forward!!

 

[Maverick1987]

I refer to the momentum where the ball actually "drifts" forward as a result of the momentum of the passer but the hands are going backwards when it treated as not a forward pass.. I am saying it should be a forward pass exactly because the ball goes forward!!

Haha it kind of says it all doesn't it "that ball went forward but the hands went back" sounds strange

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'm assuming you're talking about that Toulon try?

I understand the rule, and agree with the reasoning behind it.
But that was just a bad call - the ball was clearly propelled forward!

 

[Tony Manx]

I understand the rule, and agree with the reasoning behind it.

....and I do not - if it is forward, it is forward but the rule is the rule and I think that the change in rules makes it more difficult to officiate!!

 

[ratsapprentice]

The ball having to stay parallel to where it was passed from would make officiating far easier.

 

[Tony Manx]

The ball having to stay parallel to where it was passed from would make officiating far easier.

Could not have put it better even though I tried!!

 

[William18]

Yes. It would be easier to officiate. Football and rugby league are also easy to officiate. I think watering down the game to make it easier for the referees is just ridiculous. Yeah it makes it easier to officiate it would also make the game complete ****. What you guys must realise is that under your definition almost any long cross field pass would have to be deemed forward. It also makes it hard to do flat short balls to one out runners and discourages offloads (as the tackled player is always moving backwards). What will be the result of these changes? More kicking. I think we quite have enough of that already.

You can't just do something and pretend it doesn't affect other things or human behavior or whatever. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

[Tony Manx]

You can't just do something and pretend it doesn't affect other things or human behavior or whatever. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Yet they changed the interpretation from the "flight of the ball" to the "direction of the hands" to determine if the pass is forward................?

 

[Darwin]

I agree entirely with William18. I don't think people fully appreciate just how many passes would be classified at forward passes if the interpretation of a forward pass (or throw forward, as it is defined in the law book) was changed. For example I just re-watched the final All Blacks try versus Ireland (as I do most days ). There were a total of 24 passes. 5 of them clearly traveled forward (3 from Cruden, 1 from Ben Smith, 1 from Read), and there were a couple more that were 50:50. Did anyone spot those 5 forward passes when watching it at full speed?

Picking up whether a pass traveled forward in real-time (as a ref has to) is actually pretty difficult. I would suggest this is far more difficult than detecting a forward pass under the current interpretations. Personally I think the interpretations are fine as they are, but I can understand why it can be frustrating for some supporters!

 

[ratsapprentice]

The trouble is that they are actually applying the law incorrectly, they are not taking into account that people's hands move backwards after the ball has been released.

If the ball is being received 2 metres ahead of where it was passed from then there is an issue.
You can actually propell a ball forward and yet your hands move backwards from the release of the ball.
From a spin pass the ball will point in the direction it was propelled - if it's pointing towards the try line and travels forward 2 metres from where it was passed then I cannot accept it wasn't propelled forwards.

This is what I'm talking about:



His hand to move backwards... but only after he has released the ball.

 

[j'nuh]

Imagine you and a friend on a treadmill, 1m apart, same speed, facing in the same direction. You pass a ball between each of you in a straight line. I can guarantee that every single pass you throw between the two of you, will be forwards, and the distance of it will be the distance travelled in the time between when you released the ball and the time your friend collected the ball. That's why relative velocity needs to be considered: if you decide based on intuition of whether a ball went forwards or not, it wouldn't be concrete enough with so many fans with their own opinions, whereas if you go by the distance-travelled rule, you would have to virtually stop playing running rugby in order to avoid being penalised.

This was posted on TRF not too long ago, a good demonstration by the IRB:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

 

[ratsapprentice]

I understand the rule and agree with it.
In the video I posted above the ball is clearly propelled forward, but because Giteau also pulls his hands back after he released the ball they considered the direction of his hands backwards.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

That pass was forward even by the "new" rule. That was just a wrong call.
The direction of the hands is just a very complicated way to say that the reference sould be the player who threw the pass if he had continued running at the same speed and direction (as it is in 90% of the cases). The video above explains it perfectly, a couple of years before this "direction of hands" nonsense was introduced.

 

[William18]

Yet they changed the interpretation from the "flight of the ball" to the "direction of the hands" to determine if the pass is forward................?

This has always been the interpretation. It has always been a forward pass - not a forward catch. It is about the pass in relation to the player's movement rather than where the ball is caught. I thought I would analyse the tries from the so called "game of the year" and look for forward passes under your interpretations. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYwu5ujOF4

From 3:10 you see a try with a clear forward pass. Vermulen was standing before the 22 and Habana catches the ball inside the 22. Your interpretations - No Try. As it was the All Blacks didn't even bother complaining and the referee did not check it . It would be very difficult for a referee to pick up that that was a forward pass.

From 3:48 you see the ball from Alberts clearly travel forward but the hands went backwards. Most people said try of the year - you would have said no try.

Same with the first Messam try - 2 or 3 forward passes in the lead up.

I could go through the rest but I don't see the point. The point is your rules would have ruined the best rugby game of the year and probably every other one.

 

[Tony Manx]

Lot of work to do all that to come up with a silly result........the present interpretation seems to allow the last two tries and the first one was missed - it happens!

"My rules" do not exist........when the ball went forward, it was a forward throw and only more recently has the interpretation as to the direction of the hands taken precedence. If it had not, then I would suggest that coaches would train their players to follow the interpretation in force just as they do with the present interpretation.

To judge situations that happened under one interpretation in a period of a different one is futile and incompatable..............really bit like would this AB team beat that of 1987!

 

[Darwin]

As far as I understand the "throw forward" law has always been interpreted the same way as it is now (though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong). I don't see any need to change it just to make it a little easier for TMO's to assess whether of not there was a forward pass (especially as it would make it more difficult for the on-field ref to judge, and make a major change to the way the game is played). If we went back to the when TMO's could only adjudicate on what happened over the try line there would be far fewer issues (but that is another story!).

 

[Maverick1987]

This has always been the interpretation. It has always been a forward pass - not a forward catch. It is about the pass in relation to the player's movement rather than where the ball is caught. I thought I would analyse the tries from the so called "game of the year" and look for forward passes under your interpretations. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYwu5ujOF4

From 3:10 you see a try with a clear forward pass. Vermulen was standing before the 22 and Habana catches the ball inside the 22. Your interpretations - No Try. As it was the All Blacks didn't even bother complaining and the referee did not check it . It would be very difficult for a referee to pick up that that was a forward pass.

From 3:48 you see the ball from Alberts clearly travel forward but the hands went backwards. Most people said try of the year - you would have said no try.

Same with the first Messam try - 2 or 3 forward passes in the lead up.

I could go through the rest but I don't see the point. The point is your rules would have ruined the best rugby game of the year and probably every other one.

Surely if it leaves the hands going forward it a forward pass . If it leaves the hands backwards but spin/wind/momentum takes it forward then that's fine . That's how I understood it anyway

Plus I don't think saying your rules would have ruined the best game of rugby is right at the end of the day the laws are the laws . Same as I don't agree with a referee letting things go at the breakdown because he wants to see a flowing game ahem "Steve Walsh" ahem .

It's not his job to decide unfortunately