Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Video ref forward passes


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 dengol

dengol
  • Coach
  • 27 posts

Posted 08 February 2014 - 09:28 PM

For the past few years (maybe longer) forward passes have not been referred to the video ref - for me I felt this was wrong where tries had been scored following the suggestion of a forward or an obvious forward pass had been made but missed by the match officials.

 

The argument against using the VR was that camera angles could be deceptive and time would be 'wasted' (although the clock is stopped) so keep the game flowing. 

 

After the first try for Huddersfield against Wigan there was the possibility of an offside by the try scorer. However the VR's simply marked a virtual line across the pitch which clearly showed that the player was onside and the try was quickly awarded. 

 

A similar virtual line could be drawn for suspected forward passes specifically in situations which result in a try.

 

There are cases where the momentum rule may apply, which I feel are few in number and arguably in most cases easily read by officials assisted by the VR. 

 

 



#2 north yorks trinity

north yorks trinity
  • Players
  • 12 posts

Posted 08 February 2014 - 10:18 PM

I think you would be surprised how often the "momentum rule" would apply, certainly in most cases where the passer is actually moving, although there is no momentum rule as such, simply a requirement for the ball to be passed in a backward direction (relative to the passer rather than the pitch) which I guess amounts to the same thing.  I do agree that the video ref could assess forward passes. After all, if he can't, how do we expect the ref or touchies to do so! But drawing lines on the pitch wouldn't help.



#3 Black Country Wire

Black Country Wire
  • Coach
  • 1,220 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 12:09 AM

Sometimes a forward pass is so blatantly obvious that it could be picked up by a video ref. And if different camera angles suggest different outcomes there's surely always recourse to the "Benefit of the Doubt" option.


Last new RL ground (83): Langtree Park, St Helens - Leeds v Warrington 9/8/14


#4 Old Frightful

Old Frightful
  • Coach
  • 13,088 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 12:13 AM

7783048fade48335219b2af4a557295e12071eb2


Untitled_zpsd0bda754.jpg

 

 

 

_60052630_bentham.jpg    "Forward pass, head and feed to New Zealand.....What's that Mr Sutton?, no we can't go to the f***ing video ref!"


#5 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 08:10 AM

The argument against using the VR was that camera angles could be deceptive and time would be 'wasted' (although the clock is stopped) so keep the game flowing.

Never heard the time issue, but camera angles definitely are deceptive.

After the first try for Huddersfield against Wigan there was the possibility of an offside by the try scorer. However the VR's simply marked a virtual line across the pitch which clearly showed that the player was onside and the try was quickly awarded.

A similar virtual line could be drawn for suspected forward passes specifically in situations which result in a try.

No it couldn't. Offside involves a players feet being on or close to the ground, so marking a line on the pitch will show who is and isn't in front of the line.
Because a ball is in the air, it's hard to say where it is in relation to a line on the ground from certain angles. It would look deceptive and just highlight what people want to see rather than what actually is there.

This is before even considering the fact that a forward passes aren't relative to the pitch, but relative to the player.

There are cases where the momentum rule may apply, which I feel are few in number and arguably in most cases easily read by officials assisted by the VR.

If a player is moving when they pass, which is pretty much all the time, then the "momentum" rule comes into play. To say they are few in number means you don't notice them (which is supposed to be the case).

I think the video technology probably is there to give an informed view of a forward pass, but not in the way you describe.
Posted Image

#6 iangidds

iangidds
  • Coach
  • 362 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:10 AM

The Ru boys do this now to give themselves even less opportunities to score a try! They just view the players hands to see if they are passing flat or behind to make the decision as momentum comes into nearly every try

#7 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:11 AM

You know - I bet the graphics technology's there to have a line centred on the player passing the ball, moving forward as he moves forward under his own momentum.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#8 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:41 AM

You know - I bet the graphics technology's there to have a line centred on the player passing the ball, moving forward as he moves forward under his own momentum.

I don't think it'd be too hard to track a player's forward velocity using a line across the pitch (like they did for the offside). Stop it when the player has passed to see the velocity there, then continue the line moving forward at that speed to see if the player catching it is in front of the line (forward pass) or behind it (fine).
Posted Image

#9 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,160 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:12 AM

You know - I bet the graphics technology's there to have a line centred on the player passing the ball, moving forward as he moves forward under his own momentum.


This doesn't work either. We still get players passing the ball forward out of the hands and then speeding up in an attempt to stay in front of it to try and prove its ok. I'm just not sure we have the technology yet to do it. We would need to be able to track speed of player as released speed and direction of ball. Even things like wind at that exact point as in a stadium with swirling winds you couldn't just put a wind metre at one end. There's the option of just looking at hands but we'd need to accept they'd probably get as many wrong as the refs do know.

#10 Tonka

Tonka
  • Coach
  • 710 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:18 AM

Most passes (forward or not) will have some "momentum" because the passing player will be running forwards.

 

A line on the pitch will not usually assist.

 

The current rule is good.



#11 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:55 AM

This doesn't work either. We still get players passing the ball forward out of the hands and then speeding up in an attempt to stay in front of it to try and prove its ok.

We do?

If a player can do that, in the very short amount of time they'd need to decide to do it, and the physical ability they'd need to do it, then they're extremely talented!

Personally I don't think that happens, and if it did it would be incredibly obvious.
Posted Image

#12 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,160 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 11:36 AM

We do?

If a player can do that, in the very short amount of time they'd need to decide to do it, and the physical ability they'd need to do it, then they're extremely talented!

Personally I don't think that happens, and if it did it would be incredibly obvious.


It does quite regularly when a player puts a long ball in and then takes a few big/quick strides to keep in front of the ball.

#13 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,374 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:40 PM

If we accept that momentum plays a part in the flight of the ball, which we have to because the laws of physics say so, then it's also possible to calculate a tolerance.

So using the kind of technology we saw for the offside judgement on Friday nights game there could be a line drawn showing a flat or level trajectory and a second line showing the tolerance accounting for momentum, anything ahead of the momentum line would be ruled forward. Sounds complicated but the process is simple and quick.

It would certainly catch the forward passes that are quite clearly ridiculous yet are allowed using the momentum as an excuse.

#14 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,374 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:44 PM

I'll add that the relative speed of the ball is related to the speed of the passer who in most cases slows down to execute the pass and if the motion of the passers hands is in a backwards or at best flat direction then the momentum of the ball is reduced even further. Therefore the forward trajectory of the balls flight in relation to the position of the passer and the lines on the fied would be measured in inches or at an extreme maybe a foot or so but certainly never in metres.

Edited by OMEGA, 09 February 2014 - 01:48 PM.


#15 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,160 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:46 PM

If we accept that momentum plays a part in the flight of the ball, which we have to because the laws of physics say so, then it's also possible to calculate a tolerance.

So using the kind of technology we saw for the offside judgement on Friday nights game there could be a line drawn showing a flat or level trajectory and a second line showing the tolerance accounting for momentum, anything ahead of the momentum line would be ruled forward. Sounds complicated but the process is simple and quick.

It would certainly catch the forward passes that are quite clearly ridiculous yet are allowed using the momentum as an excuse.



There isn't one single momentum level for all passes it depends on the speed of the passer. It's possible that a ball could travel 3 or 4 metres forward relative to the pitch and still be fine. So where would you draw this line.

#16 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,374 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:51 PM

There isn't one single momentum level for all passes it depends on the speed of the passer. It's possible that a ball could travel 3 or 4 metres forward relative to the pitch and still be fine. So where would you draw this line.


It is quite simply impossible fr momentum to account for a forward trajectory measured in metres, the passer would have to be travelling at speeds well in excess of human capability for that to happen, either that or they're on the back of a superbike.

#17 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:51 PM

There isn't one single momentum level for all passes it depends on the speed of the passer. It's possible that a ball could travel 3 or 4 metres forward relative to the pitch and still be fine. So where would you draw this line.

It would be a moving line that moves forward at the calculated velocity of the passer at the time of passing.
Posted Image

#18 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,160 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:52 PM

I'll add that the relative speed of the ball is related to the speed of the passer who in most cases slows down to execute the pass and if the motion of the passers hands is in a backwards or at best flat direction then the momentum of the ball is reduced even further. Therefore the forward trajectory of the balls flight in relation to the position of the passer and the lines on the fied would be measured in inches or at an extreme maybe a foot or so but certainly never in metres.


There was a clip on here last year I think Wellsys put it on. Where Cudjoe flicks the ball out of the back of his hands. So not a flat ball Cudjoe actually put some force in to send that ball backwards. In relation to the pitch it travelled about 1m forward.

#19 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,160 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:58 PM

It would be a moving line that moves forward at the calculated velocity of the passer at the time of passing.


Absolutely and if as a game we invested in the same technology as cricket or tennis use it would be possible. I just don't think its a big enough problem or that the wills there from the game to pay for it. Just drawing a line on the pitch doesn't work whether that line is level with the ball or a foot in front.

#20 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,374 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:29 PM

There was a clip on here last year I think Wellsys put it on. Where Cudjoe flicks the ball out of the back of his hands. So not a flat ball Cudjoe actually put some force in to send that ball backwards. In relation to the pitch it travelled about 1m forward.


Oh well, if John Wells says so I'll ignore Isaac Newton




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users