Commonly Misunderstood Rules

[Maximus Decimus]

Last night saw one of the worst forward passes in memory and naturally it caused a lot of consternation online. Whilst pretty much everyone agreed it was forward, it always baffles me how many people don't actually understand the rule. Even the commentators mentioned how many metres forward it went which is not technically relevant. 

You then end up with people trying to argue that the RFL needs to end this 'momentum madness' and do it in relation the the pitch makings. This would cause chaos and be completely unworkable, yet many will pitch this as common sense. 

A couple of months ago there was an interesting discussion on here about how the voluntary tackle rule is not what everyone thinks it is. I tried to explain this on Monday to someone and felt like I was trying to tell them that the Earth was flat. 

It got me thinking, are there any other examples of situations where the generally accepted understanding of the rule is wrong? 

[John WP Fan]

6 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Last night saw one of the worst forward passes in memory and naturally it caused a lot of consternation online. Whilst pretty much everyone agreed it was forward, it always baffles me how many people don't actually understand the rule. Even the commentators mentioned how many metres forward it went which is not technically relevant. 

You then end up with people trying to argue that the RFL needs to end this 'momentum madness' and do it in relation the the pitch makings. This would cause chaos and be completely unworkable, yet many will pitch this as common sense. 

A couple of months ago there was an interesting discussion on here about how the voluntary tackle rule is not what everyone thinks it is. I tried to explain this on Monday to someone and felt like I was trying to tell them that the Earth was flat. 

It got me thinking, are there any other examples of situations where the generally accepted understanding of the rule is wrong? 

As someone new to RL, I'm probably one of those who doesn't understand either of these rules. Can you explain them? I have no idea what the voluntary tackle is, and I think a forward pass is one that is received forward of where the passing player released it. I am happy to be educated to better understand the game!

[corvusxiii]

I argued with ex ru players who don' get it and insist the ball can not go forward. And they have a lot more experience of this thing than I do. Several years ago there was and incident where Cudjoe basically threw the ball back over his head. It could not have been thrown in a backwards direction any more. Inspection showed the ball travelled forward and people suggested that this pass should therefore have been called forward. Great stuff.

 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, John WP Fan said:

As someone new to RL, I'm probably one of those who doesn't understand either of these rules. Can you explain them? I have no idea what the voluntary tackle is, and I think a forward pass is one that is received forward of where the passing player released it. I am happy to be educated to better understand the game!

I'll leave the voluntary tackle to someone more in the know! The average fan thinks it is a player dropping to the floor before a defender has even made contact. I did until about 2 months ago. 

The forward pass rule is even more counter intuitive. Most people think it is in relation to the ground so if a ball lands 2m in front of where it was thrown from it must be a forward pass. This seems like such obvious common sense but it isn't true. 

If a player is running forward and he throws the ball sideways the ball will travel forward. This is often mistakenly referred to as the momentum rule and most fans are aware of it because of past controversies but as last night shows few really understand it. Some will angrily state that it is a farce and state the rule should be scrapped. They don't however realise just how many passes in a game would be classed as forward if it was based on the pitch and just how natural some of these passes look in real time. It would be much more farcical (and harder to judge) the other way around. The way we judge it is by looking at the direction the ball was thrown which is usually judged by the hands. 

 

[Maximus Decimus]

 

If you look at this first try, the ball travels about 5m forward but it looks pretty natural in real time when you see how far behind him the player is.

To make it even worse, the pass before it technically goes forward (Edwards I think) but literally nobody would call for that in a game. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, corvusxiii said:

I argued with ex ru players who don' get it and insist the ball can not go forward. And they have a lot more experience of this thing than I do. Several years ago there was and incident where Cudjoe basically threw the ball back over his head. It could not have been thrown in a backwards direction any more. Inspection showed the ball travelled forward and people suggested that this pass should therefore have been called forward. Great stuff.

 

This is sort of the point. There are passes in a game where the player throwing it doesn't think they've thrown it anywhere near forward, the player receiving it doesn't think it's forward and none of the opposition fans have shouted forward, yet if you were to slow it down the ball has gone forward in relation to the ground. 

The big controversial examples like the Cudjoe one are sort of arguable about, it is the run of the mill passes that make it ridiculous to question. Your Union friends will have undoubtedly thrown forward passes in their eyes that were completely oblivious too. 

[chuffer]

3 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

 

If you look at this first try, the ball travels about 5m forward but it looks pretty natural in real time when you see how far behind him the player is.

To make it even worse, the pass before it technically goes forward (Edwards I think) but literally nobody would call for that in a game. 

Ah some of the plays in that footage remind me why i fell in love with the game in the 80's....lovely stuff

[Chris22]

The number of people who sit near me are that one eyed they don't seem to understand any rule!

The worst offenders are not knowing that you have a minute to take a kick before time off is called, not knowing that the touchjudges have to be in position before time off can be called at a kick off and not knowing a 20m tap must be controlled if the ball is thrown back.

One rule that I would like clarification on myself. When there is a possible obstruction and an attacker surrenders, sky tell us this negates a penalty. I don' think that's a rule and just has started occurrng recently. Can anyone shed any light?

[Bullish Giant Rhino]

There are a lot of oddities in the game. Obstruction, momentum rule, double movements and momentum when grounding the ball, offside and being within the 10, 2 on 1 steals being subjective, dummy halves throwing balls at offside players, scrums being competed for/ball held in the scrum

The problem is that the nature of Sky coverage means every decision is ostracised. Every sport has its grey areas, let's get rid of Stuart Cummings, use the video refs for only grounding and touch, and just enjoy the game for what it is! (A thrilling, fast-paced and skilful game) 

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Bullish Giant Rhino said:

There are a lot of oddities in the game. Obstruction, momentum rule, double movements and momentum when grounding the ball, offside and being within the 10, 2 on 1 steals being subjective, dummy halves throwing balls at offside players, scrums being competed for/ball held in the scrum

The problem is that the nature of Sky coverage means every decision is ostracised. Every sport has its grey areas, let's get rid of Stuart Cummings, use the video refs for only grounding and touch, and just enjoy the game for what it is! (A thrilling, fast-paced and skilful game) 

You can't blame commentators for talking a game up and trying to create talking points for debate.

It's like an interviewer asking awkward questions about controversial decisions to try and provoke a response.

It's all done to dramatise the game 

[corvusxiii]

As I recall the ball carrier can not submit to a tackle-'without good reason'.  Now that might be a can of worms but I might  also have just made it up.

Why are these things so obscure rather than common knowledge?

[The Vet]

Dont get me started on this thread!

The knock on rule: if the ball is dropped but goes backwards it is NOT a knock on... over the past few years refs are over thinking it and are giving ridiculous scrums when clearly the ball goes towards the offenders try line, that amongst many rules that are just over thought by refs.

if a ball carriers leg is lifted it isn’t a penalty, when the leg is lifted that is when the ref should call held, so many fans I know think it’s a penalty, those are 2 without even thinking about it

 

[RayCee]

15 hours ago, John WP Fan said:

As someone new to RL, I'm probably one of those who doesn't understand either of these rules. Can you explain them? I have no idea what the voluntary tackle is, and I think a forward pass is one that is received forward of where the passing player released it. I am happy to be educated to better understand the game!

Form my understanding John, the voluntary tackle rule came during the time of unlimited tackles. A team that was leading could hold onto the ball indefinitely as long as they committed no infringements. To stop a player with the ball from flopping on the ground without any interest in playing but just retain possession and keep their lead, this rule was introduced.

It has less value today as a defender putting his hand on the prostrate player counts as one of the six tackles they are allowed. It wastes one of the six tackles too easily so is rarely done except when there are seconds to go at the end of a game. Because of the rarity of it, officials don't enforce the rule although in the instance I mentioned it should be. 

As for the momentum rule, the ball coming out of a player's hands forwards is a forward pass. If it goes backwards from the hands, it still actually travels forward because the person passing it is moving forward. In this instance the lines on the field are misleading because the receiver will take the ball further up the field than the place where the pass was initiated. When you throw a ball out of a moving car it initially moves forward with the car. The same principal applies here. The official needs to look at the angle of the hands when the ball is passed, because where it ends up doesn't prove whether the pass was forward or not. 

Someone else may be able to explain them better.

[Oxford]

"Commonly Misunderstood Rules ....."

That's all of them!

"Last night saw one of the worst forward passes in memory ..."

I don't know how you tell the difference from that one and all the other worst forward passes ever seen?

[johnh1]

I always thought that if the player passing the ball stayed in front of the player receiving the ball (as in the case on Friday), that was 'momentum' and therefore not forward. But there is no doubt that Friday's pass was forward, so it has to be whether it came out of the hands in a forward motion.

[RayCee]

10 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

I always thought that if the player passing the ball stayed in front of the player receiving the ball (as in the case on Friday), that was 'momentum' and therefore not forward. But there is no doubt that Friday's pass was forward, so it has to be whether it came out of the hands in a forward motion.

If a player was hit in a tackle the moment after he passed it he wouldn’t stay in front but as you correctly stated, its the hands that determine the legality of the pass.

[chuffer]

2 hours ago, RayCee said:

Form my understanding John, the voluntary tackle rule came during the time of unlimited tackles. A team that was leading could hold onto the ball indefinitely as long as they committed no infringements. To stop a player with the ball from flopping on the ground without any interest in playing but just retain possession and keep their lead, this rule was introduced.

It has less value today as a defender putting his hand on the prostrate player counts as one of the six tackles they are allowed. It wastes one of the six tackles too easily so is rarely done except when there are seconds to go at the end of a game. Because of the rarity of it, officials don't enforce the rule although in the instance I mentioned it should be. 

As for the momentum rule, the ball coming out of a player's hands forwards is a forward pass. If it goes backwards from the hands, it still actually travels forward because the person passing it is moving forward. In this instance the lines on the field are misleading because the receiver will take the ball further up the field than the place where the pass was initiated. When you throw a ball out of a moving car it initially moves forward with the car. The same principal applies here. The official needs to look at the angle of the hands when the ball is passed, because where it ends up doesn't prove whether the pass was forward or not. 

Someone else may be able to explain them better.

Spot on

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

its the hands that determine the legality of the pass.

No it's the colour of the specs you're looking through that determine the legality of all passes and holding down and ..... and .....and ..... and  ......

Rules not well understood through lenses that only allow certain views and ideas through ...  it's called er ........being a fan.

[Padge]

the most common mistake is thinking we have rules, we have laws of the game, not rules.

 

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

No it's the colour of the specs you're looking through that determine the legality of all passes and holding down and ..... and .....and ..... and  ......

Rules not well understood through lenses that only allow certain views and ideas through ...  it's called er ........being a fan.

Have they not tried Spec Savers?

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

the most common mistake is thinking we have rules, we have laws of the game, not rules.

 

Wow, your contribution is breathtaking.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

the most common mistake is thinking we have rules, we have laws of the game, not rules.

 

So, are you saying that like German speed limits they're advisory not compulsory?

And it still doesn't mean they're understood any better for that.

1 minute ago, RayCee said:

Have they not tried Spec Savers?

Yes that's where they buy all the rose coloured ones but the Blinkers can only be acquired at BlinkersR'us please see our new Laws of the Game model alongside our earphones with a game where your side are winning which when purchased together will include a free "It Was All a Fix!" Mug and a "They Never Give Us Nowt!" poster. These will make the perfect Xmas, Diwali, Hannukah and Eid present for your TGG loving loved ones. And remember our motto

Be there, be Biased or be Nowhere!

[Maximus Decimus]

6 hours ago, Oxford said:

"Commonly Misunderstood Rules ....."

That's all of them!

"Last night saw one of the worst forward passes in memory ..."

I don't know how you tell the difference from that one and all the other worst forward passes ever seen?

It's a subjective statement. 

Or are you denying that there are degrees of how forward a pass can be? Is an American football pass not more forward that an attempted flat pass?

Other than that you seem to have gone on a bizarre rant about bias. I'm a Widnes fan watching Saints vs Hull about an incident that didn't matter one jot to the end result, where is my bias? 

Please let's just stick to the thread as it was designed to be, a discussion about misconceptions not about one eyed fans. Its not the same thing. 

[Oxford]

32 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Please let's just stick to the thread as it was designed to be, a discussion about misconceptions not about one eyed fans. Its not the same thing. 

Well, they're exactly the same thing Max our understanding of the rules(laws of the game) and our ability to see them wrongly are about how we perceive stuff like it or not, bizarre or otherwise!

[John Rhino]

Momentum rule is a ridiculous name when it's simple physics.

If you jump off a train straight out doing 60mph then as you leave you'll be doing 60mph. If you jump out over an embankment you'll travel a long way forward relative to the ground before you hit it. You will never travel forward relative to the train.

Think then what happens to the ball when passed completely flat from a player running at top speed. If it crosses a line on the pitch it looks forward but isn't.

There was a nice little video (from the NZ union) a while ago that illustrated this perfectly. I can't find it now