Allowing forward passes (with the same offside rules as for kicks)

[MEXICO WILL PAY]

Would the game be more exciting if forward passes were allowed? To prevent completely changing the game they would have to have the same offside rules as kicks. Perhaps they'd also require the forward pass to be touched by another player before touching the pitch to prevent players from throwing the ball forward aimlessly.

[The Rocket]

So the pass receiver has to behind the the person who delivers the pass as it is thrown. I have pondered this question in the past as a way of introducing a bit of variety into the game, NFL style. Would you get players throwing the ball into the air `bomb -style`, it could get a bit messy. However , I think that is great to discuss new ideas because as we have seen this year even small rule changes can have very large and positive impacts.

[unapologetic pedant]

32 minutes ago, MEXICO WILL PAY said:

Would the game be more exciting if forward passes were allowed? To prevent completely changing the game they would have to have the same offside rules as kicks. Perhaps they'd also require the forward pass to be touched by another player before touching the pitch to prevent players from throwing the ball forward aimlessly.

On a serious note, I prefer a more liberal attitude than most to borderline passes where a pass is innocent till proven guilty not vice versa. The weakness in this is that passes which travel palpably backward are more aesthetically pleasing than flat ones. So a clearly forward pass would look downright ugly, quite apart from any change to the structure of the game.

On a less serious note, if forward passes were allowed it would be a good moment to also allow the Bunker to rule on them. Think of the fun. Just as, if spoilsports hadn`t brought in qualifying rounds for Eurovision, there could have been one big event where voting would last a whole weekend.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Would be interesting to see in practice to see if it works. Would be much easier to officiate I guess. 

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Would be interesting to see in practice to see if it works. Would be much easier to officiate I guess. 

Would be a big difference between throwing the ball one metre forward to your winger compared to throwing it over the defensive line for your winger to run on to.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, MEXICO WILL PAY said:

Would the game be more exciting if forward passes were allowed? To prevent completely changing the game they would have to have the same offside rules as kicks. Perhaps they'd also require the forward pass to be touched by another player before touching the pitch to prevent players from throwing the ball forward aimlessly.

No, in my opinion this leniency and attitude of "is it a pass forward or not" is borne through very inconsistent officiating and the terminolgy of the ruling 'forward pass' which under modern strategy's as led to the ref having to judge very marginal calls such as the 'flat' or 'line ball' which is putting them in a very delicate situation, if he/she whistles they are damned by one section, if they don't whistle the other section get on their backs.

I don't think that the ruling was ever designed to create controversial decisions such as was it forward or not and for many many years it worked very well, it used to be the case that at the merest suggestion that the ball was not travelling in a reverse direction the crowd did the refs job and called out in unison 'forward'.

If the terminology of the rule was changed from 'forward pass' to 'not backwards' i.e. the ball is not travelling in a reverse direction to that of play, it would be far easier for all to see, be it the officials, fans, commentators and even the TV cameras. Obviously as with every rule mistakes would be made, but I feel if the emphasis was on trying to ensure the ball travelled back instead of "did it cross the imaginary line" of making it a forward pass there would be far far less dubious decisions of was it or wasn't it.

I don't know about you guy's but after years of watching this game I instinctively at the hint of a pass being thrown forward say the word 'forward' to myself, in most televised games be it NRL or up here I seem to call out that word on quite a few occasions these days. 

[Rhinoferg]

Wigan and Saints already get away with forward passes! Lol.

On a serious note. NO - forward passes should not be allowed,it is rugby league not NFL or Union!!!

It is a skill to make sure that you are behind the person passing and time everything ,so again NO!

[TBone]

Why? The ball being passed in a backward direction is a fundamental tennet  of the game underpining other rules such as knock on,  correct play the ball, etc.. Removing it, which has been in the rulebook and accepted by millions of players and fans in over a century of the game, seems to be doing something just for the sake of it. What percentage of passes on average are called to be forward? I think it is likely to be very very small, as to those that are game changing - almost zero. If a player wants the ball to travel forwards they have to kick it, something requiring skill to do well.  

[JM2010]

I think it should be left as it is. It would completely change the game and there's nothing wrong with the product we have now

 

[DavidM]

Me thinks we’ve been here before

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I think it should be left as it is. It would completely change the game and there's nothing wrong with the product we have now

 

It is to controversial at the moment, with coaches trying to gain every inch possible with the flat and line balls, ensure it goes backwards, not some crazy notion of allowing it to be passed forward, what next armour and helmets?

[Futtocks]

10 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Me thinks we’ve been here before

Several times.

[Rhinoferg]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is to controversial at the moment, with coaches trying to gain every inch possible with the flat and line balls, ensure it goes backwards, not some crazy notion of allowing it to be passed forward, what next armour and helmets?

Then Widnes will have to change their name in case it upsets any Vikings

[JM2010]

31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is to controversial at the moment, with coaches trying to gain every inch possible with the flat and line balls, ensure it goes backwards, not some crazy notion of allowing it to be passed forward, what next armour and helmets?

The forward pass will always be a controversial decision especially with flat passes and camera angles. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes not. Unless it's an obvious missed forward pass then I'm ok with that.

Taking away the flat pass or line ball might solve this problem but it might also take away a big part of the attacking game and speed of the plays 

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, Rhinoferg said:

Then Widnes will have to change their name in case it upsets any Vikings

Don't get me started on this PC shi-ite, I see Washington Redskins are being told to change their name because it could upset some, presumably the All Blacks are the worst offenders?

[Tonka]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't get me started on this PC shi-ite, I see Washington Redskins are being told to change their name because it could upset some, presumably the All Blacks are the worst offenders?

That's completely different.  "All Blacks" refers to the kit.

Anyway, no we shouldn't have forward passes, it would vastly alter the structure of the game and I can't see that it adds anything...

[The Rocket]

There was a very interesting development in the League last year although I haven`t seen it as much this year. Really well coached teams like the Roosters were playing their backline moves as though each player on the inside knew exactly where the player outside of him would be positioned. This was allowing really slick backline movements because the player throwing the pass had no need to look where the outside player was because he knew where he would be positioned. Passing became an automatic action. I pointed this out to my sons at the time and said this was a sign of the professionalism at that club and made perfect sense. There was no need to use this all the time but was particularly useful when a team was taking advantage of an overlap and a fast moving defense trying to shut them down. It also reduced the chances of throwing a forward pass.

[Damien]

In what year did a flat pass become legal? Certainly for a long time when I played a flat pass was considered a forward pass and the ball had to go backwards. This then changed but I cant actually pinpoint when.

[DavidM]

I never knew if the momentum rule was an actual thing or something Stevo made up

[silverback]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't get me started on this PC shi-ite, I see Washington Redskins are being told to change their name because it could upset some, presumably the All Blacks are the worst offenders?

Wait for the centurions to get in bother,reporting to tribunes who helped send the gladiators to death.and the knights could get in bother too for what happened on party nights during the pilgrimage.worlds gone mad.

   as for the forward pass,it not needed in the game or next will be a thrown in.

[Whippet13]

29 minutes ago, silverback said:

Wait for the centurions to get in bother,reporting to tribunes who helped send the gladiators to death.and the knights could get in bother too for what happened on party nights during the pilgrimage.worlds gone mad.

   as for the forward pass,it not needed in the game or next will be a thrown in.

I think Wakefield Trinity and Salford Red Devils are more at risk, clearly treading on religious sensitivity.

[DEANO]

Is it 1st April 

[Phil]

No, never ever ever, one of the defining characteristics of our game is that the ball is passed backwards, I can’t see how changing that could improve the game at all 

[unapologetic pedant]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

No, in my opinion this leniency and attitude of "is it a pass forward or not" is borne through very inconsistent officiating and the terminolgy of the ruling 'forward pass' which under modern strategy's as led to the ref having to judge very marginal calls such as the 'flat' or 'line ball' which is putting them in a very delicate situation, if he/she whistles they are damned by one section, if they don't whistle the other section get on their backs.

I don't think that the ruling was ever designed to create controversial decisions such as was it forward or not and for many many years it worked very well, it used to be the case that at the merest suggestion that the ball was not travelling in a reverse direction the crowd did the refs job and called out in unison 'forward'.

If the terminology of the rule was changed from 'forward pass' to 'not backwards' i.e. the ball is not travelling in a reverse direction to that of play, it would be far easier for all to see, be it the officials, fans, commentators and even the TV cameras. Obviously as with every rule mistakes would be made, but I feel if the emphasis was on trying to ensure the ball travelled back instead of "did it cross the imaginary line" of making it a forward pass there would be far far less dubious decisions of was it or wasn't it.

I don't know about you guy's but after years of watching this game I instinctively at the hint of a pass being thrown forward say the word 'forward' to myself, in most televised games be it NRL or up here I seem to call out that word on quite a few occasions these days. 

Your last paragraph indicates you have advanced RL fans` "Forward" tourette`s syndrome. I`ve spent a lot of time stood or sat among people for whom it clearly is just a reflex, blurted out response. Although the symptoms ease when their own team are in possession. Often wondered how sufferers cope watching RU games. Aversion therapy, maybe?

[unapologetic pedant]

8 hours ago, JM2010 said:

The forward pass will always be a controversial decision especially with flat passes and camera angles. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes not. Unless it's an obvious missed forward pass then I'm ok with that.

Taking away the flat pass or line ball might solve this problem but it might also take away a big part of the attacking game and speed of the plays 

Absolutely. If a pass has to be seen to clearly travel backwards to avoid the risk of being called forward it renders the short ball and the round-the-corner offload impossible. So they would disappear as attacking options and the game would be diminished.

On the play where the two options are the no-look flat ball and the pass out the back, if the former is routinely called forward, it`s pretty obvious to the defence where the ball is going.