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

[unapologetic pedant]

On 17/07/2020 at 15:57, bobbruce said:

I very rarely see blatant forward passes not pulled. 

 

1 hour ago, Padge said:

Rules are not trangessed by players being more skilled to playing within an inch of the laws. 

Playing to the maximum the laws allow is not a reason to change the laws.

The equivalent is that because people drive at thirty mile an hour in a 30 zone we should make the speed limit 29 mph.

Learn the laws, let refs ref and shut  the FU and blame you team for being rubbish and not someone bogey man.

The worst supporter of the game is the one who blames everybody for their teams faults but their own club.

Some people see a perfectly level, legal pass as "blatantly forward" or "a mile forward".

Strictly, the difference between level and forward can be incremental. If a pass is taken 1mm in front of where it was given, how can that be distinguished from perfectly level with any reliability? Not just by officials on the field but also by the video ref. That 1mm changes nothing, has no impact on the ability of opponents to defend the play. If a legal pass is called forward that does change things. It`s a gross breach of natural justice.

So if there`s doubt, the benefit of it should go to the attacking side. To call a pass forward not because you`re certain it was forward, but because you can`t be certain it wasn`t forward, is the same logic that would in a law court regard a defendant as guilty till proven innocent.

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

Rules are not trangessed by players being more skilled to playing within an inch of the laws. 

Playing to the maximum the laws allow is not a reason to change the laws.

The equivalent is that because people drive at thirty mile an hour in a 30 zone we should make the speed limit 29 mph.

Learn the laws, let refs ref and shut  the FU and blame you team for being rubbish and not someone bogey man.

The worst supporter of the game is the one who blames everybody for their teams faults but their own club.

Have you stubbed your toe on the corner of the bed, or just inhebriated, either way what a miserable individual.

[The Rocket]

8 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

So if there`s doubt, the benefit of it should go to the attacking side. To call a pass forward not because you`re certain it was forward, but because you can`t be certain it wasn`t forward, is the same logic that would in a law court regard a defendant as guilty till proven innocent.

Absolutely spot on. 

If their not sure, play on.

Nothing more infuriating than officials who want to be part of the game by showing how sharp-eyed they are or how they know the rule book inside out.

[Harry Stottle]

8 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

 

Some people see a perfectly level, legal pass as "blatantly forward" or "a mile forward".

Strictly, the difference between level and forward can be incremental. If a pass is taken 1mm in front of where it was given, how can that be distinguished from perfectly level with any reliability? Not just by officials on the field but also by the video ref. That 1mm changes nothing, has no impact on the ability of opponents to defend the play. If a legal pass is called forward that does change things. It`s a gross breach of natural justice.

So if there`s doubt, the benefit of it should go to the attacking side. To call a pass forward not because you`re certain it was forward, but because you can`t be certain it wasn`t forward, is the same logic that would in a law court regard a defendant as guilty till proven innocent.

 

13 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Absolutely spot on. 

If their not sure, play on.

Nothing more infuriating than officials who want to be part of the game by showing how sharp-eyed they are or how they know the rule book inside out.

If a ball is legal it is legal end off, and I am not talking of those 1mm decisions, but on observing the only RL being played at the moment which is the NRL, multiple occurrences of the ball travelling 300mm or more is missed on a lot of occasions, either I am lying or you are just accepting and more lenient of obvious forward passes.

[The Rocket]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

If a ball is legal it is legal end off, and I am not talking of those 1mm decisions, but on observing the only RL being played at the moment which is the NRL, multiple occurrences of the ball travelling 300mm or more is missed on a lot of occasions, either I am lying or you are just accepting and more lenient of obvious forward passes.

I figure that what we see on tv and what an official on the field sees are two very different things. We see with a much longer perspective, they are much closer to the action, where the angles are different.

Also,  we see both the person passing and the person receiving the ball at same time, allowing comparisons. Officials have nano-seconds to shift their vision between the two and judge their relative positions, almost impossible with flat passes and players at speed.

Therefore I repeat my assertion ,  if in doubt play on.

[Harry Stottle]

52 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I figure that what we see on tv and what an official on the field sees are two very different things. We see with a much longer perspective, they are much closer to the action, where the angles are different.

Also,  we see both the person passing and the person receiving the ball at same time, allowing comparisons. Officials have nano-seconds to shift their vision between the two and judge their relative positions, almost impossible with flat passes and players at speed.

Therefore I repeat my assertion ,  if in doubt play on.

Very sensible,  

My argument is with the law as it is now and well over 100years, (for Padge) that the modern game is challenging the line of legality far more than it has ever done previously, I have sympathy with the ref's and agree with what you say on perspective and angles, I think this is one rule that could be adjusted to assist the person with the whistle and cut down on those "doubtful" decisions, not stop them that will never happen, but it could be much cleaner and clearer for all TO SEE.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

the modern game is challenging the line of legality far more than it has ever done previously, I have sympathy with the ref's and agree with what you say on perspective and angles, I think this is one rule that could be adjusted to assist the person with the whistle

I  hope I`m not asking you to repeat yourself but what adjustment are you proposing.

[Harry Stottle]

30 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I  hope I`m not asking you to repeat yourself but what adjustment are you proposing.

Exactly as my first pist in this thread.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

multiple occurrences of the ball travelling 300mm or more is missed on a lot of occasions, either I am lying or you are just accepting and more lenient of obvious forward passes.

I `ve been watching League for nigh on 50 years now and like everyone else instinctively call ` forward ` several times a game.

It`s interesting that a try awarded where a forward pass is involved is sometimes less painful than where one is called back because a pass has been called incorrectly forward. The Rugby League equivalent of Loss Aversion Theory.

However I still think that only the really blatant ones are problematic.

[The Rocket]

On 14/07/2020 at 17:33, Harry Stottle said:

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.

 

Harry that sounds like a minefield and  would result in too many plays being pulled up.

It`s funny the whole purpose of this thread was to eliminate this grey area by legalising forward passes and by extension less stoppages. I think we all agree that allowing the angle of the pass to extend beyond 90 degrees would open up too many other issues. Even though potentially opening the game right up.

I think though if we insist that the pass is less than 90 degrees we limit the game and will reduce open play. It just becomes another reason to pull the play up by over officious referees and touch judges.

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Have you stubbed your toe on the corner of the bed, or just inhebriated, either way what a miserable individual.

 

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly as my first pist in this thread.

The pist calling the kettle, inhebriated

[fighting irish]

I've never heard the rule properly explained in an unambiguous way, by players, coaches, or tv commentators.

You may need some understanding of vectors to get it but this is my attempt.

Let's assume that the ball carrier is travelling at 9 m/s (metres per second) towards the opposition goal line. It is also true that the ball is travelling towards the opposition goal line at 9 m/s (because the ball carrier is carrying it).

When he passes the ball to a team mate, he propels the ball sideways (adding a sideways component to the velocity vector of say 5 m/s towards the touchline) but he must also ensure that the original component towards the goal-line, (which was 9 m/s) is reduced, i.e. less than 9m/s. Let's say 8 m/s as an example.

Now, the ball has two velocity components 8 m/s towards the opposition goal line and 5 m/s towards the touchline.

If we track the position of the ball relative to the place on the ground, where it leaves the passers hands, at no time does the ball travel backwards (i.e. towards the passers own goal line).

All that happens is it proceeds towards the opposition goal line, more slowly than the passer and more slowly than it was before it was passed . This is a legal pass.

If the velocity component (towards the opposition goal line is increased, i.e. greater than 9 m/s then the pass is illegal, judged ''forward''.

I now claim the right to change the name of the game to Alphamax football. 

[unapologetic pedant]

24 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I've never heard the rule properly explained in an unambiguous way, by players, coaches, or tv commentators.

You may need some understanding of vectors to get it but this is my attempt.

Let's assume that the ball carrier is travelling at 9 m/s (metres per second) towards the opposition goal line. It is also true that the ball is travelling towards the opposition goal line at 9 m/s (because the ball carrier is carrying it).

When he passes the ball to a team mate, he propels the ball sideways (adding a sideways component to the velocity vector of say 5 m/s towards the touchline) but he must also ensure that the original component towards the goal-line, (which was 9 m/s) is reduced, i.e. less than 9m/s. Let's say 8 m/s as an example.

Now, the ball has two velocity components 8 m/s towards the opposition goal line and 5 m/s towards the touchline.

If we track the position of the ball relative to the place on the ground, where it leaves the passers hands, at no time does the ball travel backwards (i.e. towards the passers own goal line).

All that happens is it proceeds towards the opposition goal line, more slowly than the passer and more slowly than it was before it was passed . This is a legal pass.

If the velocity component (towards the opposition goal line is increased, i.e. greater than 9 m/s then the pass is illegal, judged ''forward''.

I now claim the right to change the name of the game to Alphamax football. 

I would be astonished if you`ve ever heard any rule clearly, articulately explained by those you allude to.

How to implement each rule is often more complicated than the simple description in the rulebook. How the rules mutually fit even more so. Officials are merely told to get it right. What if there`s unavoidable doubt? Due to angle of view, speed of action, the possibly tiny margins involved. Then the only resource available is guesswork. Unless it`s a TV game and the video ref is called upon. Even then, what if the footage is inconclusive?

If there is a comprehensive exposition of how all the rules should be applied, where the benefit of the doubt should logically go in each case, we certainly never get to hear of it. And the TV muppets lack the gumption to provide their own. 

[Padge]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Have you stubbed your toe on the corner of the bed, or just inhebriated, either way what a miserable individual.

I agree with one point you make, you are indeed a miserable individual.

Rugby is about the fun of the game, the enjoyment of the skill on show, this is what we all applaud.

Miserable individuals are the ones who detract by deciding discussing the ref is more important than discussing the game.

Footnote: When drunk I can spell inebriated.

[Harry Stottle]

32 minutes ago, Padge said:

I agree with one point you make, you are indeed a miserable individual.

Rugby is about the fun of the game, the enjoyment of the skill on show, this is what we all applaud.

Miserable individuals are the ones who detract by deciding discussing the ref is more important than discussing the game.

Footnote: When drunk I can spell inebriated.

Leaving aside the juvenile first sentance, the only discussion part when the ref has been mentioned was as a modification of the rule to assist them. FWIW but for the life of me I don't know why I feel the need to defend myself to you, during the course of any game when all around me are chastising or criticising the ref I am the one who does the correcting short and sweet.

 By the way thanks for the spelling lesson.

[fighting irish]

Go get 'im 'arry. 

[unapologetic pedant]

14 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

If a ball is legal it is legal end off, and I am not talking of those 1mm decisions, but on observing the only RL being played at the moment which is the NRL, multiple occurrences of the ball travelling 300mm or more is missed on a lot of occasions, either I am lying or you are just accepting and more lenient of obvious forward passes.

Do you draw a distinction between short and long passes?

I`m relaxed about any forward passes going undetected since it`s only the bad ones that change anything significant, and as "The Rocket" says those are rarely missed. I can understand the vexation more if a long pass floats forward a metre or more because that does yield an advantage and alter the game. It also ought to be easier to call with certainty.

[The Rocket]

On 20/07/2020 at 01:08, fighting irish said:

I've never heard the rule properly explained in an unambiguous way, by players, coaches, or tv commentators.

You may need some understanding of vectors to get it but this is my attempt.

Let's assume that the ball carrier is travelling at 9 m/s (metres per second) towards the opposition goal line. It is also true that the ball is travelling towards the opposition goal line at 9 m/s (because the ball carrier is carrying it).

When he passes the ball to a team mate, he propels the ball sideways (adding a sideways component to the velocity vector of say 5 m/s towards the touchline) but he must also ensure that the original component towards the goal-line, (which was 9 m/s) is reduced, i.e. less than 9m/s. Let's say 8 m/s as an example.

Now, the ball has two velocity components 8 m/s towards the opposition goal line and 5 m/s towards the touchline.

If we track the position of the ball relative to the place on the ground, where it leaves the passers hands, at no time does the ball travel backwards (i.e. towards the passers own goal line).

All that happens is it proceeds towards the opposition goal line, more slowly than the passer and more slowly than it was before it was passed . This is a legal pass.

If the velocity component (towards the opposition goal line is increased, i.e. greater than 9 m/s then the pass is illegal, judged ''forward''.

I now claim the right to change the name of the game to Alphamax football. 

Now Irish, you are going to have to give me a couple of days to digest this! 

I will attempt to provide an intelligent response worthy of your post.

p.s. Don`t hold your breath.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 19/07/2020 at 20:35, fighting irish said:

Go get 'im 'arry. 

Sham 69 - "Hurry up Harry". "We`re going down the pub".

[fighting irish]

Mash it up, mash it up, mash it up 'Arry. - Ian Dury. 

[Wakefield Ram]

On 17/07/2020 at 15:57, bobbruce said:

I very rarely see blatant forward passes not pulled. 

I very rarely see any forward passes pulled up.