NRL to trial forward pass recognition technology

[fighting irish]

4 minutes ago, Southerner said:

So contradictory when they’re trying to speed up the game and restarts but this will add to the list of things to check when awarding a try

Surely not. I imagine every pass will be monitored automatically and a ''forward'' pass will result in the on field referee being alerted immediately. It shouldn't alter the speed of the game, or the time taken to decide if a try is awarded but it will (should) ensure the correct decision is made regarding disputed forward passes. 

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

Hang on, you are backing up my point.

The rule, which i copied from the RFL website, which you subsequently copied is entirely consistent with everything I'd said, prior to your accusation that I have ''obviously'' not read the rules.

On what basis, did you conclude that I had not read the rules?

You can't logically criticise my earlier posts and accuse me of not knowing the rules, when my earlier posts are a correct interpretation of the rules.

Did you bother to read my earlier posts or just ''assume'' (incorrectly) what I meant and jump to your absurd conclusion? 

 

[Padge]

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

The measurement must be made immediately the ball loses contact with his hand/s. What he does after that is of no consequence. 

 

12 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

You can't logically criticise my earlier posts and accuse me of not knowing the rules, when my earlier posts are a correct interpretation of the rules.

 

Read it and unless of no consequence means something different in your world then you are wrong.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Clogiron said:

The simple way to solve this age old issue is to change the rule to state the ball must be passed backwards, no flat passes, the receiver must be behind the man who passes the ball.

Why would you want to eliminate one of the options attacking teams have to penetrate a defence? An option which enhances the potency of all the other options. How does that benefit the game as a spectacle?

And it wouldn`t solve anything. We`d just have people shouting "FLAT" for 80 minutes.

In RL philosophy would "that wurra mile flat" be a plausible proposition?

[Wakefield Ram]

They could do what they do in RU, where the video ref can call forward passes. Seems to work. 

Never quite understood why it is so difficult. Refs make decisions when often not ideally positioned, but apparently if watching a pass from multiple angles on a TV screen, it can't be trusted.

 

[fighting irish]

23 hours ago, Padge said:

 

Read it and unless of no consequence means something different in your world then you are wrong.

I don't know, if you are having a laugh or are just an idiot.

If you believe you have an argument make it.

Just making single statements unsupported by any evidence, isn't an argument, its the avoidance of argument.

I can easily understand why you would want to avoid clarifying your position because its nonsense.

I'll make one more attempt to elicit a sensible response from you.

Are you seriously suggesting that what the player (who passed the ball) does after he releases the ball (and has lost contact with it) has any bearing on whether its a forward pass or not? 

I said what the passer does after he lost contact is of no consequence and that is perfectly true.

If you are not prepared to argue your position clearly and in full, do not waste my time, with unsupported insults.

That is trolling.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Padge said:

The game would be impossible to play.

??? If any pass can be delivered in a "back" direction then all passes can be delivered just the same, a player can't 'knock on' a little bit and expect to get away with it the same should apply to the ball being passed forward a littke bit forward is still an offence.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

32 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I don't know, if you are having a laugh or are just an idiot.

If you believe you have an argument make it.

Just making single statements unsupported by any evidence, isn't an argument, its the avoidance of argument.

I can easily understand why you would want to avoid clarifying your position because its nonsense.

I'll make one more attempt to elicit a sensible reponse from you.

Are you seriously suggesting that what the player (who passed the ball) does after he releases the ball (and has lost contact with it) has any bearing on whether its a forward pass or not? 

I said what the passer does after he lost contact is of no consequence and that is perfectly true.

If you are not prepared to argue your position clearly and in full, do not waste my time, with unsupported insults.

That is trolling.

I think he's misread/misunderstood the proposition you've made.

Padge, he said "immediately" after leaving the hands. Unless they're playing in a storm, the wind wouldn't take affect so quickly.

I think you've read it as him saying the wind doesn't matter to the rule. He's saying it doesn't matter to the way they'd measure it.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

??? If any pass can be delivered in a "back" direction then all passes can be delivered just the same, a player can't 'knock on' a little bit and expect to get away with it the same should apply to the ball being passed forward a littke bit forward is still an offence.

No, because in order for the ball to be passed backwards relative to the field, the game would have to be played at an incredibly slow pace.

If the pitch was marked in one metre intervals, you would realise just how many passes are forward in relation to the pitch but still legal because of the laws of the game.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

23 hours ago, Copa said:

Interesting 

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/03/29/forward-pass-technology-trial-not-far-off-as-annesley-concedes-try-error/?utm_source=NRLFBContent&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=NetworkContent&fbclid=IwAR3zWwS921Q8D1Hll6kS085QicPCkZ9YKK4rhGCyQmy78-i5eEmERMXhtbc

 

My mind flashes back to a topic about 12 years ago on here when I was still at university. Measurement of velocity, as fighting Irish said, is how you would determine if the ball has been accelerated forward or not (in relation to the player).

The article however does not mention HOW they would detect forward passes (if it did, I missed it, although I did scan over it quickly).

 

If they did manage to find a way to successfully measure the velocity of the player and the ball, its usage in the game would be dependent on whether the result is instant. If it is, then it could be applied to every pass (as the referee would be notified instantly). If it's not, you'd expect certain passes to be reviewed alongside the video referee only to determine tries.

I do not see it as technology that would significantly slow down the game at all.

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

No, because in order for the bag to be passed backwards relative to the field, the game would have to be played at an incredibly slow pace.

If the pitch was marked in one metre intervals, you would realise just how many passes are forward in relation to the pitch but still legal because if the laws of the game.

The terminology of not passing 'forward' is not the best, it encourages the debatable 'line' ball or 'flat' pass, now if the rule was changed to 'not backwards' that would be much easier to identify.

As for your last paragraph, yes I am well aware of what you describe, but I am also aware of how many illegal passes are missed which you also must have observed on many occasions.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The terminology of not passing 'forward' is not the best, it encourages the debatable 'line' ball or 'flat' pass, now if the rule was changed to 'not backwards' that would be much easier to identify.

As for your last paragraph, yes I am well aware of what you describe, but I am also aware of how many illegal passes are missed which you also must have observed on many occasions.

Yes, I am aware that the number of illegal passes missed is insignificant in comparison to the number of passes made as a whole, and as such don't see the need to fundamentally change the way the sport is played as a whole to prevent it.

I think whether you say not forward or not backwards is irrelevant. In reality, there is no such thing as a "flat pass" as no pass will ever be exactly in line - it will either go a tiny bit forward or a tiny bit backwards. It will not eliminate flat passes at all.

[fighting irish]

40 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

........In reality, there is no such thing as a "flat pass" as no pass will ever be exactly in line - it will either go a tiny bit forward or a tiny bit backwards......

A flat pass can occur Welsy, it happens when the velocity of the ball (towards the opponents goal line) is equal to the velocity (towards the opponents goal line) of the player passing the ball at the instant they part company. Drag, either due to slower moving air or faster moving air (in the direction of the opponents goal line) will begin to take effect immediately the passer releases the ball resulting in the ball being accelerated (by a tail wind) or decelerated (by a head wind, or static air) which will knock the ball off its ''flat'' course.

In the special case (very unusual case) where the air is moving towards the opponents goal line at the same velocity as the player carrying/passing the ball and when the velocity of the ball is equal as well, the pass will remain ''flat'' until acted upon by some other force, such as hitting the ground, or another player. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

This debate reminds me of a video I saw on You Tube a few years ago where in a demonstration a player running at speed passes the ball to a colleague.  The pass appears legal but when the action is replayed and a grid is placed over the image the ball goes 2 metres forward.

Just found the video it is titled Total Rugby - Forward Pass produced by the IRB.  The demonstration is at 1.02. No idea how to upload it.

Seems Stevo was right about ‘momentum’

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It will not eliminate flat passes at all.

If it is changed as I suggest to 'Not Backwards' flat passes will be recognised as an illegal action, i.e. the ball will not be propelled in a 'backward' direction.

[Copa]

If this is what tech may be able to do now, then even just 10 years from now the tech will be even more amazing and prevalent. 

[Padge]

4 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I don't know, if you are having a laugh or are just an idiot.

If you believe you have an argument make it.

Just making single statements unsupported by any evidence, isn't an argument, its the avoidance of argument.

I can easily understand why you would want to avoid clarifying your position because its nonsense.

I'll make one more attempt to elicit a sensible reponse from you.

Are you seriously suggesting that what the player (who passed the ball) does after he releases the ball (and has lost contact with it) has any bearing on whether its a forward pass or not? 

I said what the passer does after he lost contact is of no consequence and that is perfectly true.

If you are not prepared to argue your position clearly and in full, do not waste my time, with unsupported insults.

That is trolling.

If a player passes the ball when running to a player running with him when he passes he must keep moving to avoid a forward pass if the passer stops as soon he passes the ball to the catcher he will create a forward pass . What the passer does as soon as he has passed the ball has consequencies.

[M j M]

2 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Seems Stevo was right about ‘momentum’

He absolutely, positively, completely was not.

He said it a lot but got completely the wrong end of the stick about it. And that state of affairs persisted for years.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 the same should apply to the ball being passed forward a littke bit forward is still an offence.

Indeed so, but when the margin is tiny it`s impossible for human beings to call reliably. So we have to decide in which direction we want the benefit of the doubt to go - both in accordance with logic and the interests of the game.

Unless, in respect of this topic, technology can provide us with copper-bottomed accuracy.

 

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

If it is changed as I suggest to 'Not Backwards' flat passes will be recognised as an illegal action, i.e. the ball will not be propelled in a 'backward' direction.

Some RL fans already translate "forwards" as "not clearly backwards".

If you technically or aesthetically dislike the look of a dead straight pass, changing to "not backwards" will not help you. A pass which travels 1mm backwards looks identical to a flat pass.

So there`s a ratcheting effect. Before long "not backwards" will need to become "not clearly backwards". And attacking options will be correspondingly diminished.

Perfect example is the standard play of the no-look short flat pass to the lead runner or the longer deeper pass out the back. If the first passing option risks being called illegal, it`s obvious to the defence where the ball is going - so this play is useless and will disappear from the game.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, fighting irish said:

A flat pass can occur Welsy, it happens when the velocity of the ball (towards the opponents goal line) is equal to the velocity (towards the opponents goal line) of the player passing the ball at the instant they part company. 

My argument is that it will never be equal. It will always be a little bit more or a little bit less. That little bit is just not noticeable to the naked eye.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

If it is changed as I suggest to 'Not Backwards' flat passes will be recognised as an illegal action, i.e. the ball will not be propelled in a 'backward' direction.

Again, define backwards?

What looks flat to you may actually be 1mm backwards, and as such perfectly legal.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

They could do what they do in RU, where the video ref can call forward passes. Seems to work. 

What do you mean by "work"? i.e. in the context that RL and RU have different ideas about how a forward pass looks.

[DavidM]

Just now, unapologetic pedant said:

What do you mean by "work"? i.e. in the context that RL and RU have different ideas about how a forward pass looks.

And knock ons . 

[unapologetic pedant]

17 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Surely not. I imagine every pass will be monitored automatically and a ''forward'' pass will result in the on field referee being alerted immediately. It shouldn't alter the speed of the game, or the time taken to decide if a try is awarded but it will (should) ensure the correct decision is made regarding disputed forward passes. 

I think we can all agree that if 100% reliable technology were available it would be ideal.

Combining all your posts on this FI, I`m not sure whether you think such technology is possible. Personally, when all the  imponderables delineated in this thread are factored in, I don`t believe it is.

[fighting irish]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

If a player passes the ball when running to a player running with him when he passes he must keep moving to avoid a forward pass if the passer stops as soon he passes the ball to the catcher he will create a forward pass . What the passer does as soon as he has passed the ball has consequencies.

That is absolute nonsense my dear friend.