Forward Pass Technology

[Maximus Decimus]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/03/31/deep-dive-into-nrls-advanced-forward-pass-technology/

Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere before, but I couldn't find it. It's ironic because I was going to post about whether something like this was possible. I must admit after reading the article that it was more complex than I'd envisaged.

I've made my opinions clear before about how I feel RL can be a very frustrating game to watch because of the number of subjective calls that a referee has to make during a game. One of the most obvious examples of this is with forward passes. In every game, there are borderline decisions that are sometimes given and sometimes not. This isn't to do down referees, it is an impossible job to get correct especially when you consider the effect of momentum on the ball. The result can be an effect where it feels to many fans like a bit of a lottery when they are given and when they aren't. Therefore, technology that decides it once and for all would be great wouldn't it?

Whilst I would be absolutely all for it, I don't think it would necessarily be the answer to the fan problem. The reality is that far too many fans simply don't understand the reality of forward passes: I've had arguments on here with lifelong RL fans who have insisted that the rule should be change to be in relation to the ground despite the reality of this creating an unworkable game. I've demonstrated numerous videos proving the reality of momentum in the game, and they refuse to back down. The first video demonstrates this perfectly: it was a legal pass and should have counted but I can't envisage a day when the whole crowd would recognise that it isn't a forward pass. Instead of blaming referees, they would blame the technology and make out like it is corrupt. Even if the TV were able to do a sort of goal-line technology demonstration they still wouldn't buy it.

Interesting nonetheless, and it would be very interesting to see if it could be furthered to include downward pressure or ball strips etc.

 

[bobbruce]

6 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/03/31/deep-dive-into-nrls-advanced-forward-pass-technology/

Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere before, but I couldn't find it. It's ironic because I was going to post about whether something like this was possible. I must admit after reading the article that it was more complex than I'd envisaged.

I've made my opinions clear before about how I feel RL can be a very frustrating game to watch because of the number of subjective calls that a referee has to make during a game. One of the most obvious examples of this is with forward passes. In every game, there are borderline decisions that are sometimes given and sometimes not. This isn't to do down referees, it is an impossible job to get correct especially when you consider the effect of momentum on the ball. The result can be an effect where it feels to many fans like a bit of a lottery when they are given and when they aren't. Therefore, technology that decides it once and for all would be great wouldn't it?

Whilst I would be absolutely all for it, I don't think it would necessarily be the answer to the fan problem. The reality is that far too many fans simply don't understand the reality of forward passes: I've had arguments on here with lifelong RL fans who have insisted that the rule should be change to be in relation to the ground despite the reality of this creating an unworkable game. I've demonstrated numerous videos proving the reality of momentum in the game, and they refuse to back down. The first video demonstrates this perfectly: it was a legal pass and should have counted but I can't envisage a day when the whole crowd would recognise that it isn't a forward pass. Instead of blaming referees, they would blame the technology and make out like it is corrupt. Even if the TV were able to do a sort of goal-line technology demonstration they still wouldn't buy it.

Interesting nonetheless, and it would be very interesting to see if it could be furthered to include downward pressure or ball strips etc.

 

You can measure the trajectory of the player and ball all you like but I never get how the technology will account for the wind especially on a gusty day. I do think trying something like this would help to educate fans on what a forward pass is though. So even if it isn’t 100% could still be worth trialing. 

[Maximus Decimus]

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

You can measure the trajectory of the player and ball all you like but I never get how the technology will account for the wind especially on a gusty day. I do think trying something like this would help to educate fans on what a forward pass is though. So even if it isn’t 100% could still be worth trialing. 

I suppose it is all about the direction that the ball was thrown at in relation to the ground. In theory you only need a very small distance to determine whether it was thrown backwards or not.

There is a really interesting discussion on how it would be implemented in that article. For me, if it was possible, I would have it as something that goes in the referees ear and they instantly give it. I don't like the idea of only having it during plays that lead to a try or having a margin of error etc. If it turned up that there were actually far more forward passes than we think, players would need to adjust.

Perhaps just as interesting is the possibility of its use for all sort of data analysis in the game. Really the possibilities are endless: kick height and direction, hang time, speed and direction of passes, whether a goal/DG goes over the posts or not, player preference for passing etc

And one for the Hull fans after Friday, whether the ball was knocked on or not...

[StandOffHalf]

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

You can measure the trajectory of the player and ball all you like but I never get how the technology will account for the wind especially on a gusty day. I do think trying something like this would help to educate fans on what a forward pass is though. So even if it isn’t 100% could still be worth trialing. 

The wind is immaterial. The ball can get caught in the wind and gust forward, but as long as the pass is flat out of the hands it's a legal pass.

[The Rocket]

I am absolutely dreading this as it seems just another reason to pull up play. Even in the last couple of weeks there has been several instances where the ball was pretty obviously thrown forward, officials missed it, play carried on, commentators may have had a momentary grumble but it was soon forgotten. For christ`s sakes the last thing we need is another reason to pull up play.

Most forwards passes if they were missed were borderline anyway, and the blatant ones usually get called.

If they are going to have this technology I hope to bloody hell it applies to knock-ons as well because the obsession our referees have with calling every dropped ball a knock-on really gives me the #######. Let the bloody game flow please.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

The wind is immaterial. The ball can get caught in the wind and gust forward, but as long as the pass is flat out of the hands it's a legal pass.

Yes but if you are measuring the direction of the ball you’d need to take the wind into account. 

[fighting irish]

I love these arguments simply because they do highlight the misunderstandings that are rife amongst fans. I've tried to explain it before (with mixed results) but I'll try once more.

Discussions about the direction of the ball are unhelpful and only serve to confuse the issue.

What's important (to measure) is the velocity of the ball towards the opponents goal line.

When the ball is being carried (before it's passed) it is travelling towards the opponents goal line at the same velocity as the ball carrier.

At the instant, the ball leaves the passers hands, the ball must be travelling (in the direction of the opponents goal line) slower than the passer. This means the passers hands and arms must decelerate the balls motion towards the opponents goal line just before it's released.

The ground beneath is irrelevant.

For completeness I should add, that the actual motion (velocity) of the ball will be the vector sum, of three components. One towards the opposition goal line and one towards the touch line and the third up or down. (perpendicular to each other). Changes in the component towards the touch line and up or down are irrelevant. It's only the change in the velocity towards the opposition goal line that matters.

If the velocity (component) towards the opponents goal line is faster than the ball carrier at the instant it leaves the ball carriers hands, its an illegal (forward) pass, if it's decreased it's a legal pass.

 

[Dunbar]

I think this is a terrible idea, even if it works perfectly. 

Every change to make the game 'fairer' and take away the controversial calls seems sensible and justifiable in its own right but then you roll them up and in the end you get something you don't want.

I'm not interested in a computer algorithm getting all the calls right, I want to see Rugby League played between two teams of players and the officials.  There will be some mistakes - from all parties - but that's fine for me... I don't want to see correct calls replacing human beings.  Otherwise we may as well just watch 'perfect' plays on a PS5.

[Jughead]

If we have to have stills with different coloured lines to determine if a ball went a millimetre forward, how football had different coloured lines to determine offsides by millimetres, I don’t want it. 

[fighting irish]

7 minutes ago, Jughead said:

If we have to have stills with different coloured lines to determine if a ball went a millimetre forward, how football had different coloured lines to determine offsides by millimetres, I don’t want it. 

I agree, but that wouldn't work anyway.

[Griff]

Remind me what it costs and how many TV cameras need to be at the game.

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

Remind me what it costs and how many TV cameras need to be at the game.

Indeed. Which is why it'll be a long time, if ever, till we see it here. 

I'd rather invest any money on officiating in better pay for refs and assistants so we attract more, and better, officials into the game. 

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Yes but if you are measuring the direction of the ball you’d need to take the wind into account. 

No, the direction of the ball out of the hands is the thing to look at. It doesn't matter whether it bounces forward (if the pass goes to ground) or if the ball is caught by the wind. 

[Tubby]

Personally, I'd do away with the video ref and leave it to the live team of officials.  It gives me something to complain about on a Monday, but it's the same for everyone.  I agree with everyone that says referees are human so they make mistakes.  What I don't agree with is that we can't discuss those mistakes an their effect on the game, it's part of being a fan.

[StandOffHalf]

45 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I agree, but that wouldn't work anyway.

A perfectly legal pass can end up many metres in front of the point of release, for the reasons that @fighting irishgoes into above in his helpful maths lesson. Slide rule lines super-imposed on a pitch wouldn't work in a RL or RU context.

[The Rocket]

 I had a terrible thought today. Is it possible that all this talk of technology is all part of the planned attempted push into the US`s sport betting market.

V`landy`s came out today and said that revenue raising in the Oz market are saturated:

“One thing I learned from our broadcast negotiations is that Australia is very small scale,” V’landys said. “For the game to grow you need to take it to a much bigger market. You always have to have ambitions. If we can crack the US market in the next 10 years it will be a massive revenue generator for the game.

“We’ve exhausted pretty much all the revenues we can get in Australia, so now we have to look at other markets. In the end that money will come back to grassroots and help grow the game in Australia even more.”

If they`re serious about having a crack at the US sports betting market, and it would certainly reflect V`landy`s modus operandi in his other jobs, and he does sound serious, then they are going to probably want to get all the marginal calls out of the game. Especially if they are want to get people to bet on all the myriad of betting opportunities that Rugby League provides.

 

 

 

[Dunbar]

Just now, Tubby said:

Personally, I'd do away with the video ref and leave it to the live team of officials.  It gives me something to complain about on a Monday, but it's the same for everyone.  I agree with everyone that says referees are human so they make mistakes.  What I don't agree with is that we can't discuss those mistakes an their effect on the game, it's part of being a fan.

I think I would be ok with the video ref checking the grounding of the ball - particularly in those spectacular flying touchdowns in the corner we see regularly now... and do it in the way the NRL do, give the try if the ref on the ground thought it was ok and the video ref checks it in the background.

For everything in the the regular play with exception of a try scoring play, I would bin it.

The captains challenge was working well in Australia for a while as it allowed the ref to say to moaning players "well challenge it" which shut them up.  But now we are seeing teams give away deliberate penalties the after a lost ball so that they get the chance to challenge.  Even if they end up being right, it is awful look for the sport. 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 I had a terrible thought today. Is it possible that all this talk of technology is all part of the planned attempted push into the US`s sport betting market.

V`landy`s came out today and said that revenue raising in the Oz market are saturated:

“One thing I learned from our broadcast negotiations is that Australia is very small scale,” V’landys said. “For the game to grow you need to take it to a much bigger market. You always have to have ambitions. If we can crack the US market in the next 10 years it will be a massive revenue generator for the game.

“We’ve exhausted pretty much all the revenues we can get in Australia, so now we have to look at other markets. In the end that money will come back to grassroots and help grow the game in Australia even more.”

If they`re serious about having a crack at the US sports betting market, and it would certainly reflect V`landy`s modus operandi in his other jobs, and he does sound serious, then they are going to probably want to get all the marginal calls out of the game. Especially if they are want to get people to bet on all the myriad of betting opportunities that Rugby League provides.

 

 

 

Hasn't the US market taken the video ref out of some sports.  I know there are less challenges of calls in NFL than there used to be - from what I see today, those long analysis of lost balls where a video ref had to decide in fractions of seconds whether a player was grounded before he lost the ball seemed to have disappeared. 

I may be wrong but they seem to be relying more on the on field calls now.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Hasn't the US market taken the video ref out of some sports. 

Not really. All scoring plays are automatically reviewed in the NFL for example. Coaches have got a lot smarter at working out which challenges are likely to be successful though.

[Dunbar]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Not really. All scoring plays are automatically reviewed in the NFL for example. Coaches have got a lot smarter at working out which challenges are likely to be successful though.

Maybe I just don't watch it enough.  But I do remember standard plays (i.e. not try scoring) where there seemed to be lengthy analysis on whether a player had been grounded before a ball was lost - they don't seem to happen any more... or maybe I am just watching highlights!

If there is just as much video analysis in the play as ever then fair enough.

[Tubby]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think I would be ok with the video ref checking the grounding of the ball - particularly in those spectacular flying touchdowns in the corner we see regularly now... and do it in the way the NRL do, give the try if the ref on the ground thought it was ok and the video ref checks it in the background.

For everything in the the regular play with exception of a try scoring play, I would bin it.

The captains challenge was working well in Australia for a while as it allowed the ref to say to moaning players "well challenge it" which shut them up.  But now we are seeing teams give away deliberate penalties the after a lost ball so that they get the chance to challenge.  Even if they end up being right, it is awful look for the sport. 

I think I could live with that, but I remember Phil Ford 'scoring' a try for Salford against Featherstone in the early 90's. It was from a kick through from their own half and he dived for the ball when it was already about 6 feet over the dead ball line and leapt up in the air to celebrate.  John Holdsworth may have not quite managed to keep up with play and gave the try when he arrived.  A story you can still tell thirty years later, the video ref would have ruined this story!

[Dunbar]

Just now, Tubby said:

John Holdsworth may have not quite managed to keep up with play and gave the try when he arrived.  A story you can still tell thirty years later, the video ref would have ruined this story!

I think this is a part of sport that we are losing and I think it is a shame.

Take the two of the most iconic moments in English football - Geoff Hurst's goal in '66 and the Maradona 'Hand of God' goal in '86.  One went for us and one against us but if video tech was in play at the time then the last 70 years of debate and intrigue would have gone in a moment.  Instead, these incidents go into folklore.  Why can't we see that we are losing the soul and drama of sport by trying to make it perfect.  

[The Rocket]

23 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Hasn't the US market taken the video ref out of some sports.  I know there are less challenges of calls in NFL than there used to be - from what I see today, those long analysis of lost balls where a video ref had to decide in fractions of seconds whether a player was grounded before he lost the ball seemed to have disappeared. 

I may be wrong but they seem to be relying more on the on field calls now.

Fair enough, I may have been barking up the wrong tree there. I wonder now that they are bringing in gambling we may see some of that technology reintroduced.

Once gambling is legal and people have money riding on things it all of a sudden becomes a whole different ball-game. Who`d be a ref in gun-happy America if some red-neck fool dropped X thousands of dollars on a bad call. It`s called the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Damien]

55 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 I had a terrible thought today. Is it possible that all this talk of technology is all part of the planned attempted push into the US`s sport betting market.

V`landy`s came out today and said that revenue raising in the Oz market are saturated:

“One thing I learned from our broadcast negotiations is that Australia is very small scale,” V’landys said. “For the game to grow you need to take it to a much bigger market. You always have to have ambitions. If we can crack the US market in the next 10 years it will be a massive revenue generator for the game.

“We’ve exhausted pretty much all the revenues we can get in Australia, so now we have to look at other markets. In the end that money will come back to grassroots and help grow the game in Australia even more.”

If they`re serious about having a crack at the US sports betting market, and it would certainly reflect V`landy`s modus operandi in his other jobs, and he does sound serious, then they are going to probably want to get all the marginal calls out of the game. Especially if they are want to get people to bet on all the myriad of betting opportunities that Rugby League provides.

 

 

 

Its a pretty weird article all round and kind of defeatist that the NRL doesn't think it can drive more revenue within Australia when it hasn't even tried to scratch the surface of some major cities. The NRL seems to be looking for the quick and easy option rather than being the national part of the NRL.

The US stuff is just full of every RL cliché when it comes to the US, I read all the same talk about people being astonished about no pads and helmets in the 1980's. To crack the US market will take far more than a single NRL game.

[The Rocket]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

Its a pretty weird article all round and kind of defeatist that the NRL doesn't think it can drive more revenue within Australia when it hasn't even tried to scratch the surface of some major cities. The NRL seems to be looking for the quick and easy option rather than being the national part of the NRL.

The US stuff is just full of every RL cliché when it comes to the US, I read all the same talk about people being astonished about no pads and helmets in the 1980's. To crack the US market will take far more than a single NRL game.

I can`t disagree with most of that, it was the first thing that struck my mind as well ; `what about Perth ?`,` what about Adelaide ?`how about the $70m our broadcast deal is worth less than the afl`s.

The NRL have $170m in the bank, how about they spend $70m of that over 5 - 10 years on top of the annual yearly grant to get a Perth team up and running, News Corp spent $50m  over 5 on the Storm. Foxtel have already shown with the Dolphins they`ll tip in extra if they think the expansion team is worth it.

They do seem to be serious about this US thing though, NFL finishing mid- February, NRL starts early March. And Foxtel`s owner News Corp are involved with Melbourne Storm Chairman Matt Tripp in setting up a gambling arm in Oz.

And as much I know you don`t like V`landy`s, his modus operandi from when he bought his first restaurant as a 20 year old and all through his harness racing and then turf racing career has been all about new revenue streams. But your right it`s going to take a lot more than a one-off game where ever to get their foot in the door but they`ll be well aware of that.