Forward passes

[wasginger]

If the ball travels forward from the passer, it's a forward pass. if the revieiver is in front of the passer before the ball has left his hands. The receiver is offside, and a penalty to the defensive side. It's as easy as that, unless you're called Ben Turpin.

[Hopie]

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

It isn’t the same ruling. 

I know why you and others are saying this, but not every pass involves "momentum", and in those cases if the ball travels forward or back is the only thing you have to decide. I'm not advocating for a change of the current rules though. For balance I will say that I also see people who misunderstand the rules defend forward passes wrongly too.

I will say, that as a spectator I am frustrated that balls going backwards are often given as a knock on (forward) but passes going forward are often not ruled on (deemed to have gone backwards. 

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, JohnM said:

Really? 

Yeah its pretty easy if the rules are applied correctly. 

[JohnM]

That's not correct, as has been shown and debated on here for the past 20 years or so.

[bobbruce]

20 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I know why you and others are saying this, but not every pass involves "momentum", and in those cases if the ball travels forward or back is the only thing you have to decide. I'm not advocating for a change of the current rules though. For balance I will say that I also see people who misunderstand the rules defend forward passes wrongly too.

I will say, that as a spectator I am frustrated that balls going backwards are often given as a knock on (forward) but passes going forward are often not ruled on (deemed to have gone backwards. 

Apart from wind which is also allowed for in the laws. So how are you judging that. As I said earlier it’s better left to the judgement of the officials opinion live. 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, wasginger said:

If the ball travels forward from the passer, it's a forward pass. if the revieiver is in front of the passer before the ball has left his hands. The receiver is offside, and a penalty to the defensive side. It's as easy as that, unless you're called Ben Turpin.

misunderstood post so deleted mine

Edited August 10 by Padge

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Probably the same way that lots of us do when watching at home, some are as obvious as the nose on your face, and on lots of occasions the ref is inline with the pass but somehow misses it.

Officials should only call a forward pass when they are certain the ball travelled forward out of the hands.

If the official "misses it", this only means he wasn't certain. "Play On" is the default call.

Would you prefer doubt to be managed differently? i.e. do you want a pass to be called forward because it might have been forward?

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, bobbruce said:

 I’m just interested on how the RU TMO rule on it. 

AFAIK they just give an opinion based on the pictures they see.

I've also had a look at the Australia/South Africa highlights. Similar to the other game, several questionable passes that weren't referred. Plus a try that would almost certainly have been rubbed out for obstruction had it been an NRL game.

Union don't care about forward passes, knock-ons, obstructions. They can afford to let the TMO rule on forward passes because they know not many will be referred. In League, every pass of a try-scoring move would be under suspicion. Our VR protocols derive from the same culture that produces Leigh fans.

[Wakefield Ram]

It is ridiculous to pretend a VR can't see a forward pass because it's on a screen. 

If it's not clear then go with the on-field call. 

[JohnM]

3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It is ridiculous to pretend a VR can't see a forward pass because it's on a screen. 

If it's not clear then go with the on-field call. 

It's a question of geometry, camera  viewpoint, player velocity etc. This has been explained ad nauseum on here over many years. It really isn't a simple problem.

[The Blues Ox]

8 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It is ridiculous to pretend a VR can't see a forward pass because it's on a screen. 

If it's not clear then go with the on-field call. 

Exactly this.  We are saying that its impossible to judge whether a pass is forwards or backwards yet expect officials to make a decision in a split second. As WR says, its very much like the system we have now, just send them up as tries and then rule out any that are clear and obvious. It might have been debated on here for 20 years but that is because it seems most people simply don't get how the rules should be applied. You would hope the officials would have a clue.

Not only that but with hawkeye technology and the like its actually possible to judge a lot of the things JohnM mentions that we could not before. 

[MZH]

The problem is that a pass can often look forward on one angle and perfectly fine on another. Knock ons are far far easier to rule on because all you are interested in is did the ball travel forwards, and you can use pitch markings etc to help with that, whereas you can't do that with passes.

[Wakefield Ram]

5 hours ago, JohnM said:

It's a question of geometry, camera  viewpoint, player velocity etc. This has been explained ad nauseum on here over many years. It really isn't a simple problem.

If it's that incredibly complex, how can we expect a referee in real time to make a call? 

So you're saying you have never seen a forward pass whilst watching a game on TV? 

If it's in any doubt go with the on-field call, but if it's clearly forward then it's a forward pass.

 

[Wakefield Ram]

1 minute ago, MZH said:

The problem is that a pass can often look forward on one angle and perfectly fine on another. Knock ons are far far easier to rule on because all you are interested in is did the ball travel forwards, and you can use pitch markings etc to help with that, whereas you can't do that with passes.

And there are passes which look forward from every angle....

[MZH]

48 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Not only that but with hawkeye technology and the like its actually possible to judge a lot of the things JohnM mentions that we could not before. 

We can't even give the video ref a camera with more than 3 fps. Hawkeye seems like a pipe dream at this point.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Exactly this.  We are saying that its impossible to judge whether a pass is forwards or backwards yet expect officials to make a decision in a split second. As WR says, its very much like the system we have now, just send them up as tries and then rule out any that are clear and obvious. It might have been debated on here for 20 years but that is because it seems most people simply don't get how the rules should be applied. You would hope the officials would have a clue.

Not only that but with hawkeye technology and the like its actually possible to judge a lot of the things JohnM mentions that we could not before. 

Hawkeye and the likes is fine in cricket or tennis where the incidents are always in the same area we would have to have every inch of the pitch covered by it. As MZH has said we don’t have enough cameras behind the in goal for the VR to make decisions on try’s.  

[bobbruce]

31 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

And there are passes which look forward from every angle....

And they could still be absolutely fine. 

[Harry Stottle]

51 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Hawkeye and the likes is fine in cricket

Don't watch much cricket on TV I take it Bob, do you know the rules of where the ball pitches in relation to the stumps and hitting the legs of the batter in LBW on-screen deliberations by the Third Umpire, Hawkeye provides the deviation, trajectory, height, bounce and speed of the ball, there is nothing straight forward.

[Dunbar]

I was just thinking the other day that we need another reason for the video ref to get involved in the game and to make some decisions we can all argue about.

[bobbruce]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't watch much cricket on TV I take it Bob, do you know the rules of where the ball pitches in relation to the stumps and hitting the legs of the batter in LBW on-screen deliberations by the Third Umpire, Hawkeye provides the deviation, trajectory, height, bounce and speed of the ball, there is nothing straight forward.

I’m not sure what you are talking about Harry I didn’t say it was straight forward. I said it works fine because within 500mm you know as a line where the ball will be. The point is in RL you wouldn’t. 

[JohnM]

It's about the viewpoint of the observer, which in the case of the ball, the passer, the receiver, the tj and the ref is dynamic - height, forward motion, lateral motion, upwards or downwards motion of the ball.  On screen , in 2d, the viewer has a fixed viewpoint that caters for none of those variables

Given it's the marginal forwards -or flat passes that seem to be the issue, that's where the contention arises.  Of course, we could deploy a drone camera that tracks the ball from above at exactly the same velocity (remember - velocity is a vector quantity - speed and direction) but. even then, latency in the systrem means it's not reporting in real time.

Then there are the short passes between players where viewers -ref or cameras etc are masked from the closeness of the players. 

So, no need to change. 

[OriginalMrC]

I'm not sure why people have a problem with flat passes. Does anyone gain an advantage if a pass is 1mm forward?

[Old Frightful]

4 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If it's that incredibly complex, how can we expect a referee in real time to make a call? 

So you're saying you have never seen a forward pass whilst watching a game on TV? 

If it's in any doubt go with the on-field call, but if it's clearly forward then it's a forward pass.

The referee on the pitch in "real time" is watching in proper 3D.

Nobody watching on the telly is.

[Futtocks]

4 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

The referee on the pitch in "real time" is watching in proper 3D.

Nobody watching on the telly is.

It's the difference between watching the game with one eye or two.

In more than one meaning.

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

I'm not sure why people have a problem with flat passes. Does anyone gain an advantage if a pass is 1mm forward?

As with many rules in RL, if it is enforced properly then it is fair, but if the game is "allowed to flow" it benefits the side who pushes (past) the limits of the rules.