Forward passes

[Old Frightful]

47 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

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

In more than one meaning.

Reminds me of a story I've been meaning to share on here for quite some time :

Some years back I contacted my good friend RoyBoy of this parish, and informed him that my local, the Cross Keys, were having several new 3D TVs installed and had upped their Sky subscription to include the 3D package. To be able to enjoy the 3D experience you had to wear special glasses.

This was particularly good news as the next SL game to be screened was the Hull Derby from East Hull, a place where our passports are sadly invalid.

Anyway, Roy forwarded this information via text to a mutual friend who goes by the name of John Upson.

The reply from John went as follows :

"Roy, you heartless ba$tard. How long have you known me? I'm sat in tears here, you know that I've only got one eye"

Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, John didn't bother joining us for the game...

[Wakefield Ram]

https://youtu.be/BO2pkACx0JM?si=_hZt7T48EESmyCzn

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours 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?

No advantage whatsoever.

Fair to presume that people who obsess over forward passes want the flat pass deemed forward.

Modern RL can sometimes be decried for lack of variety. Removing the flat pass from the attacking armoury would make that problem worse.

Short flat ball to the lead runner or longer ball out the back is a standard halfback play. If the former option risks turning the ball over, it won't be used. Hence everyone knows where the ball is going and it's easier to defend. 

[Wakefield Ram]

On 11/08/2024 at 08:46, bobbruce said:

And they could still be absolutely fine. 

In which case don't give a forward pass.

[gingerjon]

On 11/08/2024 at 11:59, 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?

At some point a flat pass becomes a forward pass.

Even if you allow a bit of leeway there will still be a point where that happens.

1mm, 1cm, 5cm ... it's still going to be fine margins and a perception of whether it's fair, obvious or whatever.

[Harry Stottle]

The 'flat pass or line ball' is the most contentious in the ruling of a forward pass, just change the rule to 'not backwards' it would be much easier to adjudicate, we can readily see if the ball is not sent in a backward trajectory other than if a flat pass is not forward.

[unapologetic pedant]

59 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The 'flat pass or line ball' is the most contentious in the ruling of a forward pass, just change the rule to 'not backwards' it would be much easier to adjudicate, we can readily see if the ball is not sent in a backward trajectory other than if a flat pass is not forward.

Adjusting the line of contention doesn't eliminate contention. 

Although I do like the idea of home crowds shouting "NOT BACKWARDS".

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Adjusting the line of contention doesn't eliminate contention. 

Although I do like the idea of home crowds shouting "NOT BACKWARDS".

They will still shout FORWARD, as that is the crime, being forward of not backwards.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

They will still shout FORWARD, as that is the crime, being forward of not backwards.

Here's the bit I don't understand -

You want to make it harder to legally pass the ball. With the consequence that players will be more reluctant to pass and when they do pass, more of the passes will be deemed illegal, resulting in stoppages.

How does this improve the game of Rugby League?

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Here's the bit I don't understand -

You want to make it harder to legally pass the ball. With the consequence that players will be more reluctant to pass and when they do pass, more of the passes will be deemed illegal, resulting in stoppages.

How does this improve the game of Rugby League?

Don't know how old you are pedant, but you are making something up that will not apply, I have been involved in this game since 1960, and it was always the norm to pass the ball in a backward direction, if the ball had been lateral the attendant crowd - well those of the defending team - would be helping out the ref with a unified loud claim 'FORWARD', as usual this lineball or flat pass was originated down under and we as usual follow suit.

Why would players be reluctant to pass, that is beyond me, unless you are saying that with the flat pass there is more leeway given if the ball goes forward outside the acceptable rules, that being so the more the reason to change it.

[Click]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Don't know how old you are pedant, but you are making something up that will not apply, I have been involved in this game since 1960, and it was always the norm to pass the ball in a backward direction, if the ball had been lateral the attendant crowd - well those of the defending team - would be helping out the ref with a unified loud claim 'FORWARD', as usual this lineball or flat pass was originated down under and we as usual follow suit.

Why would players be reluctant to pass, that is beyond me, unless you are saying that with the flat pass there is more leeway given if the ball goes forward outside the acceptable rules, that being so the more the reason to change it.

We've had flat passes in our game since I started watching it. I have no idea what your problem is with the rule - Don't pass the ball forward, it isn't hard. 

 

[fighting irish]

Is the RFL experimenting with Hawk-eye? Or is it deemed too expensive? 

 

[Taffy Tiger]

Just do a background check by VR on every try for obvious forward passes  . It takes kickers well over a minute to take a conversion these days so can be done without any delay of game . Leave as is for the rest of game .

[dkw]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Is the RFL experimenting with Hawk-eye? Or is it deemed too expensive? 

 

Hawk eye works in tennis and cricket as its only needed to cover a very small and consistent area. In RL it would need to cover a much bigger area, the costs would be enormous.

 

[The Blues Ox]

Anyone got an example of a pass that would be too hard to judge for the video ref if it were forward or not? Im really not seeing how judging forward passes is a problem.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Anyone got an example of a pass that would be too hard to judge for the video ref if it were forward or not? Im really not seeing how judging forward passes is a problem.

Every short flat pass might be marginally forward or marginally backward. You're judging the split second separation of ball from hand. Impossible to call with certainty. Even with the camera directly in line which, in most cases, it wouldn't be.

[wasginger]

5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Here's the bit I don't understand -

You want to make it harder to legally pass the ball. With the consequence that players will be more reluctant to pass and when they do pass, more of the passes will be deemed illegal, resulting in stoppages.

How does this improve the game of Rugby League?

I think you'll find it's the coaches that are the people responsible for forward passes. Teams are always looking at any where they can take an advantage of the opposition. It's not just one club that uses this tactic, all clubs use some type of deception when passing the ball so-called flat. As for your case of improving the game, breaking laws is not the way to do it. The game has always evolved through coaches being inventive. Sometimes something so effective can be easy to implement. If you allow forward passes we might as well become the British version of American Football.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

if the ball had been lateral the attendant crowd - well those of the defending team - would be helping out the ref with a unified loud claim 'FORWARD', 

This is true and you've said it before in similar debates. But never acknowledge the implication. Namely that, with the crowd determining which passes come under suspicion, it means the rules are applied irrationally and differentially.

The OP referenced RU. I've never been to a Union game, so can only gauge from TV. Their crowds don't shout "FORWARD" like Pavlov's dogs salivating. Hence officials are free to give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt whoever is in possession. And, as mentioned earlier, they can let their TMO judge forward passes safe in the knowledge that few will be referred. By contrast, League administrators are aware they would be opening a Pandora's box.

[unapologetic pedant]

Postscript -

If anyone doubts the wisdom of the previous post, just imagine Harry as VR.

[unapologetic pedant]

21 minutes ago, wasginger said:

I think you'll find it's the coaches that are the people responsible for forward passes. Teams are always looking at any where they can take an advantage of the opposition. It's not just one club that uses this tactic, all clubs use some type of deception when passing the ball so-called flat. As for your case of improving the game, breaking laws is not the way to do it. The game has always evolved through coaches being inventive. Sometimes something so effective can be easy to implement. If you allow forward passes we might as well become the British version of American Football.

The "forward passes" not called are either not forward or marginally forward. The latter instances have no impact on the pattern of play.

Risk of interception inherently militates against passing the ball clearly forward.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Every short flat pass might be marginally forward or marginally backward. You're judging the split second separation of ball from hand. Impossible to call with certainty. Even with the camera directly in line which, in most cases, it wouldn't be.

And this is why the VR would only rule on clear forward passes as if there were any doubt then they would be sent up as tries and could only be overturned if it were clear and obvious. Almost the same system as we use now for different things.

[fighting irish]

3 hours ago, dkw said:

Hawk eye works in tennis and cricket as its only needed to cover a very small and consistent area. In RL it would need to cover a much bigger area, the costs would be enormous.

 

Wasn't there some talk of a chip in or on the ball which would inform a tracker of its velocity, some time ago? 

[bobbruce]

6 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Is the RFL experimenting with Hawk-eye? Or is it deemed too expensive? 

 

How many cameras would you need for it to work. 

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Click said:

We've had flat passes in our game since I started watching it. I have no idea what your problem is with the rule - Don't pass the ball forward, it isn't hard. 

 

Exactly, but a line ball is what 1/2inch of being forward, but a ball in backward direction will never be forward.

So in admission you have not been watching or playing this game for very long and have no comparisons to make to the game before 'flat' passes were introduced.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

And this is why the VR would only rule on clear forward passes as if there were any doubt then they would be sent up as tries and could only be overturned if it were clear and obvious. Almost the same system as we use now for different things.

How do we define clearly and obviously forward? Harry wants "not backwards". Bearing in mind the camera will seldom be perfectly in line.

When I see a borderline pass in a try-scoring move, it's a huge relief to know that's one thing they can't be asked to run the microscope over. Strongly suspect the VR feels the same.