Had Folau's pass bounced...

First topic message reminder :

I know there are lots of people who fell strongly one way or another about the 'forward pass' but I thought I'd just pose the question...

Had Folau's pass bounced before being picked up and scored what should the call have been?

IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

GloriousEmpire wrote:IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

Since you said it's the angle that's important...er...that is trigonometry...isn't it?

And it is the path of the ball, but it's the path of the ball relative to the player at the point of release not relative to the pitch.

GloriousEmpire wrote:IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

GE. Stop shouting please.

I've never been in favour of the 'momentum law' but that's up to the IRB Laws committee.

The angular momentum imparted on the ball determines it's path as do spin, wind-speed etc.

The resolution of all the components is what determines the path of the ball. And that can be tracked by trigonometry.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

GE. Stop shouting please.

I've never been in favour of the 'momentum law' but that's up to the IRB Laws committee.

The angular momentum imparted on the ball determines it's path as do spin, wind-speed etc.

The resolution of all the components is what determines the path of the ball. And that can be tracked by trigonometry.

The trajectory of the ball can be tracked via trigonometry correct, but you cannot accurately infer the direction of the impulse force from that. For a lot of reasons. I'm happy to sit here and explain them all to you if you like, but it might be easier if you just accept that you're wrong on this one. You've set the "resolution of all components" - exactly, but you have no way of accurately finding the individual components - which is what you'd need to do to determine if the pass was forward. Far better to use the phenomenal computer which is your brain to determine it, which we can see in this case tells us that the pass was not forward.

You continue to obsess about the direction, GE which is the whole point of my argument.

Just as referees and TJs are advised to watch the 'shape of the hands' when making judgements is a it of a folly in that most passes are imparted with a spin which means that the dominant hands are likely to be moving in different directions makes the decision difficult.

Added to that the relative motions of the players, refs and TJs with their hard-wired inabilities to avoid illusions plus any soft-wired susceptibilities to prejudice(s) make me more disposed to a scientific approach.

Why not actually look at the IRB Laws as written.

Section 12 begins with the following definitions:

Definition: Knock-on
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Exception
Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.

Definition: Throw forward
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Exception
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw forward.

In this case, clearly the definition of 'throw forward' applies, so the only judgement the ref makes is the direction the ball was thrown. As discussed elsewhere, the current IRB directive gives some tolerance for momentum, and so this is based on the referee's judgment of the direction the players hands are moving during the pass rather than the direction the ball subsequently travels.

Baseed on this and in particular the exception quoited, it matters not one iota whether the ball was cleanly caught by the receiver or bounced (untouched) and then travelled forwards, the pass is still legal as long as it was not thrown forwards initially.

Oh no, I've also just agreed with GE  

I think that's three of us in total agreement then, dummy.

Only difference in my case is that imo, the Law's an ass.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

GE. Stop shouting please.

I've never been in favour of the 'momentum law' but that's up to the IRB Laws committee.

The angular momentum imparted on the ball determines it's path as do spin, wind-speed etc.

The resolution of all the components is what determines the path of the ball. And that can be tracked by trigonometry.

The trajectory of the ball can be tracked via trigonometry correct, but you cannot accurately infer the direction of the impulse force from that. For a lot of reasons. I'm happy to sit here and explain them all to you if you like, but it might be easier if you just accept that you're wrong on this one. You've set the "resolution of all components" - exactly, but you have no way of accurately finding the individual components - which is what you'd need to do to determine if the pass was forward. Far better to use the phenomenal computer which is your brain to determine it, which we can see in this case tells us that the pass was not forward.

Erm...yes you can. The 'force' is what accelerates the ball. If the ball increases in velocity towards the try line then there was some force applied towards the try line...therefore forward. It is very easy to do with either hawkeye type thing (if the technology is available, they did it on BT the other day but that wasn't live so might have required a lot of processing) or with a GPS (or just an RF tracker) in the ball.

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

GE. Stop shouting please.

I've never been in favour of the 'momentum law' but that's up to the IRB Laws committee.

The angular momentum imparted on the ball determines it's path as do spin, wind-speed etc.

The resolution of all the components is what determines the path of the ball. And that can be tracked by trigonometry.

The trajectory of the ball can be tracked via trigonometry correct, but you cannot accurately infer the direction of the impulse force from that. For a lot of reasons. I'm happy to sit here and explain them all to you if you like, but it might be easier if you just accept that you're wrong on this one. You've set the "resolution of all components" - exactly, but you have no way of accurately finding the individual components - which is what you'd need to do to determine if the pass was forward. Far better to use the phenomenal computer which is your brain to determine it, which we can see in this case tells us that the pass was not forward.

Erm...yes you can. The 'force' is what accelerates the ball. If the ball increases in velocity towards the try line then there was some force applied towards the try line...therefore forward. It is very easy to do with either hawkeye type thing (if the technology is available, they did it on BT the other day but that wasn't live so might have required a lot of processing) or with a GPS (or just an RF tracker) in the ball.

i like the GPS idea, but they'd somehow have to find a way to get the GPS device right in the centre of gravity of the ball, or spin-passes are going to completely throw off the forward momentum calculation for obvious reasons.

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:IT'S NOT THE PATH OF THE BALL THAT DETERMINES A FORWARD PASS.

IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE FORCE APPLIED TO THE BALL.

All the trigonometry in the world isn't going to help.

GE. Stop shouting please.

I've never been in favour of the 'momentum law' but that's up to the IRB Laws committee.

The angular momentum imparted on the ball determines it's path as do spin, wind-speed etc.

The resolution of all the components is what determines the path of the ball. And that can be tracked by trigonometry.

The trajectory of the ball can be tracked via trigonometry correct, but you cannot accurately infer the direction of the impulse force from that. For a lot of reasons. I'm happy to sit here and explain them all to you if you like, but it might be easier if you just accept that you're wrong on this one. You've set the "resolution of all components" - exactly, but you have no way of accurately finding the individual components - which is what you'd need to do to determine if the pass was forward. Far better to use the phenomenal computer which is your brain to determine it, which we can see in this case tells us that the pass was not forward.

Erm...yes you can. The 'force' is what accelerates the ball. If the ball increases in velocity towards the try line then there was some force applied towards the try line...therefore forward. It is very easy to do with either hawkeye type thing (if the technology is available, they did it on BT the other day but that wasn't live so might have required a lot of processing) or with a GPS (or just an RF tracker) in the ball.

 
Which is fine and dandy if this is an extremely simplified question in a physics test for 13 year olds. However in reality there are multiple forces operating on the ball. There is no way to reverse engineer what the input force components were and determine accurately what the impulse applied by the player was. You just can't do it. Sorry.

And I tell you again that Hawkeye is an equal load of old twaddle. I can soapbox on this for hours, and I tell you, I'm right.

All you need is something to reasonable accurate place the ball on a 2D grid (vertical position is irrelevant) with a time stamp.

RF Trackers could do that, without going down the satelite route. than if the ref wants to check a forward pass the TMO looks at the forward velocity at the point of the pass and the judgement is based on that. Not much of a step to use it for kicks going over as well.

In fact if Bluesman is still around under a new name he could pass on his special software that can track everyone on the pitch and tell you how tied they are. I'm sure it could be tweeked to give forward passes.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Which is fine and dandy if this is an extremely simplified question in a physics test for 13 year olds. However in reality there are multiple forces operating on the ball. There is no way to reverse engineer what the input force components were and determine accurately what the impulse applied by the player was. You just can't do it. Sorry.

And I tell you again that Hawkeye is an equal load of old twaddle. I can soapbox on this for hours, and I tell you, I'm right.

Please breakdown what all these complicated input forces are. I love being educated.

HammerofThunor wrote:All you need is something to reasonable accurate place the ball on a 2D grid (vertical position is irrelevant) with a time stamp.

RF Trackers could do that, without going down the satelite route. than if the ref wants to check a forward pass the TMO looks at the forward velocity at the point of the pass and the judgement is based on that. Not much of a step to use it for kicks going over as well.

In fact if Bluesman is still around under a new name he could pass on his special software that can track everyone on the pitch and tell you how tied they are. I'm sure it could be tweeked to give forward passes.

No, you're wrong. Because the rule is that it's thrown in a forward direction. If you just track the change in a velocity component you still don't know where the impulse came from.

Look at an example. If a player is tackled from behind just as he throws a pass, then that may result in the trajectory of the ball being forward and the component of velocity you are interested in showing an acceleration towards the goal line. Foward? Not necessarily because the net force of the tackle on the player (changing his momentum) and the backward pass on the ball maybe an accelerated forward trajectory. But it's still not a forward pass.

Also a pass can be forward without an acceleration towards the goal line. For example: a really windy day blowing directly from the opposition goal line.

The technology will never, ever be reliable.

All of which I'm sure would be extremely expensive even if it did work. All you really need to do is have the ability to watch a replay.

Yep. All you need is more than one input force and at that point you have no way of working out what the direction of one component was. I don't think anyone is naive enough to suggest an off load in a tackle might have just one simplistic force being applied.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:You continue to obsess about the direction, GE which is the whole point of my argument.

Just as referees and TJs are advised to watch the 'shape of the hands' when making judgements is a it of a folly in that most passes are imparted with a spin which means that the dominant hands are likely to be moving in different directions makes the decision difficult.

Added to that the relative motions of the players, refs and TJs with their hard-wired inabilities to avoid illusions plus any soft-wired susceptibilities to prejudice(s) make me more disposed to a scientific approach.

And does that theory hold water with one hand offloads in the tackle?

Exactly BT. I realise you no longer read anything I write, but I did just write that!
 
This whole electronic forward pass detector thing is just a load of old Dr Who meets Star-Trek.
 
Just look at the replay and acccept that the pass wasn't clearly and obviously forward.

All of which leads me to my personal view the the ball should not go forward - which makes the Ref's, the TJs' and the TMO's life easier.

No special technology. No momentum. No judgement calls. No external factors.

As I said, the Law's an ass as illusion can't be avoided.

Biltong wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:You continue to obsess about the direction, GE which is the whole point of my argument.

Just as referees and TJs are advised to watch the 'shape of the hands' when making judgements is a it of a folly in that most passes are imparted with a spin which means that the dominant hands are likely to be moving in different directions makes the decision difficult.

Added to that the relative motions of the players, refs and TJs with their hard-wired inabilities to avoid illusions plus any soft-wired susceptibilities to prejudice(s) make me more disposed to a scientific approach.

And does that theory hold water with one hand offloads in the tackle?

That of course depends on the length and initial velocity of the offload, Biltong.

Rugby would be a pretty dull game if the ball literally had to travel backwards on every pass.

That would limit either the speed the ball carrier could run at without severly restricting the "cone" that supporting players could operate in. i.e. the support runners would need to be almost directly behind the player as his speed increases, because at full pelt throwing the ball backward it will sill almost travel forward relative to the ground.

That would mean the defense could align very narrow, knowing that the pass cannot be made unless the attacking line slows down - giving them time to cover the width.

It's never going to work. The laws are fine as they are.

You're all forgetting to take into account the fact that the space-time continuum is itself curved and the concept of 'parallel', from which we derive 'perpendicular' and hence 'forward', is an un-provable axiom....so was it forward? who knows...I can't even objectively prove my own existence....

There! That's my contribution...useful, I know.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I think that's three of us in total agreement then, dummy.

Only difference in my case is that imo, the Law's an ass.

PC

I'm in agreement with you - the Law (or rather the interpretation) of the 'throw forward' is an ass. However, to the current interpretation / directive / whatever the IRB and refs want to call it, Folau's pass was legitimate even though it travelled a bit forward.

Even basing it on forward movement though there will be an element of using judgment as you are unlikely to capture the pass directly in line with the camera. I don't see a major issue with the current ruling tbh and I think it's unfortunate that Gatland has chosen this to distract people away from the defeat.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Rugby would be a pretty dull game if the ball literally had to travel backwards on every pass.

That would limit either the speed the ball carrier could run at without severly restricting the "cone" that supporting players could operate in.  i.e. the support runners would need to be almost directly behind the player as his speed increases, because at full pelt throwing the ball backward it will sill almost travel forward relative to the ground.

That would mean the defense could align very narrow, knowing that the pass cannot be made unless the attacking line slows down - giving them time to cover the width.

It's never going to work. The laws are fine as they are.

Rugby is made better for you when making an issue of whether a TJ missed a marginal foot in touch it seems, GE. Or a dose of nora-virus etc. etc.

Well you could monitor the player as well as the ball and work out the forces from the relative velocities. Its probably the kind of thing that is hard to do now but will get easier.

The funny thing is it is just the kind of thing our brains do calculate a lot faster than computers, its just heavily dependent on the the operating system we run. (Slight bias in Wales 2.0 for instance....)

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:You continue to obsess about the direction, GE which is the whole point of my argument.

Just as referees and TJs are advised to watch the 'shape of the hands' when making judgements is a it of a folly in that most passes are imparted with a spin which means that the dominant hands are likely to be moving in different directions makes the decision difficult.

Added to that the relative motions of the players, refs and TJs with their hard-wired inabilities to avoid illusions plus any soft-wired susceptibilities to prejudice(s) make me more disposed to a scientific approach.

And does that theory hold water with one hand offloads in the tackle?

That of course depends on the length and initial velocity of the offload, Biltong.

But therein lies the biggest possible controversy.

What does a team benefit from a short pass that goes marginally forward? Just about nothing.

Whereas a long skip pass that goes forward firstly is visibly much easier to see and adjudicate. Even a long pass thrown clearly back will curve forward due to the velocity or momentum of the ball.

Where do you draw the line?


I think that is the reason why the action of the hands now determine whether it is passed forward or not.

SA referees website talks about the difference between the forward pass and a forward catch.

They are distinctly different.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even basing it on forward movement though there will be an element of using judgment as you are unlikely to capture the pass directly in line with the camera. I don't see a major issue with the current ruling tbh and I think it's unfortunate that Gatland has chosen this to distract people away from the defeat.

Going back to my initial point,7½, virtual lines are relatively easy to compute through basic trig.

Not that easy for a tmo/ref to see from a replay though especially when a convenient change in grass colous from the cutting isn't available. Hell gatland even missed the 'forward' pass for North's early try.

Definitely Biltong, good points. It is physically impossible to throw a ball forward if the hands are moving backwards when thrown. Posters should try it at home, or in their office, or whenever you happen to be! Hence they use this now as the measure in rugby. Where it gets difficult is when the hands are shaping more towards sideways and not back, but then that would indicate a flat pass.

It is, however, possible for the ball to travel forward due to momentum even when thrown backwards as we've discussed loads on here.

The hands backward thing is a great distinction that the rule makers brought in IMO.

In one part of that IRB video, a player throws the ball back over his head. A player running directly behind him takes the pass. When you follow the ball's trajectory, it's clear it's taken in front of where the pass was given.

That segment alone showed me the importance of not relying on a simple "where did the ball start and where did it finish?" definition for a forward pass.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Rugby would be a pretty dull game if the ball literally had to travel backwards on every pass.

That would limit either the speed the ball carrier could run at without severly restricting the "cone" that supporting players could operate in.  i.e. the support runners would need to be almost directly behind the player as his speed increases, because at full pelt throwing the ball backward it will sill almost travel forward relative to the ground.

That would mean the defense could align very narrow, knowing that the pass cannot be made unless the attacking line slows down - giving them time to cover the width.

It's never going to work. The laws are fine as they are.

Rugby is made better for you when making an issue of whether a TJ missed a marginal foot in touch it seems, GE. Or a dose of nora-virus etc. etc.

I'll take that as you admitting defeat in the original argument then.

Now, on spotting toes in touch. That could be done very easily. Apparently some referees have difficulty when the player is wearing white. Perhaps it's because they clash with the touch line.

Here's my question, which perhaps someone can answer.

On a windy day, what constitutes a "straight" lineout throw?

Does the hooker merely have to throw it straight, and then the ball is allowed to drift in the wind?

Or does he have to throw it (impossibly) such that it travels straight?

I know referees usually look if the catcher has taken it over his outside shoulder as a measure of straight-ness. But surely if the ball is deviating in the air significantly...

Biltong wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:You continue to obsess about the direction, GE which is the whole point of my argument.

Just as referees and TJs are advised to watch the 'shape of the hands' when making judgements is a it of a folly in that most passes are imparted with a spin which means that the dominant hands are likely to be moving in different directions makes the decision difficult.

Added to that the relative motions of the players, refs and TJs with their hard-wired inabilities to avoid illusions plus any soft-wired susceptibilities to prejudice(s) make me more disposed to a scientific approach.

And does that theory hold water with one hand offloads in the tackle?

That of course depends on the length and initial velocity of the offload, Biltong.

But therein lies the biggest possible controversy.

What does a team benefit from a short pass that goes marginally forward? Just about nothing.

Whereas a long skip pass that goes forward firstly is visibly much easier to see and adjudicate. Even a long pass thrown clearly back will curve forward due to the velocity or momentum of the ball.

Where do you draw the line?


I think that is the reason why the action of the hands now determine whether it is passed forward or not.

SA referees website talks about the difference between the forward pass and a forward catch.

They are distinctly different.

As time and technology progress, no doubt the entire game will be reffable by technological means, Bilt. Even intent.
(I'd love to know what our politicians really think as the purvey their policies...)

Griff wrote:Definitely Biltong, good points. It is physically impossible to throw a ball forward if the hands are moving backwards when thrown. Posters should try it at home, or in their office, or whenever you happen to be! Hence they use this now as the measure in rugby. Where it gets difficult is when the hands are shaping more towards sideways and not back, but then that would indicate a flat pass.

It is, however, possible for the ball to travel forward due to momentum even when thrown backwards as we've discussed loads on here.

The hands backward thing is a great distinction that the rule makers brought in IMO.

I assume that was what Barnes was looking for in the replay.

He did make a very clear decision - it wasnt clearly forward therefore benefit of the doubt etc - which in this case sadly leads to the 'well why couldnt he give the defending team the benefit of the doubt' argument

GloriousEmpire wrote:Here's my question, which perhaps someone can answer.

On a windy day, what constitutes a "straight" lineout throw?

Does the hooker merely have to throw it straight, and then the ball is allowed to drift in the wind?

Or does he have to throw it (impossibly) such that it travels straight?

I know referees usually look if the catcher has taken it over his outside shoulder as a measure of straight-ness. But surely if the ball is deviating in the air significantly...

As with everything else, the ref makes it up as he goes along.

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:Definitely Biltong, good points. It is physically impossible to throw a ball forward if the hands are moving backwards when thrown. Posters should try it at home, or in their office, or whenever you happen to be! Hence they use this now as the measure in rugby. Where it gets difficult is when the hands are shaping more towards sideways and not back, but then that would indicate a flat pass.

It is, however, possible for the ball to travel forward due to momentum even when thrown backwards as we've discussed loads on here.

The hands backward thing is a great distinction that the rule makers brought in IMO.

I assume that was what Barnes was looking for in the replay.

He did make a very clear decision - it wasnt clearly forward therefore benefit of the doubt etc - which in this case sadly leads to the 'well why couldnt he give the defending team the benefit of the doubt' argument

I suppose the onus is on finding enough evidence to prove an infringement has been commited (the forward pass) hence if an infringement vannot be proven, the team in possession (attacking team) continues to play on.

I've just watched it again on the BBC highlights and IMO the ball definitely travels forward with momentum but the hands are definitely aiming backwards, and certainly not forward. Therefore, try stands, correct decision.

butterfingers wrote:
Had Folau's pass bounced before being picked up and scored what should the call have been?

This question is pointless.

What would have happened had Folau been crushed by a falling satellite? Or stood on an unexploded WW2 Bomb?

The ball didn't bounce. I'm not a fan of IF questions like this. It happened and wouldn't have happened any other way.

Purely as a rugby fan, I would much rather see the attacking side given the benefit of the doubt than the defence..

Probably will come back to bite me as an England fan, but I would rather see attacking play supported

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:
Had Folau's pass bounced before being picked up and scored what should the call have been?

This question is pointless.

What would have happened had Folau been crushed by a falling satellite? Or stood on an unexploded WW2 Bomb?

The ball didn't bounce. I'm not a fan of IF questions like this. It happened and wouldn't have happened any other way.

Well that would have just been very poor preparation by the groundstaff.  

Biltong wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:
Had Folau's pass bounced before being picked up and scored what should the call have been?

This question is pointless.

What would have happened had Folau been crushed by a falling satellite? Or stood on an unexploded WW2 Bomb?

The ball didn't bounce. I'm not a fan of IF questions like this. It happened and wouldn't have happened any other way.

Well that would have just been very poor preparation by the groundstaff.  

Our ground staff do preparation???! I thought it was used for allotments during the off season and then harvested and given over to Welsh team for the AIs...

This is making an issue where there is no issue. Opinion as to whether a pass is forward or not generally lies in 2 camps, those who feel disadavantaged by the decision, and the rest. I’ve heard few/no neutrals who claim this pass was forward. So well done Barnes, job done. As someone else has said the human eye/judgement usually gets this right. The ref’s decision here, at normal speed, is probably better than getting the TMO to spend half-an-hour angsting over whether he’ll be blamed for allowing a try to stand where there’s uncertainty. Especially if the linesman can contribute. And occasionally the ref makes a mistake – whoopy doos, it won’t be the only one he makes.

And not taking reasonable momentum into account would mean 10 times the number of scrums, plus resets, and 10 times fewer tries. And 100 times fewer people interested in the game. Move on.


I am concerned about the risk of players being hit by falling satellites or bombs though. What has H&S got to say about this elephant in the room?

I have to say, an awful lot of fuss from some Welsh fans who weren't interested in the AB claims that barnes had missed a much more obvious forward pass in a game in 2007...

I wonder where their concern for a technological marvel that can destroy a planet and spot a forward pass was then?

GloriousEmpire wrote:I have to say, an awful lot of fuss from some Welsh fans who weren't interested in the AB claims that barnes had missed a much more obvious forward pass in a game in 2007...

I wonder where their concern for a technological marvel that can destroy a planet and spot a forward pass was then?

I don't think any Welsh fans have talked about a technological marvel.

Did we ever find out what difference the bounce makes? Sorry to get back on topic. Is the ball touching the ground got anything to do with where it's a loses of control or a pass? Do REALLY crap passers (i.e. English centres) never actually complete actual passes as they have so little control over the ball?

Im looking forward to the six nations when a iffy pass is allowed for a Welsh try . just wonder if a few on here would suddenly change their mind about it

Barney McGrew did it wrote:This is making an issue where there is no issue. Opinion as to whether a pass is forward or not generally lies in 2 camps, those who feel disadavantaged by the decision, and the rest. I’ve heard few/no neutrals who claim this pass was forward. So well done Barnes, job done. As someone else has said the human eye/judgement usually gets this right. The ref’s decision here, at normal speed, is probably better than getting the TMO to spend half-an-hour angsting over whether he’ll be blamed for allowing a try to stand where there’s uncertainty. Especially if the linesman can contribute. And occasionally the ref makes a mistake – whoopy doos, it won’t be the only one he makes.

And not taking reasonable momentum into account would mean 10 times the number of scrums, plus resets, and 10 times fewer tries. And 100 times fewer people interested in the game. Move on.


I am concerned about the risk of players being hit by falling satellites or bombs though. What has H&S got to say about this elephant in the room?

Actually I and the room of refs I discussed it with are all neutral (although admittedly I have a soft spot for Wales through the years I spent there).

All the trig in the world could've proved useless had the TMO had a chance to look at the pass, and realise the ball slips from Folaus hand before his hands go back, that is essentially where we ended in our debate.

PS not sure I have seen anyone assign any blame to Barnes for his decision, on this thread anyway.

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I have to say, an awful lot of fuss from some Welsh fans who weren't interested in the AB claims that barnes had missed a much more obvious forward pass in a game in 2007...

I wonder where their concern for a technological marvel that can destroy a planet and spot a forward pass was then?

I don't think any Welsh fans have talked about a technological marvel.

Did we ever find out what difference the bounce makes? Sorry to get back on topic. Is the ball touching the ground got anything to do with where it's a loses of control or a pass? Do REALLY crap passers (i.e. English centres) never actually complete actual passes as they have so little control over the ball?

Apparently had the ball touched the floor it would've been given as a knock on.

butterfingers wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:This is making an issue where there is no issue. Opinion as to whether a pass is forward or not generally lies in 2 camps, those who feel disadavantaged by the decision, and the rest. I’ve heard few/no neutrals who claim this pass was forward. So well done Barnes, job done. As someone else has said the human eye/judgement usually gets this right. The ref’s decision here, at normal speed, is probably better than getting the TMO to spend half-an-hour angsting over whether he’ll be blamed for allowing a try to stand where there’s uncertainty. Especially if the linesman can contribute. And occasionally the ref makes a mistake – whoopy doos, it won’t be the only one he makes.

And not taking reasonable momentum into account would mean 10 times the number of scrums, plus resets, and 10 times fewer tries. And 100 times fewer people interested in the game. Move on.


I am concerned about the risk of players being hit by falling satellites or bombs though. What has H&S got to say about this elephant in the room?

Actually I and the room of refs I discussed it with are all neutral (although admittedly I have a soft spot for Wales through the years I spent there).

All the trig in the world could've proved useless had the TMO had a chance to look at the pass, and realise the ball slips from Folaus hand before his hands go back, that is essentially where we ended in our debate.

PS not sure I have seen anyone assign any blame to Barnes for his decision, on this thread anyway.

No it's not. I thought I'd made myself clear - the pass was not forward.

butterfingers wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I have to say, an awful lot of fuss from some Welsh fans who weren't interested in the AB claims that barnes had missed a much more obvious forward pass in a game in 2007...

I wonder where their concern for a technological marvel that can destroy a planet and spot a forward pass was then?

I don't think any Welsh fans have talked about a technological marvel.

Did we ever find out what difference the bounce makes? Sorry to get back on topic. Is the ball touching the ground got anything to do with where it's a loses of control or a pass? Do REALLY crap passers (i.e. English centres) never actually complete actual passes as they have so little control over the ball?

Apparently had the ball touched the floor it would've been given as a knock on.

According to who? A room of refs? Why?

Biltong wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:
Had Folau's pass bounced before being picked up and scored what should the call have been?

This question is pointless.

What would have happened had Folau been crushed by a falling satellite? Or stood on an unexploded WW2 Bomb?

The ball didn't bounce. I'm not a fan of IF questions like this. It happened and wouldn't have happened any other way.

Well that would have just been very poor preparation by the groundstaff.  

Sure, but they were at the Millenium Stadium. The groundstaff specialise in poor preparation, especially of that joke of a pitch.