Forward pass law confuses me ?

Unlike Gatland I am not moaning about a ref decision here, just a fan of the game trying to understand the laws of the game. Australia won because they were better, not because of the ref.

But I genuinely don't understand how if the hands go backwards and the ball goes forward then its not a forward pass.

How can the ball leave hands behind a line and be caught ahead of line - obviously nearer to opponents try line - and not go forward ??

This article in the Guardian sort of explains it:

Guardain article

Maybe conspirators amongst you will believe in another Aussie plot to turn Union into League ?

But maybe its cos I am just no good at physics ???

It's like being on an aeroplane travelling in the sky. If you throw a rugby ball backwards down the aisle it may look to have gone backwards, but because the plane is travelling at 500mph the ball has actually gone forward a huge amount. You'd then have to call that a forward pass, which would be ridiculous. Better to take a common sense approach and say that you were aiming backwards so, even though the ball travelled forwards, it's fine under rugby rules (where you have to pass backwards).

Welsh fan doesn't know laws of rugby "shocker"

How many separate threads do you really need to create?

Honestly we get the message.

Blue dragon, do yourself a favour and compare the follwing examples.

Imagine your outside centre passes the ball to his wing, but keeps on running to be the support player on the inside.

The ball is thrown flat, but it doesn't look forward as in relation to the reciever he is remains in front of the reciever.

Now imagine the same scenario where he passes the ball, but is stopped dead in his tracks, immediately it looks forward.


The reason is simple.

In both cases the ball was delivered flat, but in both cases the ball actually moved forward with momentum.

It just looked to be oassed backwards because the oasser remained ahead of the reciever after he lassed the ball.

When he is tackled it looks forward, because it provides you a reference point from the original spot where the ball was delivered from.


The fact is most passes travel forward due to momentum. If forward passes were to be called on momentum, then 90% of all passes will be called forward passes.

This became prominant purely because of television replays and slow motion.

That is the reason why the interpretation of the forward pass has now been amended to the action of the passer and not the direction of travel of the ball.

Hope that helps.

I'm going away for a little cry.

Honestly this is beyond a joke now. Sad. Really sad.

Well put biltong. However, it's about whether or not the ball travels in front of the passer. Not whether it actually travels forward. We know it does travel forward but it should not go forward beyond the passer. Both in the Aus try and the first north try the ball travelled forward beyond the passer. I believe this rule that says if the hands go backwards then it's ok is completely wrong. Not least because it leads to endless duplicate threads on 606.

It should not go beyond the passer? Huh?

What does that even mean? Once the ball is passed, any number of things can happen to the passer. You haven't even thought it through at all. Not even slightly.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Welsh fan doesn't know laws of rugby "shocker"

Not sure that the nationality of the poster is relevant but of course you have to make it so. I mean Kieran Read obviously doesn't know you can't pass forward does he.

Nope. Nonsensical.

Biltong wrote:Blue dragon, do yourself a favour and compare the follwing examples.

Imagine your outside centre passes the ball to his wing, but keeps on running to be the support player on the inside.

The ball is thrown flat, but it doesn't look forward as in relation to the reciever he is remains in front of the reciever.

Now imagine the same scenario where he passes the ball, but is stopped dead in his tracks, immediately it looks forward.


The reason is simple.

In both cases the ball was delivered flat, but in both cases the ball actually moved forward with momentum.

It just looked to be oassed backwards because the oasser remained ahead of the reciever after he lassed the ball.

When he is tackled it looks forward, because it provides you a reference point from the original spot where the ball was delivered from.


The fact is most passes travel forward due to momentum. If forward passes were to be called on momentum, then 90% of all passes will be called forward passes.

This became prominant purely because of television replays and slow motion.

That is the reason why the interpretation of the forward pass has now been amended to the action of the passer and not the direction of travel of the ball.

Hope that helps.

That makes a lot of sense to me Biltong. Thank you everyone who has contributed positively for taking the time to explain it to me. I am a keen follower of Rugby but that element of the Laws has confused me recently. Have you seen the Australian video the Guardian article alludes to ? I might try and track it down on google.

Wondering then when a pass is actually forward:chin:  ? Aaargh !!!

I find it best to ignore WUMs as I enjoy informed dialogue about the sport ( not team ) that I follow with a passion and get a lot of pleasure from. I can see that many of you out there do too.

Well better late than never. I've always said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

Meh - don't bother BT, I'm off for a week anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

This great video from IRB explains it well. I was always rubbish at physics at school !

IRB forward pass rule

For me, the rule should simply be clarified, particularly when the TMO is assessing things in slow motion.

We need to ignore this 'hands moving backwards' test, which is inherently flawed - it's so open to interpretation and variation of handling technique that it's just not a scientific rule against which to measure passes. Consider also that it only works when the passer is running straight towards the try line - any angle to the side would allow the passing player to legally pass the the ball forwards relative to his heading, but the hands rule would flag it up as a forward pass (i.e. the runner is moving at a 45º angle to the try line, passes to his right (away from the try line) at a 60º angle. This is forward relative to himself, but not relative to the try line).

Instead, we simply need to decide whether the ball has gone forwards or backwards relative to the moving body of the passing player. This is easy to judge live. If the player passes and is then tackled (thus denying a live comparison against which to judge the passed ball), then the TMO can project an imaginary version of the player moving at the same speed and angle as when the ball was passed. If the ball was offloaded after the player was tackled, his speed can be deemed to be zero, meaning that any movement of the ball ahead of the point at which it was passed must constitute a forward pass. In such a situation, the TMO can be asked to judge whether the ball left the passer's hands before or after he was tackled, thus invoking different sets of rules for ball behaviour.

like the idea ianbru, kind of like a hawkeye for rugby. but the one challenge is that when passes are made as the player is about to get tackled, they decelerate to anticipate the impact, so that would completely freak out the hawkeye, as it tends to rely on gravity doing the deceleration towards the centre of the earth only rather than how the player might have chosen to continue to move had they not been tackled.

running diagonally is a red herring. it's only the forward component of the diagonal run that would count in momentum towards the try-line.

Rugby is about gaining territory, moving forward up the pitch towards your opponents try line in order to score a try. If the ball goes further forward towards the tryline than the player who passes the ball then it is a forward pass. Hands, physics, stationary or moving and all the other cowpat is just that, cowpat.

Rugby is about gaining territory, moving forward up the pitch towards your opponents try line in order to score a try. If the ball goes further forward towards the tryline than the player who passes the ball then it is a forward pass. Hands, physics, stationary or moving and all the other cowpat is just that, cowpat.

If I was driving down the road in my car and the task was to hit Wayne Barnes walking on the path with a rotten tomato. I would need to fire it off slightly early and before I was in line with him as the tomato will be travelling forward through the air with the momentum of the car.

It would depend on where WB was in relation to yourself. Yes the tomatoes would travel forward but they must not go further forward than your goodself.

It'd be ok, it's Wayne Barnes and he'd let it slide if the tomato went slightly (1-2 m) forward. Anyways, it's just a hypothetical analogy. I wouldn't really do it as it's antisocial.

But why would Barnesy be walking anywhere with a rotten tomato?

englandglory4ever wrote:Rugby is about gaining territory, moving forward up the pitch towards your opponents try line in order to score a try. If the ball goes further forward towards the tryline than the player who passes the ball then it is a forward pass. Hands, physics, stationary or moving and all the other cowpat is just that, cowpat.

Then you are going to be watching some dull, static rugby revolving most around
A) not running with the ball
B) players standing so deep that defence immediately comes out the winner

You can't just tell physics that it doesn't fit in with the rules of your game. Physics won't change, so we have to change the rules.

I think physics is just trying to ruin our game after someone told him he was just applied mathematics...

I hear the IRB are bring in some new ELVs. From next season players will have to stop running completely before making a pass from a standing still position. That should clear up any momentum issues. Can't wait!

Don't make jokes that could easily be true like that...

Does this mean 50 years of static, deep, lateral, predictable NH rugby was just because you guys didn't understand the laws?

A fear of throwing forward passes? Seems plausible.

Well I tried to create a thread on it yesterday. I am deadly serious. But BT once again deleted it. Although he seems allow any number of obvious WUM threads on forward pass laws...none so blind as they say.

Anyway it makes sense. If Gatland really didn't know the laws, as it appears he didn't from his erroneous complaint then does that not go someway to explaining why his Backline has no penetration?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well I tried to create a thread on it yesterday. I am deadly serious. But BT once again deleted it. Although he seems allow any number of obvious WUM threads on forward pass laws...none so blind as they say.

Anyway it makes sense. If Gatland really didn't know the laws, as it appears he didn't from his erroneous complaint then does that not go someway to explaining why his Backline has no penetration?

...against better teams. But plenty against teams ranked below us. That's just sport.

Anyway, I thought you were going away for a week GE?

Not against the SH teams who seem to have understood the laws for the last 50 years.

I wonder if this is why we used to see so many posts claiming that NZ "always" scored from forward passes?

An epidemic of law misunderstanding?

Griff wrote:Anyway, I thought you were going away for a week GE?

Ah yep - taxi to the airport. I'll be gone soon !

This just goes to show Mr Barnes has known the rules for years, emphasised by his completely correct decisions regarding forward passes in 2007

GloriousEmpire wrote:Not against the SH teams who seem to have understood the laws for the last 50 years.

I wonder if this is why we used to see so many posts claiming that NZ "always" scored from forward passes?

An epidemic of law misunderstanding?

Plenty of penetration against SH countries likes of Fiji, Tonga, Argentina, Namibia etc. over the years.  But these don't nicely into your hemisphere argument, do they?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Griff wrote:Anyway, I thought you were going away for a week GE?

Ah yep - taxi to the airport. I'll be gone soon !

So you were teasing us? Teasing men on the internet? Oh, the shame!

Griff wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Not against the SH teams who seem to have understood the laws for the last 50 years.

I wonder if this is why we used to see so many posts claiming that NZ "always" scored from forward passes?

An epidemic of law misunderstanding?

Plenty of penetration against SH countries likes of Fiji, Tonga, Argentina, Namibia etc. over the years.  But these don't nicely into your hemisphere argument, do they?

Sorry, is this really a serious argument? You're really proud of outplaying Namibia? Things are worse than I thought

GloriousEmpire wrote:How many separate threads do you really need to create?

Honestly we get the message.

 

GloriousEmpire wrote:Not against the SH teams who seem to have understood the laws for the last 50 years.

I wonder if this is why we used to see so many posts claiming that NZ "always" scored from forward passes?

An epidemic of law misunderstanding?

Hmm, not all SH referees. Bryce didn't understand it in 2011.  

Griff wrote:It's like being on an aeroplane travelling in the sky. If you throw a rugby ball backwards down the aisle it may look to have gone backwards, but because the plane is travelling at 500mph the ball has actually gone forward a huge amount. You'd then have to call that a forward pass, which would be ridiculous. Better to take a common sense approach and say that you were aiming backwards so, even though the ball travelled forwards, it's fine under rugby rules (where you have to pass backwards).

It's why playing rugby on airplanes is so controversial  

Notch wrote:

Griff wrote:It's like being on an aeroplane travelling in the sky. If you throw a rugby ball backwards down the aisle it may look to have gone backwards, but because the plane is travelling at 500mph the ball has actually gone forward a huge amount. You'd then have to call that a forward pass, which would be ridiculous. Better to take a common sense approach and say that you were aiming backwards so, even though the ball travelled forwards, it's fine under rugby rules (where you have to pass backwards).

It's why playing rugby on airplanes is so controversial  

that must have what happened to that Hungarian rugby team in the true story film alive

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Griff wrote:It's like being on an aeroplane travelling in the sky. If you throw a rugby ball backwards down the aisle it may look to have gone backwards, but because the plane is travelling at 500mph the ball has actually gone forward a huge amount. You'd then have to call that a forward pass, which would be ridiculous. Better to take a common sense approach and say that you were aiming backwards so, even though the ball travelled forwards, it's fine under rugby rules (where you have to pass backwards).

It's why playing rugby on airplanes is so controversial  

            that must have what happened to that Hungarian rugby team in the true story film alive

They were hungry, not Hungarian.

 uruguayan

jimmyinthewell68 wrote: uruguayan

Fantastic film, amazing story. Canessa and Nando heroically breach the Andies and alert the authorities that many of the team are still alive, although video review shows that Canessa may have passed some rations slightly foward to Nando at a crucial point. So if Gatland had his way, they'd've been disqualified.

What if you pass a ball backwards on a bus, but the bus is reversing at 50 km/hr down the road. So when you pass, it actually looks like you didn't pass it backwards at all and it drifts forward?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote: uruguayan

Fantastic film, amazing story. Canessa and Nando heroically breach the Andies and alert the authorities that many of the team are still alive, although video review shows that Canessa may have passed some rations slightly foward to Nando at a crucial point. So if Gatland had his way, they'd've been disqualified.

The 'Andies'. Like a team of blokes all called Andy?

Don't remember them in the movie.

IanBru wrote:For me, the rule should simply be clarified, particularly when the TMO is assessing things in slow motion.

We need to ignore this 'hands moving backwards' test, which is inherently flawed - it's so open to interpretation and variation of handling technique that it's just not a scientific rule against which to measure passes. Consider also that it only works when the passer is running straight towards the try line - any angle to the side would allow the passing player to legally pass the the ball forwards relative to his heading, but the hands rule would flag it up as a forward pass (i.e. the runner is moving at a 45º angle to the try line, passes to his right (away from the try line) at a 60º angle. This is forward relative to himself, but not relative to the try line).

Instead, we simply need to decide whether the ball has gone forwards or backwards relative to the moving body of the passing player. This is easy to judge live. If the player passes and is then tackled (thus denying a live comparison against which to judge the passed ball), then the TMO can project an imaginary version of the player moving at the same speed and angle as when the ball was passed. If the ball was offloaded after the player was tackled, his speed can be deemed to be zero, meaning that any movement of the ball ahead of the point at which it was passed must constitute a forward pass. In such a situation, the TMO can be asked to judge whether the ball left the passer's hands before or after he was tackled, thus invoking different sets of rules for ball behaviour.

If you have to look at it this closely then should just play on and say pass is backwards. We need less TMO and less breaks in play. People should just understand and accept, the ref will get a few close calls wrong.

perhaps the ball is affected like draining water down a plug hole compared to southern and northern hemispheres .it looked forward in Wales  

thank goodness we have TMOs and good referees who cant be influenced by one-eyed fans at intl matches or every home game would be a home win for everyone.

have to say i really didnt enjoy the booing at a recent intl match though. hope that is not the beginning of a trend.