Forward pass law confuses me ?

First topic message reminder :

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 ???

Here here quins! Great post.

My objection is not so much to the momentum issue its the fact that there is no mention of it in the law. If the irb want it to be enforced in that way then change the wording of the law or add some wording which makes it clear. The problem with having unofficial official laws is that they are open to interpretation. It happens in almost every series that there is some point of discussion atoms the laws because the irb makes secret interpretation rulings and then after the fact says it was like that all along. Well it wasn't actually and the momentum issue was only raised in 2011.

I don't care about what the law is i just want it enforced as written down otherwise what's the actual point in having laws? We might as well wait for each game for the irb to lay out how they want the game to be played. Ridiculous.

It's fairly clear in the law by the way it says "thrown forward" and not "travels forward".

mckay1402 wrote:My objection is not so much to the momentum issue its the fact that there is no mention of it in the law.  If the irb want it to be enforced in that way then change the wording of the law or add some wording which makes it clear.  The problem with having unofficial official laws is that they are open to interpretation.   It happens in almost every series that there is some point of discussion atoms the laws because the irb makes secret interpretation rulings and then after the fact says it was like that all along.  Well it wasn't actually and the momentum issue was only raised in 2011.

I don't care about what the law is i just want it enforced as written down otherwise what's the actual point in having laws?  We might as well wait for each game for the irb to lay out how they want the game to be played.  Ridiculous.

Now that's a great post.

Essentially, the IRB will tolerate widespread breaking of the rules if they think that it 'improves' the visual spectacle of a game of rugby (forward passes, crooked feeds, pushing before the ball is in a scrum, gouging etc etc etc). They can't officially write it into the law books as that would create some sort of murderball version of American Football/Aussie Rules/Netball, so they issue vague 'directives'.

Where they've crossed the line with forward passes is in trying to justify it with a 'momentum' directive. Which is cobblers. A forward pass is a forward pass. They should have held firm on this.

Too late now, the horse has bolted and has gained momentum.

The law was written that way in the first place.

It's interpretation was clarified more than 50 years ago.

The interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

Suggesting that the game of rugby become a game of static ball shoveling like a public game of pass the parcel is absurd, and to suggest it now as a knee jerk reaction to losing, again, to the SANZAR nations superior fitness and skill is petty and childish.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The law was written that way in the first place.

It's interpretation was clarified more than 50 years ago.

The interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

Suggesting that the game of rugby become a game of static ball shoveling like a public game of pass the parcel is absurd, and to suggest it now as a knee jerk reaction to losing, again, to the SANZAR  nations superior fitness and skill is petty and childish.

Not sure if you are directing this post at anyone in particular but, just to confirm, this debate is about the rules, not who is currently best at rugby. It has nothing to do with fitness or skills.

If 'momentum' (i.e. forward) passes are acceptable, then this should be written in to the laws of rugby.

In writing.

It is. You're hung up on "momentum" but that's not the issue. The issue is the law says "thrown forward" And not "travels forward".

Momentum is the thing that means a ball can travel forward without being thrown forward.

It's like saying the laws make no mention of gravity.

Law 12 is crystal clear.

"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."

No mention under 'exception' of travel, momentum, gravity, wind etc.

Actually it says thrown towards the opposing goal line. That doesn't give any room for interpretation or momentum rulings. Toward the opposing goal line is pretty clear.

Casartelli wrote:Law 12 is crystal clear.

"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."

No mention under 'exception' of travel, momentum, gravity, wind etc.

How do you keep failing to see that it is says "a player throws or passes the ball"?

It doesn't say anything about the path of the ball subsequent to the throw or pass. The law is about the passing or throwing action.

You are extrapolating and interpreting an implication about the ball's flight subsequently that isn't written in the law.

Read it again. A few times maybe. THROWS. PASSES. it's in the verb and the subject and object of the phrase.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:Law 12 is crystal clear.

"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."

No mention under 'exception' of travel, momentum, gravity, wind etc.

How do you keep failing to see that it is says "a player throws or passes the ball"?

It doesn't say anything about the path of the ball subsequent to the throw or pass. The law is about the passing or throwing action.

You are extrapolating and interpreting an implication about the ball's flight subsequently that isn't written in the law.

Read it again. A few times maybe. THROWS. PASSES. it's in the verb and the subject and object of the phrase.

Your posts are funny.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:Law 12 is crystal clear.

"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."

No mention under 'exception' of travel, momentum, gravity, wind etc.

How do you keep failing to see that it is says "a player throws or passes the ball"?

It doesn't say anything about the path of the ball subsequent to the throw or pass. The law is about the passing or throwing action.

You are extrapolating and interpreting an implication about the ball's flight subsequently that isn't written in the law.

Read it again. A few times maybe. THROWS. PASSES. it's in the verb and the subject and object of the phrase.

I really hate arguing on the Internet by this is getting on my nerves. You're accusing someone who is directly quoting the law of interpreting it but deliberately missing out the part that makes the forward pass relative to the pitch and not the player.
This forum can be really frustrating at times and this whole conversation is one of them. The law says one thing and the irb says something different. Is clear as day and anyone can see it.

Yes. The law is clear. As the IRB say, And most people agree.

The law talks about the pass, not the flight of the ball.

Show me the bit where the law says the ball must travel backwards, as opposed to being thrown not in a forward direction and I'll agree with you.

However it doesn't say what you palpably want it to say. Frankly it staggers me that there are still people who allege to watch or play rugby who don't understand what I consider to be a simple fact.

mckay1402 wrote:Actually it says thrown towards the opposing goal line.   That doesn't give any room for interpretation or momentum rulings.   Toward the opposing goal line is pretty clear.  

Thrown, thrown, thrown; not travels. How can you still not see that?

It's possible to throw something in a direction, but have it travel in a different direction. This is due to the players movement relative to the pitch and the laws of physics. The IRB might be powerful, but they have no control over the laws governing the physical universe!

It's not just NH confusion. Laurie Mains, who has actually been to the Southern Hemisphere and has coached a decent team or two, is incensed by the forward pass problem.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/8648457/Laurie-Mains-irate-at-forward-pass-rulings

Says it makes a 'mockery' of SH rugby.

Ok that has got through my hangover and looking at the law again has made me see it that way. I still think the wording is woolly but it's true that it does say thrown n
or passed and not travelled.

Casartelli wrote:It's not just NH confusion.  Laurie Mains, who has actually been to the Southern Hemisphere and has coached a decent team or two, is incensed by the forward pass problem.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/8648457/Laurie-Mains-irate-at-forward-pass-rulings

Says it makes a 'mockery' of SH rugby.

Take a look at the accompanying picture and heed that old most powerful kiwi phrase : think where that drink is taking you...

The law is clearly stated, and the long standing interpretation is consistent with the laws of the universe.

Anyone who can't see that is arguing black is white. Whomever they are...least successful All Blacks coach in history or not.

That's made my day. NZ players/coaches are now whinging about forward pass rules. Do they not teach physics in NZ???

Griff wrote:That's made my day. NZ players/coaches are now whinging about forward pass rules. Do they not teach physics in NZ???

It's an old article where mains has an agenda about excessive leniency of tmo in a game against the chiefs by an Aussie franchise. But given its Laurie mains I could actually believe he doesn't get it.

I get it. And know that a ball travels forward when passed due to the forward momentum of the running player. But, if the law says, the ball 'must' be thrown in a backwards direction, how can it travel forward relative to the player throwing the ball that is giving the ball the forward momentum? Answer is, it can't, unless it has actually been thrown slightly forward, right?

When fast running player gets instantaneously thumped in a tackle at the monent of the pass is when it looks well forward because the reference point has suddenly stopped dead in its tracks.

The answer is: it can. You can throw it backwards with insufficient force to overcome its momentum completely. Neither the player not the ball exist in a vacuum, and the player will generally not remain in a constant state of motion afterwards. Still a backward throw, but not a backward trajectory. If you are running at 20km/hr then a legitimate backward pass that has anything less than a -20km/hr perpendicular  speed component will drift forward with momentum. Remember that most passes have most of their velocity components "sideways" tangential and not backwards by necessity that attacking manoeuvres where players run directly behind each other would be fairly easy to defend. Also remember that the ball is decelerating from the moment it's released due to the fact that unlike high school Newtonian physics, the game isn't played in a vacuum.

The modern game is played on the gain line and at pace. So the pass trajectories are as flat as possible (little or no *backwards* component), hence they are more susceptible to momentum effects.

Such as in this crude vector diagram


      .   |\
      X  |  \ y
      .   |

Player is running forward at Xm.s
Player throws the ball back and to the side at  30% angle at Ym.s

The ball travels forward and to the right, assuming vacuum condition via the resolving vector that completed the triangle.

The running player once passing will generally try to get back on side, so is unlikely to continue at X even if he's not tackled.

So the ball will be ahead of the passing player unless he continues to not decelerate linearly more slowly than the ball does.

Yes, makes sense. Players need to get the backwards force in their passes right (equal or greater) to overcome the forward momentum that the player (and ball) has at the instant moment of release. Presumably it's acceptable for players to accelerate after they've passed when the backwards force is not sufficient to overcome the forward momentum? Players do this but is it acceptable?

Not that this is relevant. But if a player running at 20 km/hr throws a 'perfectly' flat pass in a vacuum and continues to run forward at 20 km/hr, would that ball continue to travel forward at 20 km/hr and in line with the player but also outwards at a speed reflecting the force of the pass?

yes.

so the longer the pass, the more forwards it would appear to have travelled.

It would appear more noticeable over a long distance, but in a vacuum the orthogonal aspects of the applied force are independent.

In reality though the aerodynamics of the ball become important. It's normally spinning in the opposite direction to its flight and acts like a plane wing, slowing down and spinning more slowly tends to drag it forwards in an arc especially if the long axis of the ball is tipped backwards. Exactly like a shot at goal curves in the opposite direction to the kickers foot, which is why they have a preferred side.

As Laurie mains alluded, common sense and judgement need to prevail rather than some rote application of some mechanical fixed rule, or some automaton as has been suggested here previously.

The mere fact that this debate is still going on astounds me.

Biltong wrote:The mere fact that this debate is still going on astounds me.

Yep Gats has a lot to answer for.

Anyway, given that scrum feeds are still allowed to be crooked, despite the IRBs endless scrutiny of the scrum, it makes sense to me that passes should be allowed to be similarly forward.

It's like the ruck laws applied to England this AI - they were allowed to seal off and go off their feet because Joubert said it had no material impact.

So even if Folau's pass was forward then you have to ask similarly, would he have been tackled anyway? And if not then the try seems fair to me.

The fact of the matter it is another thing that the law makers at the IRB have further cocked up by making this a point of interpretation and therefor a variable.

Last weekend Wayne Barnes allowed a forward pass, one that other officials did not agree was legitimate.

Some people on here, think that pass was allowable in the rules on momentum, direction of the passers hands etc.

The basic fact is that pass may have been allowed by Barnes after he watched it from an obtuse angle on a big screen and didnt wait for his TMO's answer. Other referees may have awarded the try straight away, many others would have said the pass was forward.

Over complicating the rules makes the referees job harder, makes the result of referees decisions inconsistent and ruins the game for the spectator and the players.

You would have thought with the current and effective simplification of the laws of the scrum that this new interpretation of what is a forward pass would have been laughed out... And never introduced.

The IRB need to make the laws of the game as simple to adjudicate with as little interpretation as possible.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Anyway, given that scrum feeds are still allowed to be crooked, despite the IRBs endless scrutiny of the scrum, it makes sense to me that passes should be allowed to be similarly forward.

It's like the ruck laws applied to England this AI - they were allowed to seal off and go off their feet because  Joubert said it had no material impact.

So even if Folau's pass was forward then you have to ask similarly, would he have been tackled anyway? And if not then the try seems fair to me.

 

Biltong wrote:The mere fact that this debate is still going on astounds me.

Its absolutely crazy. The whole point of the rule is that if you're ahead of the ball carrier you are out of the game. If the receiving player is behind the ball carrier when the pass is thrown and when he catches the ball, play on for goodness sake. What on earth is the point in giving a forward pass when the ball has been thrown backwards to a player behind the ball carrier?

maestegmafia wrote:The fact of the matter it is another thing that the law makers at the IRB have further cocked up by making this a point of interpretation and therefor a variable.

Last weekend Wayne Barnes allowed a forward pass, one that other officials did not agree was legitimate.

Some people on here, think that pass was allowable in the rules on momentum, direction of the passers hands etc.

The basic fact is that pass may have been allowed by Barnes after he watched it from an obtuse angle on a big screen and didnt wait for his TMO's answer. Other referees may have awarded the try straight away, many others would have said the pass was forward.

Over complicating the rules makes the referees job harder, makes the result of referees decisions inconsistent and ruins the game for the spectator and the players.

You would have thought with the current and effective simplification of the laws of the scrum that this new interpretation of what is a forward pass would have been laughed out... And never introduced.

The IRB need to make the laws of the game as simple to adjudicate with as little interpretation as possible.

The point about momentum is important, and I can't really see how it can be avoided.

Sprinters can run over 20mph.  So assuming a Rugby player broke free and is running at least 15mph, that means the ball is moving forward at 15mph when released by the player making the pass.   So, if the pass is slightly backward, clearly legal, it still carries forward momentum of 10-15mph.  How can these passes not be legal?  To make the ball go backward from the exact spot of the pass, the passer would have to give the pass a backward speed relative to his body of 15-20mph.  That is quite a lot.  We need a high school or uni Physics student to tell us the exact force vectors required, but I believe it could actually be dangerous to pass a ball backwards at 20mph whilst running forwards.  .

The point about simplification is spot on, but this is an area where Rugby has challenges.  There is a lot which is subjective in Rugby.  For example, is everyone in a ruyck supporting their own weight?  Did someone deliberately slip their bind?  And so on.  So, to me, the biggest challenge for the referees is to become more uniform in interpretation.  The notion that refs can be so different at times (and they are) and a possible difference between NH and SH referees, is bad for Rugby.

I have no problem with Barnes making a decision based upon what he saw on the big screen.  The purpose of the TMO is to support the Referee with replays when seeing something in the live action is not definitive, or simply to fast.  It is used at the discretion of the Referee.  With big screen, the Referees can now see action they couldn't see before.  He is in charge and should make as many decisions as he can.

http://theaftermatter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/physics-of-rugby-forward-passes-and.html?m=1

Fairly complete working supplied here.

Biltong will love it because they use the specific example of the SA 2011 RWC match where Bryce Lawrence incorrectly disallows a try because of a backwards pass...

Yep we were screwed so many times over in that game it is actually hilarious

GloriousEmpire wrote:http://theaftermatter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/physics-of-rugby-forward-passes-and.html?m=1

Fairly complete working supplied here.

Biltong will love it because they use the specific example of the SA 2011 RWC match where Bryce Lawrence incorrectly disallows a try because of a backwards pass...

You are a closet science weenie.
(welcome to the club)

Biltong wrote:Yep we were screwed so many times over in that game it is actually hilarious

But now you can be conversant with the physical laws upon which you were screwed.

doctor_grey wrote:

Biltong wrote:Yep we were screwed so many times over in that game it is actually hilarious

But now you can be conversant with the physical laws upon which you were screwed.  

Problem is Doc, an ambiguous law cannot be proven or disproven. It can only be argued until such time as the necessary scientific model for adjudicating these laws via 3D modelling and projection can be accurately analysed on screen.  

Air traffic control still broken for all if england. If someone could sort out the physics of flying in Britain id be grateful.

I don't have a problem with that Australian try. Usually, my take on the laws is heavily influenced by whether my team is disadvantaged by a decision, and I suspect that's true of most of us. In this case, I wanted Wales to win (though probably not as passionately as a Welshman).

That's not to say I'm entirely happy with forward pass interpretations in our game. A lot of pop passes and offloads appear forward to me but seem to be waved through by match officials on aesthetic grounds.

The reason they look forward is nothing to do with the minimal effects of momentum over such short distances, it's the fact that the player receiving the pass is ahead of the ball carrier before the pass is given.

That gives a clue to why supporters aren't always best thrilled with some judgements on much longer passes. We can all understand the way a ball can travel forwards even if thrown backwards but it goes against the grain to see a player taking a legal pass despite starting in front of the passer.

As an aside, the  laws say the ball must not be passed forward but it's not just about the direction of the hands, it's where the passer is in relation to the opposition try line. If a player passes around the back of a tackler, his hands may go backwards but there's a fair chance he isn't facing forwards any more. I don't want to see officials getting fixated by the direction of the hands to the exclusion of other more pertinent considerations.

If the player receiving is ahead of the passer when the pass is made then its offside of course. But with many pop passes, the receiver runs through a gap and then collects the ball from behind him.

And the passer in a pop pass is often being driven backwards by a tackler so by the time the receiver catches the ball he looks to be well in front of the passer whom by that stage is on the ground in a heap some 1-2 m back towards his own goal line from where he passed. So are all the forward looking pop passes forward or is it 'sometimes' an illusion?

GloriousEmpire wrote:It would appear more noticeable over a long distance, but in a vacuum the orthogonal aspects of the applied force are independent.

In reality though the aerodynamics of the ball become important. It's normally spinning in the opposite direction to its flight and acts like a plane wing, slowing down and spinning more slowly tends to drag it forwards in an arc especially if the long axis of the ball is tipped backwards. Exactly like a shot at goal curves in the opposite direction to the kickers foot, which is why they have a preferred side.

As Laurie mains alluded, common sense and judgement need to prevail rather than some rote application of some mechanical fixed rule, or some automaton as has been suggested here previously.

GE are you some sort of Physics professor in your day job ? I have never heard the word ' orthogonal ' before. And 10/10 for your earlier diagram. Wish I understood it though.

That pass over the head in the IRB video that travels forwards is STILL freaking me out..................

But I get it - the longer the pass, the greater the forward momentum of the ball, and you are also right in that common sense and benefit of doubt to attacking team should prevail for the benefit of the sport as a whole.

Never had this problem with up the jumper rugby......

Yes. It would be easier if the IRB had taken that lev proposal from England that passing of the ball should be out lawed altogether.

(And welcome back)

I cant believe you guys have spent three days argueing what a forward pass is...

Did anyone agree on the definition of a "line ball"?

It's impossible to deliver a "line ball" or "flat pass" whilst moving.

Anything delivered whilst going forwards, backwards will be either forward and backward.

Unless the backwards force put on the ball by the pass was equal to the forward momentum of the ball prior to the release of the pass

indeed. which would mean that it was a backwards pass that travelled flat

GloriousEmpire wrote:If the player receiving is ahead of the passer when the pass is made then its offside of course.

You don't get penalized for offside if you get ahead of the ball carrier and take a pass from him.

 

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yes. It would be easier if the IRB had taken that lev proposal from England that passing of the ball should be out lawed altogether.

(And welcome back)

Rugby Fan wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:If the player receiving is ahead of the passer when the pass is made then its offside of course.

You don't get penalized for offside if you get ahead of the ball carrier and take a pass from him.

Only if the pass isn't forward, and the pass isn't deliberately forward

You can't be offside in general play.

You have to be put offside by either being in front of a kick, or alternativley a set phase or ruck.