The Thorny Issue of the Forward Pass

Hurricanes against the Blues, the relevant passage of play starts around the 3:20 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mjGZs693TA



The TMO looked at Corey Jane's pass and ruled it legal. I think this is where a gap has grown between what the casual supporter sees and what the laws say. I can understand the importance of direction of the hands and momentum, but I can't watch a sequence like that without thinking something was amiss.

It's a really tough one. Saw two examples of it this weekend too - Quins vs Leicester - 1st try for Leicester, last pass not given as forward. Saints vs London Irish, would have been 4th try for Irish and would have meant they were only 1 point behind, last pass given as forward

It is a difficult issue, and one that's hard to call on a tv screen. As a result the deciding factor has become which direction did the hands go in. I'm happy with that to be honest as it's easier to police. Unless of course you are JP Doyle, in which case you ask the TMO then just watch on a big screen and rule on the direction of travel of the ball.

Of course if they hadn't fiddled with the law 'interpretations', we would just be able to watch the ball and if it doesn't go forward as the law is still written, we wouldn't have had a different set of opinions.

But that ball went clearly way, way forward.

It's a nonsense in my humble opinion.

The interpretations of the ref, TJs and TMOs are a random set of events - a lottery.

Ozzy3213 wrote:It is a difficult issue, and one that's hard to call on a tv screen.  As a result the deciding factor has become which direction did the hands go in.  I'm happy with that to be honest as it's easier to police.  Unless of course you are JP Doyle, in which case you ask the TMO then just watch on a big screen and rule on the direction of travel of the ball.

Doyle disallowing Yarde's try promoted me to post this. By the standard of that Super Rugby decision, Homer's pass to Yarde was fine.

The key thing is whatever the current 'interpretation' says should be applied consistently - and the fact that it isn't is the real problem ...

Heaf

The problem is that the current interpretation is subjective - what exactly constitutes 'momentum' and 'direction of the hands'?

The example in the linked vid should definitely have been called forwards - although Jane is trying to wrap further round the pass, it is released forward of his run (looks like the ball half slips from his grip as his hand makes an arcing motion to pass). However, there are always some iffy ones that could be called either way. Add to that also that it will depend on the angle the ref sees play from and whether there are any pitch markings nearby that provide a visual reference, and you will always get some calls that could be debated (even if you reverted to the 'simple' interpretation of direction of the ball rather than direction of the throw).

dummy_half wrote:Heaf

The problem is that the current interpretation is subjective - what exactly constitutes 'momentum' and 'direction of the hands'?

The example in the linked vid should definitely have been called forwards - although Jane is trying to wrap further round the pass, it is released forward of his run (looks like the ball half slips from his grip as his hand makes an arcing motion to pass). However, there are always some iffy ones that could be called either way. Add to that also that it will depend on the angle the ref sees play from and whether there are any pitch markings nearby that provide a visual reference, and you will always get some calls that could be debated (even if you reverted to the 'simple' interpretation of direction of the ball rather than direction of the throw).

The "direction of the hands" directive is there precisely because it is less subjective than trying to judge the flight of the ball. The truth is that any pass made at speed will travel forward, because those are the physical laws of the universe we live in and not even the IRB can interpret them differently.

So they have a choice. Do they ask the ref to judge the flight of the ball, which requires them to consider the angle of the pass, the speed of the players before, during and after the pass, the position on the pitch (because if the ball crosses a line it will look more forward than if it doesn't), the length of the pass (longer passes will look more forward)... and then make a judgement that will in effect be random (because all passes at speed go forward anyway)?

Or do they ask the referee to look at one thing: the angle of the pass, as judged by the motion of the hands?

The IRB has (correctly in my opinion) decided that referees are more likely to make consistent decisions if they only have to judge one thing than if they have to make fine judgement calls about multiple factors which a) will often be counter-intuitive, b) will often lead to inconsistency because some passes look worse than others and c) only add confusion to the decision anyway (because only two things have a material effect on whether the pass goes forward - the speed of the passer and the direction of the pass, and we are trying to eliminate the speed of the passer from the equation because otherwise the game would have to be played at a walk).

Whether they do decide consistently is another thing, but there would be far more debatable decisions if they were considering multiple factors instead of one.

Completely agree poorfour. Forward passes were ruled completely inconsistently in the past.

And now, hurrah!, they are ruled completely inconsistently.

That's a vast improvement...

It is when you see how it used to be applied.

So why haven't the IRB re-drafted the law, bc? http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?highlight=forward%20pass&law=12

It's a mockery of the law to allow fundamentally illegal - often subjective - interpretations to override the Ass. All sorts of external factors may influence the outcome and not only those of Newton's Laws of motion but air speed, and player orientation at the moment of delivery.

So at the end of the day, the law is almost inevitably bound to be mocked.

This 'hands were going backwards' reasoning...where has that cropped up from? If the ball goes forward then it goes forwards, end of.

But yeah, where did this 'hands going backwards' arguement come from? Is it anothing SH trick to allow more forward passes in their league?

The laws remain the same - the ball must not travel forwards but to give the refs something simple to judge it on they have decided that the direction of the hands gives a consistent and simple way to make a judgement.  I think this is wrong - but its what the refs have been told to use. The issue is that a lot of passes that look backwards are actually forewards
https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

I don't have much problem with the momentum ruling so long as the initial progression of the ball is clearly backwards but then I'd still reinforce that initial 'clearly backwards' point at the moments immediately after the pass is made.

That would bear better scrutiny when technology becomes involved.

TJ wrote:The laws remain the same - the ball must not travel forwards but to give the refs something simple to judge it on they have decided that the direction of the hands gives a consistent and simple way to make a judgement.  I think this is wrong - but its what the refs have been told to use.  The issue is that a lot of passes that look backwards are actually forewards  
https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

thanks for reminding me of that video, I have used it in the past to highlight the issue.

Of course the laws now refer to "Throw Forward" rather than forward pass. http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=12

I used to coach my players to never do a long pass as they were approaching a line across the pitch, as momentum would carry it forward and the ref would blow. The same pass not crossing the line would look fine.

As to the direction of hands directive. As you say it is to give a simple guideline - but it is misleading. the hands can face back and still throw forward and vice versa. I much prefer the ethos of if it looks forward to the officials - then it is.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I don't have much problem with the momentum ruling so long as the initial progression of the ball is clearly backwards but then I'd still reinforce that initial 'clearly backwards' point at the moments immediately after the pass is made.

That would bear better scrutiny when technology becomes involved.

I don't understand. The ball doesn't go backwards and then goes forwards. The ball will be travelling towards the opposition dead ball line as soon as it leaves the hands. The idea is if it's moving their slower than the player was at the point of the pass then it's ok.

The hands thing is very difficult because most players sweep their hands in an arc across their bodies. The exact point of release can be difficult to pin point. In some cases it is of course obvious.

I don't really like it personally. As far as I'm concerned you should have to compensate for you forward speed. However, as a point was made to me, it would make it even harder to beat defences that already often require cheeky blocks to breach. So I'm not against it as long as a consistent view is applied.

I hate to think just how deep attacking lines would have to be if passes had to go physically backwards rather than just relationally.

My problem with the hands facing directive is you can be ok by this but you can physically see the ball leaving forward of the player.

Perhaps all TMOs need to be experts in vectors and relative velocities?

It's a total nonsense about the direction of the hands and completely irrelevant. The introduction of that interpretation has led to far more tolerance of forward passes than before, which in turn puts pressure on the offside line because of players inching ever forward. It is also inconsistent with a knock on where often a ball is attempted to be played backwards, but just because the movement was backwards doesn't make it any less of a ko.

It is much easier to judge the flight of the ball over several metres than the movement of hands over several centimetres that is often shielded by the player or others. The simple solution is to solely judge the flight of the ball and consign this nonsense of hand direction to the rubbish bin.

In which case most moves involving passes would (or should) be called as forward passes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:In which case most moves involving passes would (or should) be called as forward passes.

Next game I watch (I've got sky+ back now so will be able to record it), I'll count how many passes are forward relative to the pitch and how many I would judge to be forward relative to the player. I will post the results of the study somewhere.

I'd think a helluva lot more than some think. Even ones where at first glance seem completely backwards.

Yeah so it's been said. I'm just curious as to how many it would be. Of course it's because they can now. It they were being called forward the players would adapt.

I tried that as an experiment on Sunday and the first pass I looked at that would never be called forwards under normal circumstances actually travelled about a metre forwards over the ground using the lines on the grass to judge ... I think the majority of passes made when running at speed would fail the test.

They'd have to I suppose. Would be a radically different game though.

Thats why the guidance was brought in - because most passes actually travel forward even tho they look back - like the straight arm rule in cricket - TV showed virtually no bowlers had a straight arm

TJ wrote:Thats why the guidance was brought in - because most passes actually travel forward even tho they look back - like the straight arm rule in cricket - TV showed virtually no bowlers had a straight arm

I would change that to "most passes where the passer is running forward at speed actually travel forwards even though they look back"

At random I just reviewed the first 4 tries in the Bath vs Worcester game. All 4 looked as if they included a pass that fitted this category.

That doesn't surprise me ...

Passing backwards is a fundamental characteristic of Rugby. It doesn't matter if the ball goes forward relative to the pitch, what matters is whether it goes forwards relative to the passer. The flight of the ball between them is best judged by over the longest distance - i.e. through the air.

I agree, GA.

Now all we have to do is to formulate a law that accommodates both the relative speed of the passer including at the moment of impact when he's been knocked back into the iron age by an opponent.

That should be a doddle for the IRB seeing as that's their time zone.

and p.s. slow, long, loopy passes will have a greater forward resolution to the velocity vectors (player, pass, wind etc.) than swift, flat passes.

oh and p.p.s. let's not forget the rifling effect of spin passes.