Forward pass law

[crossref]

So @BikingBud

In post #8 you explain that this is all about velocity

In post #20 , understanding that the ball has no velocity, you explain that in fact it is all about the relative position of the two players


And neither of those two concepts are even mentioned in the Law definition of a Throw Forward


Can you see now that this is a difficult Law question to answer?

(It's NOT a difficult scenario to referee, peep, scrum, happy days. But one day something like this may cause problems for a TMO trying to apply the letter if the Law)

 

[Stu10]

I'm not convinced that it is possible to transfer a ball one player to another running at speed such that the ball maintains zero velocity throughout the transfer

 

[Rich_NL]

I'm not convinced that it is possible to transfer a ball one player to another running at speed such that the ball maintains zero velocity throughout the transfer

Velocity in which direction, and relative to what?

 

[Stu10]

Velocity in which direction, and relative to what?

In any direction relative to the passer.

(Check my reply in the other thread... more velocity fun, though I decided to say "direction" instead to keep it simple.)

 

[crossref]

I'm not convinced that it is possible to transfer a ball one player to another running at speed such that the ball maintains zero velocity throughout the transfer

that's why my scenario had the player passing the ball as stationary, for clarity.

But even when running, the balls forward velocity will be the same as the that of the player who is handing over the ball

 

[tim White]

Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.

If the ball did not move forwards (relative to the player) then it is not a forward pass or knock on. I note the 'simplified' Law Books has removed some lines here which could have been helpful.

 

[crossref]

Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.

If the ball did not move forwards (relative to the player) then it is not a forward pass or knock on.

For a forward pass that's definitely correct.

For a knock-on, I don't think that is correct - I think we judge a knock on by whether it goes forward relative to the ground.

This was explored in my scenario #2 - where a play drops the ball behind him, but it has still travelled forward over the ground.

Not many people would explicitly say yes/no, but from the comments I think the view was unanimously : it's a knock on

this is the one --

https://rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/knock-on-law.22574/post-381424

 

[shebeen]

I've always referred to this (now ageing) WR video to explain how a ball going forward is not necessarily a forward pass.

On the ENGvRSA match over the weekend, the TMO over ruled a try on fwd pass. The ball clearly went fwd, but was passed by a player at full speed and the trajectory remained behind him. There was a certain angle(not on these highlights) where it looked fwd out the hands, but not side on.

How is this a fwd pass, called by both TMO and then confirmed by Referee (who can be heard to say "pass is good" from a perfect position)? Am I missing something here?

 

[Rich_NL]

I agree it wasn't a forward pass. There are two visually confusing factors here: the lines on the pitch, and the fact that the passer is running diagonally (so the ball leaves 'forwards' relative to his hips/shoulders).

The problem with assessing 'forwards out of the hands, not over the pitch' is that it assumes you're square on to the opposition DBL. If you're running sideways and passing out wide, or even running backwards, you're going to pass 'forward out of the hands'. Then it *is* important whether it's over the pitch or not!

 

[Jz558]

In the match officials' view the position of the passing players hands (ie facing forward) indicated that it was a forward pass.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm not convinced that it is possible to transfer a ball one player to another running at speed such that the ball maintains zero velocity throughout the transfer

Clearly a ball cannot move with "Zero velocity". Have you missed something in the post?

 

[Volun-selected]

I'm not convinced that it is possible to transfer a ball one player to another running at speed such that the ball maintains zero velocity throughout the transfer

Physics head on - impossible with the constant acceleration of gravity. If you are running forward at 10 m/s with no lateral movement and you ”throw” the ball directly backwards at 10 m/s then it would stay still for movement relative to goal and touch but would start to drop vertically immediately.

From a more practical point of view, if they added something like the smart ball tech to the players GPS trackers what you could do is look for the moment the balls velocity changes from that of the carrier. If they’re both running toward the goalline at 5 m/s then when the player passes the ball backward then there will be a reduction in the ball’s velocity relative to goal.

If the new velocity is less than 5 then the pass is going “backwards” relative to the BC. If the ball velocity is 5, it’s flat. If more than 5 the BC has imparted additional forward velocity and the ball has been passed forward.

 

[didds]

In the match officials' view the position of the passing players hands (ie facing forward) indicated that it was a forward pass.

Ive seen the video a few times. It certainly seemed forward from the hands to me.

Others MMV naturally.

 

[Dixpat]

Ive seen the video a few times. It certainly seemed forward from the hands to me.

Others MMV naturally.

When watching the game I thought that the call was incorrect

Having watched the replay quite a few times I haven't changed my view as IMO it was not a clear & obvious forward pass which I thought would be the test to overule the on field decision

 

[didds]

alternatively its not a C&O backwards pass.

 

[Dixpat]

alternatively its not a C&O backwards pass.

So who has precedence - the attacker or the defender?

Surely it has to be the attacker

 

[Shelflife]

Talk about over complicating something

If the ball ends up in 15s hands and he is in front of 10, the one thing i am sure of is its not play on.

You can have a forward pass/transfer or you can accidental off side or deliberate offside.

 

[Rich_NL]

Fassi and Kolbe maintain speed throughout the pass. Kolbe remains about a metre behind Fassi and receives the ball on his shoulder.

I don't know if there were particularly strong head- or tailwinds along the pitch that day.

 

[shebeen]

In the match officials' view the position of the passing players hands (ie facing forward) indicated that it was a forward pass.

That's the problem, as indicated earlier by @Rich_NL the passing player was not running directly up the field, so it "looks" like he is passing forward if you use the wrong camera angle. The whole term "out the hands" is a bit nonsensical. To take it to extremes, an old school scrumhalf dive pass is passing the ball directly forward out the hands, but backwards relatively (obviously).



I know some people will say that a still picture loses the context, but here you can clearly see the ball is relatively behind the passing player who kept on moving at essentially the same direction and speed. For me that is C&O that this is not a fwd pass, but that's my view of it. Clearly the definition of a fwd pass is not clear and obvious.

 

[crossref]

. The whole term "out the hands" is a bit nonsensical. To take it to extremes, an old school scrumhalf dive pass is passing the ball directly forward out the hands, but backwards relatively (obviously).

Yes, in the phrase "forwards out of the hands" the word forwards means relative to the pitch.
But we know that forwards relative to pitch is not necessarily a forward pass

Rugby has got itself into a real mess on this, neither a knock on or a throw forward are properly defined. (So who knows what algorithm they would build into a smart ball)