Im not arguing one way or the other in this instance. Im just saying that referees/TMOs will always look at hand position to determine whether its a forward pass. if the hands are facing forwards its very difficult to argue that the pass was released backwards.
Forward pass law
- Thread starter crossref
- Start date
Not really much good looking at when or where it is caught, that only indicates ball travelled forwards not the direction of the pass and we all accept that the velocity of the players will impart a velocity on the ball. Although it has traveled > 5m forward, this in itself does not meet the test.
But if you stop at the point of passing the ball is in front of the passer, if they are travelling at the same speed and it was passed backwards it cannot go in front of the passer, unless it was Thrown Forward
To me clear and obvious as there is now a gap between the passer's hands/body and the ball. Where a legal pass would show the ball within the corridor between the passer's body mass and the catcher, see earlier passes in the phase.
It is in front of the passer and the passer does not get tackled or decelerate, that might counter any comment about change in passer's path, ergo Thrown Forward.
But if you stop at the point of passing the ball is in front of the passer, if they are travelling at the same speed and it was passed backwards it cannot go in front of the passer, unless it was Thrown Forward
To me clear and obvious as there is now a gap between the passer's hands/body and the ball. Where a legal pass would show the ball within the corridor between the passer's body mass and the catcher, see earlier passes in the phase.
It is in front of the passer and the passer does not get tackled or decelerate, that might counter any comment about change in passer's path, ergo Thrown Forward.
The passer is still holding the ball as shown by the placement of his hands / arms.
I see no gap (relative to the passer's hands/arms) in the still you've provided. I don't believe it's clear and obvious.
I am sure you will what you wish to see but if he has passed backwards why are his hands always in front?
Compare these stills where he has clearly advanced from the end of the 15m dashed line and the ball is still in front of him. That can only be because he scooped it forward.
If it had been passed backwards it would be behind his hip and might still be travelling forward but that would not be thrown forward.
Appears to have C+O to the match officials!
Compare these stills where he has clearly advanced from the end of the 15m dashed line and the ball is still in front of him. That can only be because he scooped it forward.If it had been passed backwards it would be behind his hip and might still be travelling forward but that would not be thrown forward.
Appears to have C+O to the match officials!
I think we flogged this enough now but you still seem to not get this, not just relative to the pitch but:
Forward: Towards the opposition’s dead-ball line.
In order to get the sensor in the ball to sort it all out it's actually quite trivial, thanks to that genius Newton.
Acceleration sensors in the ball, the same small and discrete items used in smart gum shields, operate in 3 separate planes (directions), lateral (across the pitch), longitudinal (along the pitch) and vertical (towards spider cam).
All motion is composed of a blend of motion in each plane all you need is to resolve for each of the magnitude in each plane and highlight the changes. A spike will indicate a change in acceleration, the magnitude and direction can be resolved and a decision can be made.
The question is do we want that? Will it benefit the game?
It obviously won't be in place for anything other than top end of the professional game.
So we just carry on as we always have interpreting the current definitions that most people find quite straightforward.
This question contradicts your point itself. If his hands are in front of the ball, then in that moment, the ball is behind him relatively.
Your subsequent stills may have a case, but hard to say from that camera angle which affects one's ability to objectively comment. And keep in mind a ball thrown backwards can still end up ahead of the passer at one point, legally, if the passer's forward momentum then comes to a slow or stop after the throw, because the ball still has its own forward momentum. That is how you can obtain a still image such as your subsequent ones, and it still be a legal pass, generally speaking.
Honestly, IMO, I think overall it's pedantic to call this one forward when the ball ends behind the passer to a player who stayed behind the passer the entire time. Clearly no advantage was gained even if there is centimeters of a forward throw.
Last edited:
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
And this is why people need to use some common sense and context!
You could say the say about the line out jumper wh ocatches the ball and turns to throw the ball infrom of him to the SH.
The Definitionsdefine forward as: "Towards the opposition's dead-ball line". If the passers hands are not facing "Towards the opposition's dead-ball line". The in law the pass is not "forward".
It really is fairly simple. If the hands are facing towards the opposition dead ball line then it is forward if not then it is not. The directions the the ball is thrown / passed "out the hands" is important when taken in context.
Last edited:
Rich_NL
Well-known member
I can tell you, as an engineer with 20 years experience in measuring kinematics, that it's anything but trivial in practice!
Regarding C&O in those clips: it doesn't look to be C&O further forward than his hips in the second shot, to me.
This question contradicts your point itself. If his hands are in front of the ball, then in that moment, the ball is behind him relatively.
Your subsequent stills may have a case, but hard to say from that camera angle which affects one's ability to objectively comment. And keep in mind a ball thrown backwards can still end up ahead of the passer at one point, legally, if the passer's forward momentum then comes to a slow or stop after the throw, because the ball still has its own forward momentum. That is how you can obtain a still image such as your subsequent ones, and it still be a legal pass, generally speaking.
Honestly, IMO, I think overall it's pedantic to call this one forward when the ball ends behind the passer to a player who stayed behind the passer the entire time. Clearly no advantage was gained even if there is centimeters of a forward throw.
I did not say in front of the ball and it is clear from the stills that the order of the items is ball, then hands, then body. That only changes as the passer approaches the 10 m line whereas that transition from in front to behind should have occurred at the point of passing, hence passing backwards.
See the still from just a second earlier in the same attacking play:
Head turned, shoulders turned, hands have moved across the front of the body and now pointing backwards with clear point of release - backwards. Ball aligned with the hips and travelling away from the passer.
These attributes were not evident in the pass that was judged Thrown Forward.
Shall not comment on your objectivity too much when you do not appear to recognise that a try was disallowed because of the decision!
But I'm not sure you could get a better angle for the objective review, a corner flag or down the pitch camera would not show the passer's hand motion, the only thing that is relevant in a Thrown Forward decision.
Perhaps you missed the bit were i said:
So we don't have aircraft with flight control systems that can land without pilot input, UAV with flight control systems, road vehicles with directional stability and control systems, watches that tell us that we are walking or running, and how far, even when we have hands in our pockets, players wearing gum shields that advise magnitude of head impacts.
Perhaps trivial was the incorrect term but transfer of technology has to be assumed lest it is not a smart ball.
Yes there will be some calibration required of the match ball(s) to ensure the frame of motion for the ball and the frame for the pitch are aligned to enable accurate determination of forward.
But it all exists in current readily available tech and the transfer into a fully specced smart ball should be trivial.
If the algorithm is based on a reduction in forward velocity, (quite possibly it will be ) that will yield some interesting results as it's a change to the law as currently understood : Viz a knock forward could actually travel backwards over the pitch (at a slower velocity than before the knock) .. like fumbling a catch and ball landing behind you.
Last edited:
Rich_NL
Well-known member
Knock-on is easy, because you can calculate relative to a fixed reference frame. You need to know who's played it, though, it can't differentiate a knock on and a rip backwards.
The difficulty of forward passes lies in having two non-fixed reference frames. Where/how do you measure the player's velocity? The ball moves relative to the player before being passed. It's not insoluble, but it has to be an improvement on what we already have and do.
The difficulty of forward passes lies in having two non-fixed reference frames. Where/how do you measure the player's velocity? The ball moves relative to the player before being passed. It's not insoluble, but it has to be an improvement on what we already have and do.
didds
Resident Club Coach
I cant believe Im writing this here for the 23,675,983rd different time.
Run forward towards oppo dead ball line @ 10 m/s
Throw ball back over head towards own dead ball line at 5m/s (QED hand facing backwards to propel it)
ball now moving towards oppo dead ball line at 5 m/s
Is that a forward pass?
Run forward towards oppo dead ball line @ 10 m/s
Throw ball back over head towards own dead ball line at 5m/s (QED hand facing backwards to propel it)
ball now moving towards oppo dead ball line at 5 m/s
Is that a forward pass?
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
NO.
This thought process is incorrect though, and probably why we disagree about your stills. The ball can travel at any velocity towards the opposition DBL and still be a legal pass (theoretically). Such physics and practical law application is simply communicated in this previously provided video here by World Rugby themselves.
You are trying to apply the law to the letter of its definition, and the aforementioned video / clarification from World Rugby basically says "no, don't do that, there's some common sense we should use instead and base it on the relativity of the passer at release and the receiver on catch."
A proper definition of a throw forward would contain two conditions
1 the throw increases the forward velocity of the ball AND
2 the ball travels forward over the ground
and both need to be true for it to be a throw forward
Under this definition, handing the ball to a team mate (the OP) would not be a throw forward.
1 the throw increases the forward velocity of the ball AND
2 the ball travels forward over the ground
and both need to be true for it to be a throw forward
Under this definition, handing the ball to a team mate (the OP) would not be a throw forward.
No it cannot, it can travel at a lower velocity but it cannot increase in velocity.
There appears to be 2 conflated discussions how the ball can travel and how we can determine if it was thrown forward.
Let's separate the video, of the passing demo, out for a moment as none of us disagree and I have accepted that simplification many times.
The fundamental fact is that according to Newton, a mind much more complex and able than ours, provided us with a set of laws that have been used to send projectiles into space, the moon and back and also to position satellites in a variety of different types of orbit. So I have a very strong tendency if not absolute compulsion to trust them
As mentioned by Didds if propelled rearwards, a net external force towards your own DBL, the velocity decreases - All legal all happy.
For the velocity of the ball to increase it must have been propelled forwards, the net external force to achieve that increase comes from being passed forwards. Sensors can resolve that motion.
As Scotty could be relied upon to say every week:
The point of this technical argument is how to ge the tech to work as we cannot reach a consensus on how the ball travelled so using the tech and Newton's wonderful laws we can be informed accurately.
Coming back to the incident in question, we can argue until the end of the Universe if the hands passed backwards or not, to my mind the images quite clearly show that they didn't, the match officials also decided that they didn't.
It's ground hog day!
When the team mate is closer to the oppo's DBL?
See:
It would certainly appear to be, going by current definitions.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
If the team mate is stationary, retreating or even moving more slowly forward than the passer, that's perfectly possible.
For a handing off of the ball, we judge over the pitch: if the ball carrier has his arm outstretched and the receiver is half a metre in front, it doesn't matter which way the BC's hand is moving.