Forward pass law

[crossref]

Don't forget that there is no offence called "forward pass" the offence is a throw forward

If I hand the ball to a moving team mate then it's perfectly possible that the ball, and my hands and my arms are all stationary (as in the OP)

 

[BikingBud]

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.

But it does!

It is absolutely clear there in the definitions, if the receiving player is further toward the oppo's DBL then the ball has been Thrown Forward:

Forward: Towards the opposition’s dead-ball line.

Pass: A player throws or hands the ball to another player.

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

So we have a direction, an action (throwing and handing), and a qualifying statement.

But let's go to the extreme if the receiver's body is in front of the passer but by some absolute weird quirk of their morphology, eg they have go-go gadget arms, such that the arms are in line with or behind the passers arms then it wasn't handed off forward and would not be considered as thrown forward.

 

[BikingBud]

Don't forget that there is no offence called "forward pass" the offence is a throw forward

If I hand the ball to a moving team mate then it's perfectly possible that the ball, and my hands and my arms are all stationary (as in the OP)

I'm not forgetting anything, I haven't used that term.

I have always referred to Thrown Forward. You may note I have frequently capitalised the term to ensure it is absolutely clear that we are talking about the offence

Yes of course you can place your hands, and the ball, stationary wherever you want. But where in the field of play is that team mate, that you are throwing or handing the ball to? Closer to your DBL or farther away from your DBL?

• If they run across the field behind you that is considered to be all fine dandy and legal crack on.
• If they run across the field in front of you that is considered to be Thrown Forward, peep scrum. See Note 1.
• If they are running alongside you and the ball is passed when they are closer to the Oppo's DBL than you that is Thrown Forward, peep scrum.
• If they are running alongside you and the ball is passed when they are closer to your DBL than you, that is considered to be all fine dandy and legal crack on.

All of this is deduced by simply working through the definitions.

I do at times think you are being deliberately obtuse.

Note 1 - This might also be considered obstruction but we can save that for another horse flogging session:

​

 

[jdeagro]

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.

Your reply falls apart on the simple premise of that you misread mine. I never said anywhere that the ball can "increase in velocity" (obviously assuming you mean after it's been released by the ball carrier), which is also known as acceleration.

My simple point is the ball always has forward momentum when the ball carrier is running forward, even after the ball carrier releases the ball. This violates the definition of a forward pass if you apply it to the letter of the law. But World Rugby clarified that it's incorrect to apply the law as such. My last reply was merely remarking on that fact in conjunction with why it's more difficult than you're describing to use technology that determines if a forward pass occurred as well.

I mean this respectfully, but please ensure to read closely before verbosely replying with what we're all taught in high school science.

 

[crossref]

My main point is that that Law is not clear enough, definitely not clear enough for TMO level fine analysis

The whole thread kinda proves my point. If the law was clear enough the thread wouldn't exist

There are parallels with the offside and handball laws in football.. close analysis that has come with VAR has exposed subtle ambiguities in the law

 

[BikingBud]

Your reply falls apart on the simple premise of that you misread mine. I never said anywhere that the ball can "increase in velocity" (obviously assuming you mean after it's been released by the ball carrier), which is also known as acceleration.

My simple point is the ball always has forward momentum when the ball carrier is running forward, even after the ball carrier releases the ball. This violates the definition of a forward pass if you apply it to the letter of the law. But World Rugby clarified that it's incorrect to apply the law as such. My last reply was merely remarking on that fact in conjunction with why it's more difficult than you're describing to use technology that determines if a forward pass occurred as well.

I mean this respectfully, but please ensure to read closely before verbosely replying with what we're all taught in high school science.

Trying not to be verbose or condescending.

It's your premise that I misread your post. Perhaps I did not interpret it as you intended to convey it but those 2 things are quite different.

You said any velocity. Clearly that cannot be the case, it can continue with uniform velocity or even slow down and not be regraded as Thrown Forward but that is not the same as any velocity!

You now also state that "ball always has a forward momentum when the ball carrier is running forward even after he ball carrier releases the ball" - It does not always, it depends upon how hard the ball is passed backwards! Sorry but those are the laws of physics.

And why are you assuming what I mean in your statement "obviously......... after release by the ball carrier"? Why would I assume that? The ball carrier cannot impart anything upon the ball once it has left their hands, and if it does then change velocity, perhaps due to gale force wind down the pitch then it is not Thrown Forward. Sorry but those are the laws of physics.

Hence my deconstruction of the dynamics which you feel is verbose but as we have been going round this buoy for over 2 years and continue to come back to people inaccurately referencing directions, change in velocity, using the phrase "forward pass" rather than the offence "Thrown Forward" - Which is clearly defined and can be analysed by considering the mechanics of the motion of the ball, hence my deliberate use of precise terms and phrases.

I have on numerous occasions offered my full support for the position of World Rugby that no change in momentum is all OK. We got that clearly, in just this thread, as far back as Oct 2022 but we end up in the same place because someone disagreed with a decision that was judged C+O by the match officials leading to a "try" being disallowed in the England V SA game because the pass was judged as Thrown Forward. A subjective decision that I found supportable.

I offered the fact that that motion can be accurately determined by technology; forces, directions, accelerations and velocity can all be resolved by use of a correctly equipped smart ball and correct determination can therefore be assured.

If you consider that all verbose and long winded that is unfortunate but please advise if you feel that anything I said was factually inaccurate. Not just where you feel slighted because I didn't understand what you might have wanted to say nor when I highlight that what you are "obviously assuming" is not in fact what I said.

So I will now go back into hibernation.

 

[jdeagro]

Trying not to be verbose or condescending.

I really don't have the energy to continue to read the verbosity, and honestly am not looking for confrontation either. So just going to address a few brief points:

It's your premise that I misread your post. Perhaps I did not interpret it as you intended to convey it but those 2 things are quite different.

Pedantic semantics. It rhymes so it must be true.

You said any velocity. Clearly that cannot be the case, it can continue with uniform velocity or even slow down and not be regraded as Thrown Forward but that is not the same as any velocity!

In a set of numbers, "any" (implicitly) includes all numbers. Tell me a concrete number that is unable to be "any velocity". Perhaps you see this is silly to contest now?...Again, you're talking about the derivative of velocity, and I already clarified what I meant by "any velocity" in my previous reply. So I know you understand me now.

You now also state that "ball always has a forward momentum when the ball carrier is running forward even after he ball carrier releases the ball" - It does not always, it depends upon how hard the ball is passed backwards! Sorry but those are the laws of physics.

Nothing to be sorry about, obviously that's true, but equally obvious that I was speaking in generalities. So again, pedantic semantics. The important thing to note here though is that the ball does not need to have backward momentum to be a legal pass.

And why are you assuming what I mean in your statement "obviously......... after release by the ball carrier"? Why would I assume that? The ball carrier cannot impart anything upon the ball once it has left their hands, and if it does then change velocity, perhaps due to gale force wind down the pitch then it is not Thrown Forward. Sorry but those are the laws of physics.

I would ask you to clarify what you're trying to say here but it would be a disrespectful waste of your time as again I'm about out of energy reading your replies. Furthermore it seems silly to contest a statement I made that was clarifying that we are talking about after the ball has been passed, not while still in the hands of the ball carrier. Not sure why you feel offended by that or would want to disagree?...isn't the point of all of this discussion regarding if the pass was thrown forward?

Hence my deconstruction of the dynamics which you feel is verbose but as we have been going round this buoy for over 2 years and continue to come back to people inaccurately referencing directions, change in velocity, using the phrase "forward pass" rather than the offence "Thrown Forward" - Which is clearly defined and can be analysed by considering the mechanics of the motion of the ball, hence my deliberate use of precise terms and phrases.

I have on numerous occasions offered my full support for the position of World Rugby that no change in momentum is all OK. We got that clearly, in just this thread, as far back as Oct 2022 but we end up in the same place because someone disagreed with a decision that was judged C+O by the match officials leading to a "try" being disallowed in the England V SA game because the pass was judged as Thrown Forward. A subjective decision that I found supportable.

I offered the fact that that motion can be accurately determined by technology; forces, directions, accelerations and velocity can all be resolved by use of a correctly equipped smart ball and correct determination can therefore be assured.

If you consider that all verbose and long winded that is unfortunate but please advise if you feel that anything I said was factually inaccurate. Not just where you feel slighted because I didn't understand what you might have wanted to say nor when I highlight that what you are "obviously assuming" is not in fact what I said.

So I will now go back into hibernation.

Sounds good, cheers!

 

[crossref]

Continued confusion on what constitutes a forward pass

RemovePaywall | Free online paywall remover

Remove Paywall, free online paywall remover. Get access to articles without having to pay or login. Works on Bloomberg and hundreds more.

www.removepaywall.com

 

[shebeen]

This issue continues to confuse many in the game.

 

[crossref]

The Law Book doesn't help either
Let's look at what the Law says

11.6 Throw forward
A throw forward may occur anywhere in the playing area. Sanction: Scrum

And that's it. A meaningless Law that doesn't need to be there. How does that help anyone trying to understand
Now, yes, we all know to next look in the definitions. But I don't think that's obvious to most people
What's the definition of a Forward Pass ?
There isn't one .
Now, yes, we all know to look under Throw Forward, But I don't think that's obvious to most people

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

Finally found it .. but is that really clear ? I think could do better .