• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Forward passes in the Prem

Stu10

Stu10


Referees in England
Regarding the English Prem, I guess this isn't anything new, but refs and TMO have been making some decisions on forward passes that have been, IMHO, clearly wrong.

Saracens missed out on top 4 after Saints scored from a clearly forward pass in the last few minutes a couple of weeks ago. This past weekend, Quins had a clearly backwards pass ruled as forward and then Bears had a clearly forward pass allowed, swinging the scoreboard by 14 points. Many other examples throughout this past season.

It's been making me really mad... I needed a little vent :mad:
 
Clearly forward?
Clearly backward?
Clearly important?

All depends upon your viewpoint and I mean that in both senses; your point of observation relative to the action and your vested interest.
 
The problem lies in the Laws which do not properly define a throw forward, defining it as

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

Leading to too much focus on the swinging movement of the arms, and not enough focus on the actual motion of the ball.
 
Last edited:
Only forward passes you need to vent Stu?
What about catch and drive lineouts where players clearly bind in front of ball carrier.?
Ball carrier slipping bind and moving back?
Dummy runners crossing and taking out defender?
Hey that's showbiz rugby though! Easy to spot, easy to ignore apparently too!
 
I have to say, forward passes being ignored has been my absolute trigger this season in telly rugby. I assume they have just joined the list of laws to be ignored to allow organisers to highlight how entertaining the Premiership has become because the average scoreline is now 52-49 or similar. Am off for a lie down now as am starting to twitch like Herbert Lom at the mention of Clouseau!
 
crossref said:
Leading to too much focus on the swinging movement of the arms, and not enough focus on the actual motion of the ball.
Click to expand...
but we've been here before with motion of the ball ad nauseum.

didds passim : its clearly easy to pass backwards over ones head (hands backwards) but the ball travel forwards over the ground.
 
I think that what WR consider forward is an increase in the forward velocity of the ball.

Arm movements are used as a surrogate for that more complicated concept
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
Only forward passes you need to vent Stu?
What about catch and drive lineouts where players clearly bind in front of ball carrier.?
Ball carrier slipping bind and moving back?
Dummy runners crossing and taking out defender?
Hey that's showbiz rugby though! Easy to spot, easy to ignore apparently too!
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you that there are a multitude of offences that can be highlighted, but some of the forward pass incidences were identified for review, looked at and discussed by the To4, and then, IMHO (and most of social media) the wrong decision has been made... this has happened multiple times this season, typically resulting in a wrongly awarded try (again, IMHO). I also acknowledge that only questionable passes in the build up to a try will typically be reviewed.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt on tight calls, but others have been hard to justify.
 
BikingBud said:
Clearly forward?
Clearly backward?
Clearly important?

All depends upon your viewpoint and I mean that in both senses; your point of observation relative to the action and your vested interest.
Click to expand...

As I said in my post above, I'm happy to move on when it's close, but I am left frustrated when the whole world thinks it's clearly forward except for the 2 people reviewing the pass.

I do support Sarries, so I feel more annoyed by that one, but I'm not a passionate supporter and will always try to be 100% impartial, the same as I am when I referee a team from my own club; but I had no vested interest in the Quins v Bears game.
 
Stu10 said:
As I said in my post above, I'm happy to move on when it's close, but I am left frustrated when the whole world thinks it's clearly forward except for the 2 people reviewing the pass.

I do support Sarries, so I feel more annoyed by that one, but I'm not a passionate supporter and will always try to be 100% impartial, the same as I am when I referee a team from my own club; but I had no vested interest in the Quins v Bears game.
Click to expand...
There is too much attention paid to the "on field decision" why should that decision, on the fly, have any weight at all once the TMO is involved?

The TMO should be Hawkeye, just making the best possible judgement, uncoloured by any external view
 
First one- try all day long.

Second one made to look forward by the passer being stopped dead in the tackle; TRY again, not a 'forward' pass.
 
We have been around the houses on this more times than the number 43 bus.

As long as humans are making the decision there will be errors - Fact

If the smart ball is configured effectively "Thrown Forward" can be detected with much higher accuracy. Think smart gum shield advising of head impact outside tolerance and HIA of perplexed player - it is the same use of tech yet it has not been introduced. Why?
 
BikingBud said:
If the smart ball is configured effectively "Thrown Forward" can be detected with much higher accuracy. Think smart gum shield advising of head impact outside tolerance and HIA of perplexed player - it is the same use of tech yet it has not been introduced. Why?
Click to expand...
For a smart ball to do the job, WR will need to come up with a definition of throw forward that is based on the movement of the ball.
 
crossref said:
For a smart ball to do the job, WR will need to come up with a definition of throw forward that is based on the movement of the ball.
Click to expand...
Not at all, the current definition is just fine. The movement of the ball is being tracked at ~20Hz. That's plenty of data to work out the movement of the ball and the pass will be a step change of direction. As long as the vector of acceleration from passing is sideways or backwards then it is a legal pass.

I know many commentators don't understand the concept in this video (sometimes it seems plenty of refs don't either) purely by the amount of times they use field marking as a reference to judging a pass on replays.


What really gets me when a TMO gets involved is when they make a decision from a camera angle that is not square (or a ball carrier running at an angle) but don't take it into account.
 
The sensor will certainly be able to detect "a step change in direction"

But that's not the definition of a throw forward ..a throw forward currently defined by the motion of the arms..


WR would need to define what amount of step change in direction constitutes a throw forward .. what are the parameters tolerances?.

And then, presumably, we no longer care about the arms at all , so strike that bit
 
Last edited:
crossref said:
The sensor will certainly be able to detect "a step change in direction"

But that's not the definition of a throw forward ..a throw forward currently defined by the motion of the arms..


WR would need to define what amount of step change in direction constitutes a throw forward .. what are the tolerances?.

And then, presumably, we no longer care about the arms at all , so strike that bit
Click to expand...
In theory the step change should be able to detect a forward pass associated with the arms/hands, because the ball suddenly moves towards the goal line at a faster velocity compared to when it was in the hands of the ball carrier; however, ball carriers move their hands (and the ball) around erratically before the pass, which will likely mess up determining the step change.
 
tim White said:
First one- try all day long.

Second one made to look forward by the passer being stopped dead in the tackle; TRY again, not a 'forward' pass.
Click to expand...
IMHO the hands are clearly going forwards in both, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Stu10 said:
In theory the step change should be able to detect a forward pass associated with the arms/hands, because the ball suddenly moves towards the goal line at a faster velocity compared to when it was in the hands of the ball carrier; however, ball carriers move their hands (and the ball) around erratically before the pass, which will likely mess up determining the step change.
Click to expand...
I don't think they will be using the ball to determine the motion of the arms

I think sensor will be trying to detect an increase in forward velocity of the ball, and the law will change to make that the definition of a forward pass (with some technical parameters and tolerances)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top