forward pass or not- How do we make it fair

So it seems as though the ref has control over wether a forward pass is forward or not, but it doesnt matter if the pass is forward or not. It seems as though a a pass can be given forward or not given forward and this can result in a try or not a try and either way no one questions it.

How do we fix it.

Firstly - what is a forward pass- and why should it matter if the ball does go forward or not- surely it should only matter if the player that the pass is thrown to is off side or not.

was the no forward pass rule only invented to make reffing a game easier(if you dont pass it forward the player that catches it cant be offside).

should technolgy be brought in?

should the forward pass rule stay?

should it be adapted?

Is everything fine as it is?

personally i say scrap the rule!(keep offside obviously) it is making the game unfair- especially as seen in the recent AUS v SA game.

am i missing something glairingly obvious?

discuss

I think if we made players catch the ball behind their backs it would eradicate this problem altogether - its just a suggestion, however i must warn you I have no pedigree in the suggestion stakes

i think my goldfish could make a better suggestion than that one.

Ask him see what he sais

i dont actually have one. but i reakon if i did

If you did have one you'd have to have a fish with pedigree, if he aint got any then his opinion is worth Jack Spratt

i used to have guppys, puffa fish and fighting fish- problem having the mini puffa fish was you had to feed it live worms. The other fish started eating it after a while and then ended up getting a taste for meat even though they should have been veggies- then they all just ate each other- untill i had only one massive fish left. My ex got him- i reakon he would know- maybe i should send her a text

I don't see what the problem is. We all know the rules before the game and thats the main thing.

mystiroakey wrote:i used to have guppys, puffa fish and fighting fish- problem having the mini puffa fish was you had to feed it live worms. The other fish started eating it after a while and then ended up getting a taste for meat even though they should have been veggies- then they all just ate each other- untill i had only one massive fish left. My ex got him- i reakon he would know- maybe i should send her a text

I wouldn't he might have eaten her as well

red_stag wrote:I don't see what the problem is. We all know the rules before the game and thats the main thing.

the problem is simple- inconsitant decision making by the reffs

Maybe we should get that fish to ref, the one that eats everyone, no fecker would argue with him making the calls

But surely the same problem will exist no matter the rule in that case.

The rule itself isn't your problem. Inconsistency is the issue.

Inconsistency will never be fixed. Sean O'Brien is one of the top players in Europe. He was dreadful against Wales in the quarters. Similarly a referee won't always be good - he'll make mistakes.

mystiroakey wrote:i used to have guppys, puffa fish and fighting fish- problem having the mini puffa fish was you had to feed it live worms. The other fish started eating it after a while and then ended up getting a taste for meat even though they should have been veggies- then they all just ate each other- untill i had only one massive fish left. My ex got him- i reakon he would know- maybe i should send her a text

Dont know why, but that story made me burst out laughing.

The problem is actually a lot bigger than you would think.
I have seen a series of trials where players running at full speed against a superimposed grid.

If applying the rule strictly- if the pass from point A to catch point B results in point B being closer to the opposition goal line is deemed a forward pass refs are missing heaps. The balls travelling up to 30kph forward (??) when it leaves point A so by default is going forward. It has to actually be passed backwards considerably to negate the forward momentum to be a true non forward pass.

Explains why you get all these complaints about sxv missing forward passes- the faster rugby combined with throwing the ball around more lends to this...and its true.

Best way to judge if a ball has gone forward or not is by the position of the body. If a players body position does not look like he has passed the ball backwards then you can be very sure that he has not.

I know what I mean

Its a tricky one Cymro...trouble is if thats accepted as the rule then players will come up with interesting ways of passing it forward with an accepted 'body position'...contorted and all...

If you'd seen this video you'd be amazed. Saw it on tv once and can't find it now...They should put one over the ground for one of the big fast tests involving Oz and AB's say and you'd be amazed. Passes to players clearly behind the passer are at least feet and some yards forward even when they don't look it, pure because of the context, pace and everything else going on around the scene.

I have for a long time thought we should look to American football - give a nominated team rep a "flag" he can use say 4 times in a game to have a sequence of play of up to say 20 seconds leading up to a try or other score examined by the TMO. This for international games and designated knock-out games perhaps. We can debate the exact details, but how about the principle? Could have ensured the try that beat Ireland in the spring at the Mill Stadium was disallowed for instance.

Should negate the missed fwd pass leading to a try. Also ensure touch-judges do inform the ref....I don't think they all do.

If the ball travels forward - momentum or not - it's a forward pass. It's physically impossible to be anything else.

If you're standing on the side of the pitch and inline with the passing player, you know straight away if it's forward - that's why 2000 people in the stadium simultaniouly shout "forwaaarrrd" - I bet if you practiced for a week you'll never get 2000 people in sync like that.

I believe the problem today is that Refs rely on touch judges to call passes - if the call doesn't come becuase the lines man is not in line, even if the ref feels it's slightly forward, I think they let it go where normally they make the judgement themselves.

How to make it easier to judge?

put a GPRS chip in the ball - if it goes forward then a light in the ball glows red - or a humourous horn goes "honk honk".

passing the ball backwards is what seperates rugby (structurally) to basketball. You must be mad. I know you want to keep the offside rule but its a fundemental part of the game. One thing i will say is sometimes the ball can travel backwards relative to 2 players moving forward at pace, but actually travel forwards, still its a bit of a minefield. maybe just find players who can get there heads round the fact it has to go backwards.

I saw that one too Taylorman. I think the point was that if you pass backwards but the ball travels forwards because of momentum then its not a forward pass because you passed back towards your own goal line. So the crowd calls it forward but its not.

i saw that video too. If it was taken seriously, half the backline passes in a game would be called forward due to momentum effects (throw a plate backwards in a plane and relative to the ground it's going forward at high speed).

To me what's important is whether the player is throwing the ball backward relative to the opposition try-line AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, not whether it travels forward relative to the ground DURING FLIGHT.

To me the forward call for the Boks "try" was wrong. Technology should be used. Unless the touch judge/ref happens to be right in line it's impossible to call.

samuraidragon wrote:i saw that video too. If it was taken seriously, half the backline passes in a game would be called forward due to momentum effects (throw a plate backwards in a plane and relative to the ground it's going forward at high speed).

To me what's important is whether the player is throwing the ball backward relative to the opposition try-line AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, not whether it travels forward relative to the ground DURING FLIGHT.

To me the forward call for the Boks "try" was wrong. Technology should be used. Unless the touch judge/ref happens to be right in line it's impossible to call.

I imagine that plates are being thrown right now on the England plane home.

Gatts, you're a very naughty man.

Here is the link on youtube explaining forward passes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Forward passes by Welsh players are fair and legal, forward passes by teams against Wales are wrong, unfair and the referee is a total tósser if he misses them.

was the no forward pass rule only invented to make reffing a game easier(if you dont pass it forward the player that catches it cant be offside).

This is american football surely? The off side alone is not enough, think about it, you could throw the ball forward and high giving an ONSIDE player time to run past defence and under it.

Totally ridiculous suggestion.

A chip in the ball might be an idea though.

clivemcl wrote:

was the no forward pass rule only invented to make reffing a game easier(if you dont pass it forward the player that catches it cant be offside).

This is american football surely? The off side alone is not enough, think about it, you could throw the ball forward and high giving an ONSIDE player time to run past defence and under it.

Totally ridiculous suggestion.

A chip in the ball might be an idea though.

all the same- it may make the game more consitant

slartibarfast wrote:If the ball travels forward - momentum or not - it's a forward pass. It's physically impossible to be anything else.

Not how it's refereed at the top level on the whole. Most refs apply the "momentum" interpretation. The laws refer to "ball thrown forward" (I paraphrase) and can be interpreted either way. There is no official IRB clarification, but Mark Lawrence fairly recently said he used the momentum viewpoint and hinted that this was standard at the top level.

A hearsay argument: a referee I know has said he did an analysis on a (fast-flowing) game once and reckoned that upto 40% of passes travelled forward (relative to the ground). This being the case and being a reasonably fellow I don't think the laws intended for nearly half of all passes to be called forwards, I have switched to the momentum view myself.

The more you guys are talking about the more i think this rule needs sorting out- This whole momentum argument just makes it easier to allow the ref to call any pass he wants good or not, immaterial if its thrown forward, not thrown forward, thrown forward with momentum going forward, thrown backwards with momentum going forward. This is nuts from my opinion

red_stag wrote:I don't see what the problem is. We all know the rules before the game and thats the main thing.

I'm not sure we do though stag. In a lot of areas in the laws of rugby there is ambiguity, and I think the forward pass is one of them.

Battle has raged across 606 and 606v2 on occasion about what exactly constitutes a forward pass. There is the idea that the ball has to be thrown backwards but no mention of the vector effects of frames of reference on the ball's flight. Frankly the law is written in a way which is painfully naive to the physics of the situation.

It surely wouldn't be hard for the IRB to clarify that glaring ambiguity.

There is the now famous Australian referees instructional video that suggests momentum should be accepted by the referees. This is sometimes the case, and sometimes not?

If the IRB could clearly state: Does the ball need to be thrown backwards as the law suggests, or does the ball need to travel backwards relative to the field, as Bryce Lawrence called it on the weekend?

This isn't just the only ambiguity of course. For instance, why was the forward pass called up when so many crooked Australian scrum feeds were not?

All in all, no, the players don't know the rules before they go out on the field. They have to guess and then adjust to the referee.

yes GG the 'least' that is needed is clarification.

However I think from the IRB's perspective is that its all well and good clarifying the situation, but almost impossible for a ref to actually call if a pass is travelling forward with momentum or not with good success rates.

So would it actually change the situation or not or add to the problem.

Obviously momentum or even wind can make a ball change direction once it has been thrown so i understand the argument that a ball can travel forward even though its started lateral or behind.

I still find it a mine field and at the highest level could cost teams games, because as it stands you can throw a ball forward and get away with it, not throw a ball forward and get penalised- thats the problem.

Mysterioakey, do you think that changing the laws will make referees get the calls right?

To me there will always be mistakes.

Mistakes on known laws is surely better than mistakes on unclear laws.

The consistency and clarity would at make the post match wash up less of a ideological bun fight.

I suggest we get Liam Fox to start an enquiry into it while he's starting enquiries into everything else.

red_stag wrote:Mysterioakey, do you think that changing the laws will make referees get the calls right?

To me there will always be mistakes.

we have the technolgy to aid reffs- time to clarify laws then work on a way to limited refs mistakes- that goes in all sports and its working well in cricket and also rugby with the video reffing on certain decisions. Football is however the worst offender.

As GG points out if a rule isnt clarified first then how can we move forward

mystiroakey wrote:

red_stag wrote:Mysterioakey, do you think that changing the laws will make referees get the calls right?

To me there will always be mistakes.

we have the technolgy to aid reffs- time to clarify laws then work on a way to limited refs mistakes- that goes in all sports and its working well in cricket and also rugby with the video reffing on certain decisions. Football is however the worst offender.

As GG points out if a rule isnt clarified first then how can we move forward

(no pun intended)

There are more than 200 passes in an international match, how do you propose technology assist the referee?

biltongbek wrote:There are more than 200 passes in an international match, how do you propose technology assist the referee?

its a long process but allways a starting point- lets start with clarifying the rule shall we.

Once clarified we can create algorithms to aid us with the use of (ball chips) or hawk eye(camera) tecniques. Or just use constant video reffing that speaks directly with the ref. We can begin trials.

I agree a chip can work, but how does the system differentiate between a ball going forward due to a kick, a pass or a player running with the ball?

The problem as with most things in rugby isn't the rule but the consistency of it's ajudication.

But surely we don't need to change the rule if your going to be using TMO for forward passes. We can just use technology to be the judge of it and keep things as it is.

As Maestegmafia says its the consistency thats the problem and so long as people are making the call there will be errors.

biltongbek wrote:I agree a chip can work, but how does the system differentiate between a ball going forward due to a kick, a pass or a player running with the ball?

obviously we would need personell to aid us with that- as long as the chip relays real time(beeps, light flashes)- one extra ref could be incharge of that pitch side.

But you do bring up another problem- If we clarify that any forward pass is illegal then the chip works. if we allow momentum then the chip could have major issues. And we need to sort out how a chip could work that out, or perhaps another technolgy(like hawk eye) would be better.

first and formost we need the rule clarified then we can work out the best way of using tech

I don't think the laws of physics have much to do with it. As a player I always assumed that if the ball left my hands going backwards relative to my position at the point of release then it was good. I don't see the problem. As with so many things in rugby the ref and his assistants cannot be in the perfect position to judge all the time. The argument for a change in the clarity of the law is justifiable but the intent should be the same. If you are advocating abandoning the law because it's difficult to enforce where do you stop? The ref can't call all the ruck infringements so do we get rid of the laws relating to that? How many lineout throws get missed and feeding into the scrum? My definition is simple. Where's the problem.

aitchw wrote:I don't think the laws of physics have much to do with it. As a player I always assumed that if the ball left my hands going backwards relative to my position at the point of release then it was good. I don't see the problem. As with so many things in rugby the ref and his assistants cannot be in the perfect position to judge all the time. The argument for a change in the clarity of the law is justifiable but the intent should be the same. If you are advocating abandoning the law because it's difficult to enforce where do you stop? The ref can't call all the ruck infringements so do we get rid of the laws relating to that? How many lineout throws get missed and feeding into the scrum? My definition is simple. Where's the problem.

just because at present we cant sort out all the issues- doesnt mean we shouldnt sort out the ones we can. Its like the goal line tech in football isnt it. I believe if you can help one problem out then do it! Cricket is the most advanced in regards to this- time for other sports to folow(cricket hasnt hit the nail on the head but its getting better and better week in week out)

Personally I don't think there is a solution for this.

Sport will always be controversial, even in cricket where they have TMO's assit there is still a certain amount of fallibility to the decision making process.

Teams will just have to accept that forward passes are a grey area similar to breakdowns and scrums.

cricket through the years has constantly changed laws, - like bouncers, lbw laws for the benefit of the game- we are now using tech at the highest level to aid the reffs. But they can only be inforce if we have 100% clarity on what the laws are- like for instance where a ball has to pitch in order for an lbw decision.

biltongbek wrote:Personally I don't think there is a solution for this.

Sport will always be controversial, even in cricket where they have TMO's assit there is still a certain amount of fallibility to the decision making process.

Teams will just have to accept that forward passes are a grey area similar to breakdowns and scrums.

truth is we dont have to- we can sort it out

mystiroakey wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

was the no forward pass rule only invented to make reffing a game easier(if you dont pass it forward the player that catches it cant be offside).

This is american football surely? The off side alone is not enough, think about it, you could throw the ball forward and high giving an ONSIDE player time to run past defence and under it.

Totally ridiculous suggestion.

A chip in the ball might be an idea though.

all the same- it may make the game more consitant

No, it wouldn't help, because then there would be a thread entitled "On-side or not? How can we be sure"

We just need better input from touch judges, and they should be allowed to get involved more often, in fact they should be explicitly told that detecting forward passes is their responsibility.

I know that in modern rugby the touch judges help the referee by spotting things he may have missed.

I wonder how much input they give to not just forward passes but crocked line out throws, or bad feeds at scrums?

Why create a problem where there isn't one?

Yes the majority of passes (especially by the better teams) are marginally forward, but generally any really obvious ones are picked up by the officials. It's obvious for example that the All Blacks practice their passes to be right on the limit of what they can get away with. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that as every other team are at liberty to do exactly the same thing (and many do). It is no worse than a hooker throwing to his own side but not wide enough to get pulled up for it, same for scrum feeds. Playing to the edge of the Laws is what the most professional sides do. It is not easy playing on the edge as the margin for error is far less and so requires more skill and practice.

Introducing technology to get these decisions "right" would have the effect of simply moving passes back a yard, the nett gain of which is...? In fact it could be argued that the game itself benefits from having attackers taking the ball right up on the gainline, as it disadvantages defences and so improves the attacking spectacle.

Having the current system also favours home teams as the crowd are never going to call forward on their own side. IMO that is also a good thing as the crowd directly feel their participation in the game, and so their passion is fuelled.

BTW I think having a chip(s) in the ball is a good thing - not for forward passes but rather for determining the exact position of the ball in points scoring positions. e.g. it should be able to determine whether the ball has gone between the posts and over the bar without having the assistants or referee strive to position themselves for a look.

The law is not complicated and is completely unambiguous:


Law 12 Knock-on or Throw Forward

DEFINITION: THROW FORWARD
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
EXCEPTION
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the
ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw forward.



The law does not allow for momentum - simply states that any ball that travels towards the opponents dead-ball line is forward.

The difficulty is the implementation. If we have a fixed poit - spectators or a line across the pitch it is easier to see if a pass is forward. During Aus/SA the ball was passed from one side of teh 5m line and caught on the other side - closer to the opponents dead ball line. Forward pass -- correct call.

However for people who are moving such as players, ref and assistants it is harder to tell. Often what are forward passes do not look forward to them.

Changing the law will not help anything - it will just give a different set of problems - and a very different game.