Forward passes

What's with this 'shape of the hands' malarkey in determining whether a pass goes forwards?

Given that players will be trained to practice and practice and practice again to get the shape to look right and yet intentionally pass forward, the law-makers (and therefore fans) will once again will have been conned by the coaches to gain an unfair advantage.

What's wrong with forward is forward plain and simple?

Similarly the laws have been influenced by momentum. However they don't keep it simple as Biltong rightly keeps banging on about, they complicate things to make the whole game un-understandable to pretty much everyone.

Momentum is now a fact of rugby life whilst wind conditions are not (which makes the thrower's life a misery on windy or worse, blustery day (speaking as an ex-hooker) in lines-out).

And whilst I'm in a fret of indignation I'll go full-on Brian Mooreish, the coaches influenced the referees to interpret the scrum is a farce. Once the scrum is hinally formed and the 'hits' are eventually sorted, the feed to the back row is somehow acceptable. . First witness for the prosecution :
Aaron Smith - England v All Blacks 1 December 2012.

The shape of the hands is essential to the forward-pass law, because virtually all passes made apparently to the side by a sprinting player will actually being travelling forwards in space (ie will land forward of the position from whence they were released)

Here's a good explanation

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

Mr Fishpaste wrote:The shape of the hands is essential to the forward-pass law, because virtually all passes made apparently to the side by a sprinting player will actually being travelling forwards in space (ie will land forward of the position from whence they were released)

Here's a good explanation

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

That's only if you don't pass properly. That's simply an arguement people have made to allow them to pass forward over an onrushing defensive line. Besically it's saying you pass exactly the same going foward as you would standing still. I say passing at speed should be a skill and you HAVE to compensate for any velocity impacted on the ball due to your movement.


However, if it was clarified in the actual laws that the 'forward' direction is taken from the players frame of reference then fine. But they don't. I have heard refs say over the mic that a pass was thrown one side of a line and caught the other so it was clearly forward. Direction of hands was irrelevant.

Would any ref anywhere not rule a forward pass if a ball was passed in play and caught in the in-goal area, scoring a try? (other than Wayne Barnes against the All Blacks) I don't think they would. If this is the case that should be considered 'forward' anywhere on the pitch.

And the hands think recently is becasue the TMO was told to only consider the direction of the hands when considering a forward pass. I think that's down to it being easier to judge that actual direction due to perspective issues.

Fishpaste, is that the IRB video ( I cant see youtube form here)

www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2204/what-is-a-forward-pass

I know that optical illusions in passing exist.

I think that my point is that reducing the to a 'shape of the hand' criterion makes for a coach's mandate to gain advantage come cheat an inevitability.

What I suggest is in these days of TV instant replays etc., that forward passes should be measured on whether the pass is forward and not on optical illusion.

Coaches can devise all sorts of cunning plans to fool the authorities, but they'd have to work a day or two to fool fundamental physical science.

Forward I say is forward.

I dont think anyone going to fool anyone that the England forwards can pass

HammerofThunor wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:The shape of the hands is essential to the forward-pass law, because virtually all passes made apparently to the side by a sprinting player will actually being travelling forwards in space (ie will land forward of the position from whence they were released)

Here's a good explanation

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

That's only if you don't pass properly. That's simply an arguement people have made to allow them to pass forward over an onrushing defensive line. Besically it's saying you pass exactly the same going foward as you would standing still. I say passing at speed should be a skill and you HAVE to compensate for any velocity impacted on the ball due to your movement.


However, if it was clarified in the actual laws that the 'forward' direction is taken from the players frame of reference then fine. But they don't. I have heard refs say over the mic that a pass was thrown one side of a line and caught the other so it was clearly forward. Direction of hands was irrelevant.

Would any ref anywhere not rule a forward pass if a ball was passed in play and caught in the in-goal area, scoring a try? (other than Wayne Barnes against the All Blacks) I don't think they would. If this is the case that should be considered 'forward' anywhere on the pitch.

And the hands think recently is becasue the TMO was told to only consider the direction of the hands when considering a forward pass. I think that's down to it being easier to judge that actual direction due to perspective issues.

Did you watch the video Hammer? In it, the guy passes/ throws the ball backwards over his head while running, and the ball still travels forward. In order to compensate for the forward momentum generated by running with the ball, one would have the pass the ball such that its velocity going in the 'backwards' direction was at least equal to one's running velocity going forwards. If one is not passing directly backwards, in order to pass a ball such that it did not travel forwards one would have to make a very hard pass generating a very fast travelling ball...anyways, I'm just pondering...

Mr Fishpaste

The problem with all these discussions of 'momentum' passes is that it simply goes against the Law as written, which only talks about the direction the ball is thrown in relative to the pitch.

Contrary to what some try and parse out of the Law language, it is not possible in this or any other Universe for a ball that is 'thrown backwards' to travel forwards from the hands- if it goes forwards, it was just that the passer either did not slow his forward movement down sufficiently before passing or did not impart enough force into the ball to counter his (and its) forward motion. The only frame of reference to judge the direction is the pitch, so 'forward' or not should only be judged by consideration of the motion of the ball relative to the dead ball line.

Clearly in reality a lot of supposedly flat passes thrown on the run actually do travel forward, and the players get away with this much of the time (the exception tending to be when the ref has a line on the pitch to judge against - ball passed from behind the line and taken in front will very often be pulled up, while passes of similar trajectory elsewhere on the pitch are unlikely to be).

Even the 'greatest try ever' (Gareth Edwards for the Baa Baas in 73), the final pass from Tom David that Edwards 'intercepts' should have been blown for being forward but wasn't given because, relative to the motion of the players, it looked OK from the ref's perspective, so it's hardly a new phenomenon.

Dummy,

You contradicted yourself in the first line.

The laws do talk about the direction the ball is thrown, not where it travels as a result of that throw.
A backwards angled throw can still lead to the ball travelling forward.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Dummy,

You contradicted yourself in the first line.

The laws do talk about the direction the ball is thrown, not where it travels as a result of that throw.
A backwards angled throw can still lead to the ball travelling forward.

The problem is that you are using a definition of 'backwards' that does not exist in the Law (which defines the direction simply relative to the pitch) - if the ball travels forwards relative to the pitch, it was not 'thrown backwards' (regardless of the apparent motion of the passer's hands, which is not referred to in the Law), just a bit less forward than the player was travelling. Should still be penalised, although ref's often miss such passes in fast-moving games, unless they cross a pitch marking.

To quote Paddy O'Brien (like him or not, he is a chap with some knowledge on rugby laws etc):
"If you think of the law of physics, quite often a player moving forward passes the ball to a player also moving at pace, and it may appear forward but in actual fact the ball has been passed straight and just because it travels forward doesn’t mean it is a forward pass, it is how it was passed."

Source:
http://www.irb.com/totalrugby/newsid=2042269.html

dummy_half wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Dummy,

You contradicted yourself in the first line.

The laws do talk about the direction the ball is thrown, not where it travels as a result of that throw.
A backwards angled throw can still lead to the ball travelling forward.

The problem is that you are using a definition of 'backwards' that does not exist in the Law (which defines the direction simply relative to the pitch)

Yes as the law states..the direction of the throw relative to the pitch. I throw it behind me, it can still travel forward (as explained in the videos and badly by Paddy).
Its you that is adding "and yeah its total mostion must be backwards too" to the law.

Imagine you are at the airport on the moving walkway. You pass a shoebomb to your freind behind you. It was passed backwards, even though you were moving forward and it possibly ended up at a point ahead of where it was passed.

The laws are as they are to enable teams to run forward with the ball and pass it legally, something we all moan like hell about not seeing enough of.

Whatever anyone claims, the law can be interpreted both ways, simply because people do interpret it both ways (and both camps insist that their way is the only way it can be interpreted).

At top level, we have PoB and Mark Lawrence to name but 2 who insist that the "momentum" interpretation is the one to be used. On the other hand I seem to remember Nigel Owens using the lines on the pitch to justify a forward pass. So the situation is a mess basically.

On the rugbyrefs site, one of the refs on there claimed to have analysed an entire game worth of passes, and almost a half traveled forward relative to the ground. If this is right or even close to right, I don't believe anyone thinks that we should have a game where almost half the passes are illegal, so that the momentum interpretation is surely the only practical one at elite level. Michalak's final scoring pass in the 2007 RWC semi against NZ traveled forwards - do you really think that is a forward pass?

Mike Selig wrote:Whatever anyone claims, the law can be interpreted both ways, simply because people do interpret it both ways (and both camps insist that their way is the only way it can be interpreted).

At top level, we have PoB and Mark Lawrence to name but 2 who insist that the "momentum" interpretation is the one to be used. On the other hand I seem to remember Nigel Owens using the lines on the pitch to justify a forward pass. So the situation is a mess basically.

On the rugbyrefs site, one of the refs on there claimed to have analysed an entire game worth of passes, and almost a half traveled forward relative to the ground. If this is right or even close to right, I don't believe anyone thinks that we should have a game where almost half the passes are illegal, so that the momentum interpretation is surely the only practical one at elite level. Michalak's final scoring pass in the 2007 RWC semi against NZ traveled forwards - do you really think that is a forward pass?

That's my issue. Different refs interpret it differently AND I would like to know whether PoB and Mark Lawrence would allow a pass that started on side of the try line and ended to other. I don't think any ref would allow that.

Fishpaste, I didn't watch the video but I think I've probably seen it before. I understand the concept. But we see plenty of passes done at speed that really do go backwards so the idea it can't be done or is that difficult is nonsense.

And the ball is always going forward when it's passed. It doesn't go backwards and then suddenly goes forward when the velocity catches up. It leaves the hands of the player moving towards the opposition try line (as in as time passes it gets closer to their try line). That is forward in my mind.

However, as I said I wouldn't have too much of problem if they just defined it properly in the laws so it was clear. Their current definition of forwards is toward the opposition try line (or something like that). Add in 'relative to the passing player or something like that and it would be sorted. Judging a forward pass would still be just as hard mind.

HammerofThunor wrote:

That's my issue. Different refs interpret it differently AND I would like to know whether PoB and Mark Lawrence would allow a pass that started on side of the try line and ended to other. I don't think any ref would allow that.

If a player were moving fast enough for that to happen and it remotely be considered momentum then they would be too busy phoning the impossibility police to worry awarding a free kick.

HammerofThunor wrote:, I didn't watch the video but I think I've probably seen it before. I understand the concept. But we see plenty of passes done at speed that really do go backwards so the idea it can't be done or is that difficult is nonsense.

And the ball is always going forward when it's passed. It doesn't go backwards and then suddenly goes forward when the velocity catches up. It leaves the hands of the player moving towards the opposition try line (as in as time passes it gets closer to their try line). That is forward in my mind.

You should try watching it then youd understand what being talked about here, because your answer makes it quite evident that you dont.

Its not a case of the ball suddenly deciding to change direction.

Its a case of deciding if it was the force of the throw that took it forward or the force imparted by the player running forward. Was the force of the throwing action made backwards (relative to a line across the pitch)?
Imagine a scone is travelling through the air due North at high speed. I switch on a fan facing it. The force of the fan slows the scone down but it continues on a forward trajectory. Which way is the fan blowing relative to the motion of the scone? Backwards.
Im running fast forward with a ball, my hand pushes on the ball in a vector behind me but not hard enough to fully counter the force imparted by my forward motion. My throw was backward, but the ball does not travel backward... I and the player a foot behind me on the other side of the pitch continue running forward at the same speed...by the time it gets to him its gone behind him and we look like idiots.

Yes of course not every throw back will travel forward, it depends how much of an angle and how much force is used. But that equally doesnt mean that every pass that travels forward was thrown in a forward direction and illegal.
Also, as the videos explain, a pass that curves forward is considered to have been thrown forward,....since it was the throwing action that imparted the force that took it forward even if the effect was not immediate

The lines of across the pitch and relative position of players is still helpful in judging this. Yes either way its still retardedly hard to call as a ref (or even a TMO ) and yes bad calls are still regularly made both in missing forward passes and wrongly calling them. Like all the laws theres an element of judgement that comes into play, and its extremely hard to judge whichever method you use.

As for the IRB stance on it ..."total rugby" is run by the IRB, the video explaining it is their production. Paddy OB was head of the refs board when he made that statement. Craig Joubert did a piece explaining this several years ago. It even says its true on wikipedia ( argument won )
If you can find me a statement by Nigel Owens or Mickey Rooney saying they think its bunk and "well when I was at school we were told..." then OK, its an open question. Certainly yes outside the high levels its generally not consciously reffed this way (although many who think they arent allowing momentum passes would probably be greatly surprised to find what was and what wasnt), that doesnt make this application wrong or evil.

This isnt anything new, and is standard in rugby league (the only convincing argument Ive heard to ignore it) You may not like it, I dont like Wales, they both still exist.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

That's my issue. Different refs interpret it differently AND I would like to know whether PoB and Mark Lawrence would allow a pass that started on side of the try line and ended to other. I don't think any ref would allow that.

If a player were moving fast enough for that to happen and it remotely be considered momentum then they would be too busy phoning the impossibility police to worry awarding a free kick.

I really don't understand your point. Why is a momentum pass 'impossible' just in front of the try line?

HammerofThunor wrote:, I didn't watch the video but I think I've probably seen it before. I understand the concept. But we see plenty of passes done at speed that really do go backwards so the idea it can't be done or is that difficult is nonsense.

And the ball is always going forward when it's passed. It doesn't go backwards and then suddenly goes forward when the velocity catches up. It leaves the hands of the player moving towards the opposition try line (as in as time passes it gets closer to their try line). That is forward in my mind.

You should try watching it then youd understand what being talked about here, because your answer makes it quite evident that you dont.

Its not a case of the ball suddenly deciding to change direction.

That's why I said (and it's in your quote) "It doesn't go backwards and then suddenly forward".

Its a case of deciding...[rest of quote to cut space] Wikipedia says it's true

Ok, you got me.

I fully understand the physics of it. What I want is for the law to change to reflect the IRB stance (if that's what it is) [this would simply be a "forward is towards the opposition try line relative to the player", I also want refs to stop ruling passes as forward because they were caught the other side of a line. That is irrelevant following that interpretation of the law.

And I want a top ref saying that a pass that starts one side of the try line and is caught the other side of it is ok if the player is running fast enough. If you apply that ruling it should apply anywhere.

You're not going to convince me that the 'momentum ruling' is a better ruling but that doesn't matter. What matters is if it is the 'correct' ruling [IRB's call] than it should be applied by everyone, everywhere on the pitch. AND it should be applied if running backwards. So if you're going back to catch a high ball, pass to a team mate running forwards and the ball goes laterally (relative to the pitch) it is actually forward. So you can (and I've seen) a ball travelling towards their own try line be a forward pass.

Just watched the video again and it is the one I've seen before.

It seems that if vector analysis is going to come it, that a high angle view with lines perpendicular to the touch-line displayed virtually on the screen might help.

The law might be best served though if it were reverted to initially backwards.

But I still that a measure based on something to do with 'shape of the hands' is ludicrous. On TV games, I'd prefer something more objective than subjective to go on. If a player is sprinting at 20kph, how fast must the hands be going?

greytiger

The ambiguity could be removed simply by using similar wording to the knockon rule:

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Rather than:

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

I agree with Mike's comment a few up thread that the interpretation seems to be inconsistent even at the highest level of the game, with some refs at least notionally attempting to judge relative to the pitch (hence giving forward passes if they cross a pitch marking, although maybe being less accurate when passes are thrown in unmarked sections of the pitch), while others make some allowance for the passer's momentum - even then I don't think I've seen anyone who has really gone the whole way of allowing for all of the passer's momentum, as this would on occasion allow for passes that travel a substantial distance forward relative to the pitch.

How much attacking rugby would we see if passes all had to be backwards in relation to the pitch markings?

With modern defenses there would not be many tries scored from attacking moves.

Would be loads of intercepts though.

But that is the whole point of my post is you read it dummy-half.

By building in momentum the law-makers automatically create controversy as has been already stated apparent forward passes are frequently rejected on scoring passes which are allowed in open play.

Referees, TJs and players all have different and variable velocities and therefore different perceptions.

A player going forward at speed passing horiontally will impart a forward vector of his own velocity.

On a still day the ball will describe a flat paraboic arc as the sideward motion will meet air resistance so the forward velocity is reduced.

A passer running at wind speed will result in a straight trajectory because the body of air it passes through will present no relative air resistance.

A strong enough following wind will generate a forward parobolic motion whereas a head wind will cause the reverse and emphasise the flat parabola described in the IRB training video examples.

That assumes of course that they were produced in flat calm conditions.

So there you have it.
Under the current laws are guaranteed to produce variable results dependent on player motion, wind speed, officials' relative and individual motions relative to the pass,human perception and how close the pass is to the try-line.

Or just define a forward pass as one which does what it says on the tin.

Plus I've just reviewed those training videos.

My mate is a furniture restorer and he once related a story about a customer who was particularly fussy about a a job. My mate is a professional and was convinced that the restoration was perfect.

Two days later the customer was entirely satisfied because Dave had just switched the top drawer of the chest with the bottom.

I think that's called a cognitive expectation by psychologists.

So it goes with the videos. Clearly the demonstrators were at speed and asked to make their passes straight.

Look at them again. As the players (best in the overhead example). Because of their forward velocity, the players will be automatically compensating to adjust for their motion. Look carefully at the points of release. Are they forward or 'straight'?

Because of the number of tries being scored from a forward pass, tries should be worth 3 points only.

Being serious though, I have a theory that would make the forward pass issue completely null and void.

Due to all these issues with passes looking OK when the passer and reciever is running next to each other and the ball actually does travel forward which really makes a mockery of what the law intends to do, how about this.

The pass' direction s irrelevant as long as the reciever was not in front of the passer at the time of the pass.

In other words the reciever may not be in front of the ball as that would be offside. Being behind the passer he is onside.

So we should really more look at the reference between passer and reciever than the trajectory of the ball.

That wouldn't work at all Biltong, sorry.

I understand where you're coming from, as often the most obvious forward passes are when a distributor delays making a decision and forces a delayed pass to a receiver who is by that time physically in front of them.

But imagine the chaos of passers passing balls 2-3 metres forward, if not more, for a runner coming at pace who, at the point of passing, was behind the passer. It'd be a nightmare.

Biltong wrote:Being serious though, I have a theory that would make the forward pass issue completely null and void.

Due to all these issues with passes looking OK when the passer and reciever is running next to each other and the ball actually does travel forward which really makes a mockery of what the law intends to do, how about this.

The pass' direction s irrelevant as long as the reciever was not in front of the passer at the time of the pass.

In other words the reciever may not be in front of the ball as that would be offside. Being behind the passer he is onside.

So we should really more look at the reference between passer and reciever than the trajectory of the ball.

So effectively you'd have an offside like with kicks? So a player could just chuck the ball over the defensive line and catch it himself? I don't think that would work. It would create loads more space and the defensive line couldn't be a line.

To me the idea of the ball not going forwards in a pass is fundemental to rugby. I don't like the fact with the current general interpretation you can throw the ball over a defensive line. There are loads of things we could do to improve 'attacking' rugby. Doesn't mean we should do them (get rid of a few players on either side is one thing).

Not entirely, my thoughst are that you can't still deliberately pass the ball forward, but the marginal calls favour you sometimes and other times it isn't allowed.

Take our two forward passes that were blown in the QF last year, both were mrginal yet both were called, we had games that we lost because the opposition got away with passes like that.

So it might be a happier medium if a marginal forward pass is ignored because of the position of the players.

Also no passing to yourself, that would be made a mockery of.

Biltong wrote:Not entirely, my thoughst are that you can't still deliberately pass the ball forward, but the marginal calls favour you sometimes and other times it isn't allowed.

Take our two forward passes that were blown in the QF last year, both were mrginal yet both were called, we had games that we lost because the opposition got away with passes like that.

So it might be a happier medium if a marginal forward pass is ignored because of the position of the players.

It sounds like you're trying to make it official that the refs make it up as they go and go by gut. Which may be the only way forward. I personally would keep it as it is, add in that it doesn't matter which way the ball is thrown, just that it goes backwards, and at the top level have chips in the ball to pick up on every case of forward passing. I don't care if they have to stop the game every 20s for a scrum.

EDIT: to be fair if you allowed the 'momentum' rubbish you could still have it electronically tagged with the TMO calling forward passes.

Biltong wrote:Also no passing to yourself, that would be made a mockery of.

It's also a little sad.

dummy_half wrote:Mr Fishpaste

The problem with all these discussions of 'momentum' passes is that it simply goes against the Law as written, which only talks about the direction the ball is thrown in relative to the pitch.

There an ambiguity there though - as the wording isn't about the direction the ball travels in, but the direction the player throws it in. There's a subtle difference, as the word 'throw' could be interpreted as referring to simply the direction of the arms relative to the body. If you threw something out the back of a moving train, I don't think you would say that you'd thrown it forwards, even though that's still the direction the object would be moving in relative to the ground.

One of the issues I have with the 'shape of the hands' thing is that refs and ARs can't always see a passer's hands or aren't able to spot how slight they are forwards or backwards from flat in the split second that passing can take place in. The ball itself and the direction it takes in relation to the datum of the pitch is a lot more recognisable and definitive from most positions on the pitch. Unless we want to refer every pass refs aren't sure about to video offcials.

I completely get the momentum argument and can see why people back it (now seemingly the IRB, though they've spelt it out differently in the past*), but I also think it's true that this is not insurmountable (no matter how fast you are running you are perfectly capable of passing the ball backwards with enough force to overcome that momentum) and agree with Hammer that part of the skill of passing is that you account for the factors that are effecting you.


*http://www.irb.com/mm/document/training/0/beginners20guide20en_7391.pdf

the pass must not travel towards the opposing team’s goal line. It must travel either directly across the field, or back in the direction of the passer’s own goal line.

thomh wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Mr Fishpaste

The problem with all these discussions of 'momentum' passes is that it simply goes against the Law as written, which only talks about the direction the ball is thrown in relative to the pitch.

There an ambiguity there though - as the wording isn't about the direction the ball travels in, but the direction the player throws it in. There's a subtle difference, as the word 'throw' could be interpreted as referring to simply the direction of the arms relative to the body. If you threw something out the back of a moving train, I don't think you would say that you'd thrown it forwards, even though that's still the direction the object would be moving in relative to the ground.

Yes but the ball is thrown towards the posts. The reference is to the pitch. As time passes the ball gets closer to the opposite end. The vector the ball follows is towards the posts. In every way the ball is thrown forward given the definition in the laws.

The problem is that once subjectivity comes into rulings, then the trouble begins. Look at the sister of the forward pass, the knock on and how almost impossible it is to codify.
Once again the lawmakers have attempted to define the actions but the scope for disagreement in interpretation are manifold. For instance, one man's interpretation of a valid attempt to intercept is another's cynical deliberate k-o.

It's a shame more players don't do the old "over the head throw", run up the pitch and then catch it again. Anyone reckon that wouldn't be given as a forward pass. It shouldn't be according to the IRB.

There is no ambiguity, its very simple. If the ball goes towards the opposing try line it is a forward pass. No momentum, no direction of the movement of the hands - the only think that counts is the direction of the ball -

TJ wrote:There is no ambiguity, its very simple. If the ball goes towards the opposing try line it is a forward pass. No momentum, no direction of the movement of the hands - the only think that counts is the direction of the ball -

Not according to the IRB, according to quotes from PoB and the total rugby video (run by the IRB). I agree that's what it 'should' be.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's a shame more players don't do the old "over the head throw", run up the pitch and then catch it again. Anyone reckon that wouldn't be given as a forward pass. It shouldn't be according to the IRB.

It wouldn't be a forward pass but it would still be against the Laws of the game as "Thrown Forward".

It would/should be a penalty.

No it wouldn't (or at least shouldn't according to the IRB). The example of a pass that went true forward but couldn't be considered thrown forward/forward pass is one over the back of your head. If that's the IRB approved interpretation then you can throw the ball up in the air and catch it again, as long as you don't run faster than you were at the point of the pass.

That's stupid.

I'm with you now.

When you said "over the head" I was thinking like the hooker throws into the lineout.

But if you threw it truely "up" in relation to yourself you would hit it as you continued to run. Or you'd have to stop as you threw it in which case it wouldn't go forward!



My head hurts!

If a player in full flight is Earth-shatteringly stopped in his tracks at the point of a pass to a team-mate any illusion highlighted in the IRB's training is shattered as reference points are made apparent.

If the pass is received two, three or four metres ahead of the tackle/pass and the referee allowed it in the final moments of a critical major game on the basis of his opinion of the passer's 'shape of his hands', there might ensue riotous assembly on the terraces and a police escort for the ref all the way out of town.

As Hammer and others have pointed out, the problem is in the ambiguity of the law. It states that the ball cannot be thrown forward, but it doesn't state whether this 'forward' refers to the direction, relative to the passer, that the ball initially travels; or whether the 'forward' refers to the direction, relative to stationary objects, of the vector that the ball has travelled once it has finished its movement. Even if this ambiguity was cleared up, either option would be difficult to call with consistency. If one is using the first of the above criteria, one needs to see the hands of the passer, and as noted above, this is not always possible. If one uses the second criteria: the vector of the ball's motion is perceived relative to surrounding objects, probably most commonly the passer, and the fact that the passer is also moving makes it difficult to discern the absolute motion of the ball.

Regarding the latter interpretation - should it be enforced - it would compel players to significantly change their passing technique. According to some rudimentary calculations of mine (which are up for debate, because I'm a little rusty on my Trig etc.) If a player is running at a nippy speed of 35km/h, if he intended to pass the ball 10 degrees behind him (relative to himself), he would have to pass the ball at 200km/h in order for it to not actually travel forward in an absolute sense! 'Non-forward' passes only become humanly possible at around 35-40 degrees behind him. This would mean for backline moves to fulfil the second interpretation of the forward pass rule the players would either have to:
A: never pass (suits my Boks well enough)
B: stop running before passing
C: pass at angles in excess of 30 degrees behind them (which is quite far behind if you envisage it for a moment...)

Anyways, it's late, I'm not sure if that made sense...use it, don't use it...

We see plenty of passes at speed that clearly don't go forward in any rational definition of the word. It's possible.

BTW what is the typical speed of a pass?

EDIT: Just had a quick look and came up with around 30mph (~48km/h) for an amateur player

Mr Fishpaste wrote:As Hammer and others have pointed out, the problem is in the ambiguity of the law. It states that the ball cannot be thrown forward, but it doesn't state whether this 'forward' refers to the direction, relative to the passer, that the ball initially travels; or whether the 'forward' refers to the direction, relative to stationary objects, of the vector that the ball has travelled once it has finished its movement. Even if this ambiguity was cleared up, either option would be difficult to call with consistency. If one is using the first of the above criteria, one needs to see the hands of the passer, and as noted above, this is not always possible. If one uses the second criteria: the vector of the ball's motion is perceived relative to surrounding objects, probably most commonly the passer, and the fact that the passer is also moving makes it difficult to discern the absolute motion of the ball.

Regarding the latter interpretation - should it be enforced - it would compel players to significantly change their passing technique. According to some rudimentary calculations of mine (which are up for debate, because I'm a little rusty on my Trig etc.) If a player is running at a nippy speed of 35km/h, if he intended to pass the ball 10 degrees behind him (relative to himself), he would have to pass the ball at 200km/h in order for it to not actually travel forward in an absolute sense! 'Non-forward' passes only become humanly possible at around 35-40 degrees behind him. This would mean for backline moves to fulfil the second interpretation of the forward pass rule the players would either have to:
A: never pass (suits my Boks well enough)
B: stop running before passing
C: pass at angles in excess of 30 degrees behind them (which is quite far behind if you envisage it for a moment...)

Anyways, it's late, I'm not sure if that made sense...use it, don't use it...

the law is actually very clear and clearly states the ball must not travel forward in relation to the ground. end of debate.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Dummy,

You contradicted yourself in the first line.

The laws do talk about the direction the ball is thrown, not where it travels as a result of that throw.
A backwards angled throw can still lead to the ball travelling forward.

No it cannot. thats a logical fallacy. the frame of reference is the ground. thats what the laws say

Without going into rifling effects of spin passes, wind conditions and the theory of relativity, no ball passed out perpendicular to the touchline at any practical, meaningful velocity would ever not go towards the opposition goal-line.

On the tin of Law 12 it says:

Law 12 Knock-on or Throw Forward
77 INTERNATIONAL RUGBY BOARD
DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
EXCEPTION
Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or
immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel
forward.

http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_12_EN.pdf

TJ wrote:
the law is actually very clear and clearly states the ball must not travel forward in relation to the ground. end of debate.

You may think it's clear. Simply by the fact that so many people interpret it differently means it isn't. The law doesn't mention the ground BTW.

Biltong wrote:Not entirely, my thoughst are that you can't still deliberately pass the ball forward, but the marginal calls favour you sometimes and other times it isn't allowed.

Take our two forward passes that were blown in the QF last year, both were mrginal yet both were called, we had games that we lost because the opposition got away with passes like that.

So it might be a happier medium if a marginal forward pass is ignored because of the position of the players.

The 'receiver behind the passer' logic would also allow a mortar lob 'up and under' off the passer's hand, so long as the receiver started his run 'onside'.
Crossfield kick style, only off the hands. No I do not think the lawmakers will want to / should allow that.

Momentum passing at speed I think is ok, but v difficult for the ref to judge at times.

Mad - the law is quoted directly above my post. It really is very clear. the ball must not go forward in relation to the ground which is what the law says

‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

TJ wrote:Mad - the law is quoted directly above my post. It really is very clear. the ball must not go forward in relation to the ground which is what the law says

‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

No it says it must not be thrown or passed....the direction of travel is a related but separate thing. It's been explained at length above and in the irb video. It is a controversial interpretation but comes from the top and is consistent with the wording and intent of the law. It may not be the way most people read it and it may not be the way it is always effed but that doesn't make it wrong just because many people cannot cope with it.
Keep arguing the same thing, but you are adding wods to the law in your own head that aren't there.
The wording of the knock on law is different and specifically says if the ball goes forward, rather than if it is thrown forward.
If the force of the pass is forward relative to the dead ball line it's a forward pass. If the pass direction was backwards its still possible that the force of the players momentum may carry the ball forwards relative to that line. That is the interpretation explained several times at length.
Denying it is your own stubbornness not a problem with the logic. Admitting the law can be understood this way does not mean you have to accept it should be but at least there would be a basis for rational debate on that rather than just pig headed denial.