Had Folau's pass bounced...

First topic message reminder :

I know there are lots of people who fell strongly one way or another about the 'forward pass' but I thought I'd just pose the question...

Had Folau's pass bounced before being picked up and scored what should the call have been?

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:If it had bounced it wouldn't have changed it at all. What happens after a bounce is irrelevant. What happens in flight is irrelevant. It's the direction IT WAS PASSED IN and that was clearly backwards.

According to the law it's nothing to do with the direction it was passed in, it's where the second contact is made, if running into a wind you can american style throw the ball one handed 10 yards forward, however if it bounces or is received behind you it's play on.

But the ball leaves Folau's hand at point A and is caught at point B (shown to me today as point B being 1.36m in front of point A) then if it bounces momentum is used as an indicator of the ball not going forward? Correct?

Then why when the Welsh lad (dont know his name) who knocks the ball on while 'tackled early' by Cooper, again point A leaving the hands, and point B making contact with the floor (shown to me today as point B being .74m in front of point A) where his hands are clearly facing backward again, is it given as a knock on (hence no advantage allowed) and not advantage as momentum has ensured the ball moving forward?

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.

PASS vs KNOCK-ON?

So if I throw a 20 yard forward pass that bounces what am I penalised for?

whether it bounced is irrelevant. if your hands passed the ball forwards its a forward pass. to take you utterly absurd example, if you threw the ball backwards but high in the air and the wind caught it and took it 20 yards forwards, it would not be counted as a forward pass. if the ball had bounced off your thick head, initially backwards but the wind took it 20 yards forwards, that would be a knock on?

clear?

motion of hands (which effectively incorporates momentum) for passing. bounce (or next contact with a player if no bounce) for a non-pass, and hence knock on.

clear?

Show me where it says in the laws that throwing the ball forward that bounces isn't a knock on? I can show you the exact place it says that if your throw the ball toward the opposition goal line it is.

My point is this, momentum is being discussed re passing, yet is not being applied similarly to knock on, which by definitions can be passes that do not go to hand and bounce in front of where you are.

no they can't. forward passes are different from knock ons. how is this not clear? a pass that does not go to hand is the same as a pass that does go to hand, ie it's either forwards or backwards.

So please answer the question...

Your the ref, I've thrown an american football style rocket from my 22 line, it bounces without touching anyone, what do you give?

if the hands went forward in the motion of passing, i give forward pass

Well the call is knock on, the ball leaves the hands and bounces in front of where it left the hand (I was kind of taught this today) so the throw isn't the only compartment to the penalising of the team, point A (the throw) is only relevant to what happens at point B (the bounce / catch)

Butterfingers, Folau didn't "lose possession" so it's not a knock on, regardless of how it is received (or not).

ChequeredJersey wrote:What I don't get, is in American Football, when the QB is rushed and he throws the ball to kill it in contact, when is it counted as a fumble and when as an incomplete pass?

Fumble is a knock, incomplete is when rhe pass hits the ground first.

ChequeredJersey wrote:What I don't get, is in American Football, when the QB is rushed and he throws the ball to kill it in contact, when is it counted as a fumble and when as an incomplete pass?

That is amazing, this came up on my course earlier, apparently it's control, the QB fumbles when he doesn't have sufficient control, refs look for the arm man sausage, and then release, if he releases in front of his head it's a pass, anything before this is a fumble...

We think!

OK, I’ll try again. The problem here is that the IRB haven’t taken into account that the Earth is moving under our feet at 1,040 miles/hour. But there’s more - we’re orbiting the Sun at 66,630 mph. And our solar system is moving around the centre of the Milky Way at about 486,220 mph. And Lordy, the galaxy is traveling through space at 1,234,840 mph. It's a nightmare - what chance did Barnes have without a calculator?

No excuses for missing the forward pass that set up George’s 1st try though, as the Welsh guys were moving a bit slower than the Aussies.

butterfingers wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Actually, if the ball had bounced but gone forwards it's pretty unclear. The ball is thrown and as a pass, which implies a pass and passing rules, but going forward off a hand and hitting the ground is a knockon. It's a grey area of sorts, but I'd still say that it counts as a pass

This is what i'm trying to get to the bottom of, and was schooled a bit on it today too.

An incompleted pass that goes forward toward the opposition goal line that bounces is a knock on, yet if the exact same pass is completed can be considered legal as momentum is allowed in passing.

no, that's a forward pass, if the motion of the hands was forwards. can't be a knock on if it was a pass. might be forwards or backwards (but that wouldn't depend on whether it bounced, only on relative hand movement) but is certainly not a knock on.

If the QB has an arm man sausage I'm surprised anyone is game to go near him.

 

That just about explains it.

HammerofThunor wrote:Butterfingers, Folau didn't "lose possession" so it's not a knock on, regardless of how it is received (or not).

I didn't really want to get into this right now, but just wanted to focus on the laws, but as Folau releases the ball slips from his hands milliseconds before his hands follow through and go backwards, I hve watched the clip around 40 times with pro refs and that is what sealed it as forward for us (them but I'll jump on their bandwagon).

Again as said though we all flip flopped and decided Barnes was in a no win situation and made a good call that was executed wrong.

so you're saying it wasn't a pass then. that he dropped it and hence the knock-on rules apply.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:OK, I’ll try again. The problem here is that the IRB haven’t taken into account that the Earth is moving under our feet at 1,040 miles/hour. But there’s more - we’re orbiting the Sun at 66,630 mph. And our solar system is moving around the centre of the Milky Way at about 486,220 mph. And Lordy, the galaxy is traveling through space at 1,234,840 mph. It's a nightmare - what chance did Barnes have without a calculator?

No excuses for missing the forward pass that set up George’s 1st try though, as the Welsh guys were moving a bit slower than the Aussies.

Ah of course Mr Newton tells us that all that galactic movement is irrelevant. However, as approximations go, it is of course equally not correct. If a player could travel close to the speed of light (I'm thinking of Piutau here) then the constancy of light speed becomes more important than the assumed constancy of time or space. Hence using the opposition goal line as a frame of reference becomes clumsy as we would see that in fact the ball (or wave particles comprising it) moves in all directions simultaneously and we would need to compute the probability cloud for arrivals at each moment (or discrete collection if moments for mathematical simplicity) and their proximity to density distributions of particles comprising the opponents goal line.

quinsforever wrote:so you're saying it wasn't a pass then. that he dropped it and hence the knock-on rules apply.

No the ball never touches the floor, but had it touched the floor first I think knock on would certainly have been given.

As I said I was schooled a bit earlier, and wanted to know the thoughts of some knowledgable people on here, maybe I should wait for some to log on... JK

butterfingers, so are you saying that these refs (it was 1 ref earlier) are saying it would have been a knock on if it had touched the floor rather than caught?

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:so you're saying it wasn't a pass then. that he dropped it and hence the knock-on rules apply.

No the ball never touches the floor, but had it touched the floor first I think knock on would certainly have been given.

As I said I was schooled a bit earlier, and wanted to know the thoughts of some knowledgable people on here, maybe I should wait for some to log on... JK

But the law for knock-ons says if the ball touches the ground or another player. So if it touches the ground or is caught is the same regarding a knock-on.

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:so you're saying it wasn't a pass then. that he dropped it and hence the knock-on rules apply.

No the ball never touches the floor, but had it touched the floor first I think knock on would certainly have been given.

As I said I was schooled a bit earlier, and wanted to know the thoughts of some knowledgable people on here, maybe I should wait for some to log on... JK

TBH it's hard to argue the ball slipped from his hand (calling into question knock-on vs pass interpretation) when tumane caught it, no?

hard to claim he lost control of it when his pass went to hand?

No 7&1/2 wrote:butterfingers, so are you saying that these refs (it was 1 ref earlier) are saying it would have been a knock on if it had touched the floor rather than caught?

1 well known ref mate, lots of us mere mortal refs, why is everyone on here so cynical and determine to score cheap points re grammer spelling and checking out everyones stories?

I have no agenda, I don't want to debate the scoreline or the outcome of the game, just the incidents involving the 'forward pass' and knock on differences, and pose the question that why is momentum so important in passing, but not allowed the same for knock ons.

So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:so you're saying it wasn't a pass then. that he dropped it and hence the knock-on rules apply.

No the ball never touches the floor, but had it touched the floor first I think knock on would certainly have been given.

As I said I was schooled a bit earlier, and wanted to know the thoughts of some knowledgable people on here, maybe I should wait for some to log on... JK

TBH it's hard to argue the ball slipped from his hand (calling into question knock-on vs pass interpretation) when tumane caught it, no?

hard to claim he lost control of it when his pass went to hand?

Your right, it would have been impossible for Barnes to have caught a tiny slip of that manner, and I'm not blaming his decision at all, just his execution.

But if the forward pass is designed around the throw and not the catch, showing the hands going backwards, which a lot of players emphasise now, then surely that tiny slip would be the difference between the pass where the hands point backwards, and the lost control of which the hands point backwards after the ball had left?

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:butterfingers, so are you saying that these refs (it was 1 ref earlier) are saying it would have been a knock on if it had touched the floor rather than caught?

1 well known ref mate, lots of us mere mortal refs, why is everyone on here so cynical and determine to score cheap points re grammer spelling and checking out everyones stories?

I have no agenda, I don't want to debate the scoreline or the outcome of the game, just the incidents involving the 'forward pass' and knock on differences, and pose the question that why is momentum so important in passing, but not allowed the same for knock ons.

the IRB, and several posters here, have made this clear. even if interpretation of the backward motion of passing hands is somewhat less so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

No it wouldn't be classed as a knock on, it would have been a forward pass as the pass was completed. if you fumble the ball backward to your supporting player it's play on, why would it not be a forward pass if you fumbled it forward to your supporting player?
Thats my point, the 'hands backward' is used as an indicator of where the ball was thrown and an educated guess at momentum of the ball, the law states any throw forward toward the opposing goal line is a forward pass.

Had Will Genia caught Joe Tomanes' non-forward pass with the line at his mercy in the first half, would there even be this discussion?

Icu wrote:Had Will Genia caught Joe Tomanes' non-forward pass with the line at his mercy in the first half, would there even be this discussion?

Yes, as long as the Folau try would have happened. Why would there not be?

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:butterfingers, so are you saying that these refs (it was 1 ref earlier) are saying it would have been a knock on if it had touched the floor rather than caught?

1 well known ref mate, lots of us mere mortal refs, why is everyone on here so cynical and determine to score cheap points re grammer spelling and checking out everyones stories?

I have no agenda, I don't want to debate the scoreline or the outcome of the game, just the incidents involving the 'forward pass' and knock on differences, and pose the question that why is momentum so important in passing, but not allowed the same for knock ons.

the IRB, and several posters here, have made this clear. even if interpretation of the backward motion of passing hands is somewhat less so.

No they havn't, there has been some skirting over the actual question, and some decent attempts of explenation, but there is genuine discussion around a questionable topic.

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

No it wouldn't be classed as a knock on, it would have been a forward pass as the pass was completed. if you fumble the ball backward to your supporting player it's play on, why would it not be a forward pass if you fumbled it forward to your supporting player?
Thats my point, the 'hands backward' is used as an indicator of where the ball was thrown and an educated guess at momentum of the ball, the law states any throw forward toward the opposing goal line is a forward pass.

But if possession was "lost" it doesn't matter if it's caught or hits the ground. The law for knock-ons specifically mentions other players. If possession wasn't "lost" it's a pass regardless of whether it's caught or not. If the ball goes backwards it doesn't matter whether it's classed as a fumble or a pass as no distinction is needed (other than for stats).

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

No it wouldn't be classed as a knock on, it would have been a forward pass as the pass was completed. if you fumble the ball backward to your supporting player it's play on, why would it not be a forward pass if you fumbled it forward to your supporting player?
Thats my point, the 'hands backward' is used as an indicator of where the ball was thrown and an educated guess at momentum of the ball, the law states any throw forward toward the opposing goal line is a forward pass.

It was classed as a flat pass. Your example and I think confusion in when a forward pass becomes a knock on is whether it's intentional (pass) or the player hits it forward or loses possession.

I agree with the last point there; throw backwards thouuh can end up going forwards.

butterfingers wrote:

Icu wrote:Had Will Genia caught Joe Tomanes' non-forward pass with the line at his mercy in the first half, would there even be this discussion?

Yes, as long as the Folau try would have happened. Why would there not be?

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood the context of the statement - early morning and still coffee-less. I thought you were alluding to the hypothetical that if Izzys pass had bounced and went forward then Wales may have won the game which is why i mentioned that if Genia had taken that pass from Tomane then even if Izzys pass was ruled forward it wouldn't be relevant.

HammerofThunor wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

No it wouldn't be classed as a knock on, it would have been a forward pass as the pass was completed. if you fumble the ball backward to your supporting player it's play on, why would it not be a forward pass if you fumbled it forward to your supporting player?
Thats my point, the 'hands backward' is used as an indicator of where the ball was thrown and an educated guess at momentum of the ball, the law states any throw forward toward the opposing goal line is a forward pass.

But if possession was "lost" it doesn't matter if it's caught or hits the ground. The law for knock-ons specifically mentions other players. If possession wasn't "lost" it's a pass regardless of whether it's caught or not. If the ball goes backwards it doesn't matter whether it's classed as a fumble or a pass as no distinction is needed (other than for stats).

The mention of other players specifically clarifies the point where a knock on ricochets into an opponent player (or team mate) and then back into the hands of the guy who lost control, as opposed to hitting the ground. It's the law that allows "juggling"

butterfingers wrote:...I'm not blaming his decision at all, just his execution...

I don't think I understand that distinction. Are you saying it was the right decision but Barnes reached it the wrong way?

Rugby Fan wrote:

butterfingers wrote:...I'm not blaming his decision at all, just his execution...

I don't think I understand that distinction. Are you saying it was the right decision but Barnes reached it the wrong way?

He's saying: I wish I had a point here because I'm really upset that Wales lost.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

No it wouldn't be classed as a knock on, it would have been a forward pass as the pass was completed. if you fumble the ball backward to your supporting player it's play on, why would it not be a forward pass if you fumbled it forward to your supporting player?
Thats my point, the 'hands backward' is used as an indicator of where the ball was thrown and an educated guess at momentum of the ball, the law states any throw forward toward the opposing goal line is a forward pass.

But if possession was "lost" it doesn't matter if it's caught or hits the ground. The law for knock-ons specifically mentions other players. If possession wasn't "lost" it's a pass regardless of whether it's caught or not. If the ball goes backwards it doesn't matter whether it's classed as a fumble or a pass as no distinction is needed (other than for stats).

The mention of other players specifically clarifies the point where a knock on ricochets into an opponent player (or team mate) and then back into the hands of the guy who lost control, as opposed to hitting the ground. It's the law that allows "juggling"

True but that's also the only time it mentions the ground as well...isn't it?

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the ref thought it was a knock on but wouldn't give it as it was caught? As Hammer says above it would still constitute a knock on if he felt it wasn't a pass.

No it wouldn't be classed as a knock on, it would have been a forward pass as the pass was completed. if you fumble the ball backward to your supporting player it's play on, why would it not be a forward pass if you fumbled it forward to your supporting player?
Thats my point, the 'hands backward' is used as an indicator of where the ball was thrown and an educated guess at momentum of the ball, the law states any throw forward toward the opposing goal line is a forward pass.

But if possession was "lost" it doesn't matter if it's caught or hits the ground. The law for knock-ons specifically mentions other players. If possession wasn't "lost" it's a pass regardless of whether it's caught or not. If the ball goes backwards it doesn't matter whether it's classed as a fumble or a pass as no distinction is needed (other than for stats).

The mention of other players specifically clarifies the point where a knock on ricochets into an opponent player (or team mate) and then back into the hands of the guy who lost control, as opposed to hitting the ground. It's the law that allows "juggling"

True but that's also the only time it mentions the ground as well...isn't it?

It's not attempting to differentiate a pass and a knock on. It's there to clarify that a knock on (as opposed to a juggle) occurs when the ball is lost forward into another player, or the ground. If it's lost backward into another player, or the ground then the laws apply in exactly the same way as they do with a pass.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

butterfingers wrote:...I'm not blaming his decision at all, just his execution...

I don't think I understand that distinction. Are you saying it was the right decision but Barnes reached it the wrong way?

He's saying: I wish I had a point here because I'm really upset that Wales lost.

Not at all, as Ive clearly mentioned...

Barnes was in a no win scenario here, the best he can do is use all the aid he has available to him and make the decision. He didn't get to the TMO because he watched it on the screen, but this didn't allow for a good angle, whereas the TMO wouldve had numerous angles and been allowed much more time.

The TMO was coming back with his decision though when Barnes cut him off and made it for him (which is now within the rules). We saw the same pictures and replays at home as Barnes did on the big screen as far as I'm aware.

Barnes didn't need the tmo because the footage on the screen was adequate for anyone to realise the pass was fine.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Barnes didn't need the tmo because the footage on the screen was adequate for anyone to realise the pass was fine.

Except not everyone agrees with your one eyed stance...

There are plenty of people here who beleive it was forward, and I sat in a room full of referee's yesterday and debated it at length watching numerous replays, no offence mate but I'll take them over you any day of the week, mind you that probably goes for my 6 YO neice too, and she says it was good  

No 7&1/2 wrote:The TMO was coming back with his decision though when Barnes cut him off and made it for him (which is now within the rules). We saw the same pictures and replays at home as Barnes did on the big screen as far as I'm aware.

But he doesn't have to rush the decision, numerous international refs wouldve asked the TJ, checked it out on the screen and to be sure let the TMO give him a reason not to award it.

Lets not fall into this trap of 'if he looks at the screen and decides it must be a good decision' just because Owens did it a while ago to make the correct decision, it's a trend that will change again soon enough.

International refereeing is just as much theater as it is science.

butterfingers wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The TMO was coming back with his decision though when Barnes cut him off and made it for him (which is now within the rules). We saw the same pictures and replays at home as Barnes did on the big screen as far as I'm aware.

But he doesn't have to rush the decision, numerous international refs wouldve asked the TJ, checked it out on the screen and to be sure let the TMO give him a reason not to award it.

Lets not fall into this trap of 'if he looks at the screen and decides it must be a good decision' just because Owens did it a while ago to make the correct decision, it's a trend that will change again soon enough.

International refereeing is just as much theater as it is science.

But he did get the decision correct.

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Barnes didn't need the tmo because the footage on the screen was adequate for anyone to realise the pass was fine.

Except not everyone agrees with your one eyed stance...

There are plenty of people here who beleive it was forward, and I sat in a room full of referee's yesterday and debated it at length watching numerous replays, no offence mate but I'll take them over you any day of the week, mind you that probably goes for my 6 YO neice too, and she says it was good  

There are plenty of people who believe the world is flat, that contrails are brain washing us and that what the church of scientology really needs is a large donation of cash. Lot sof people believeing something doens't make it true.

It's clear cut that there was sufficient doubt about the pass being legitimate that it would've been wrong for Barnes to disallow the try. That's the guidance that's been given to the referees "clear and obvious", we've heard it a million times. Barnes was right, it was not "clear and obvious" so he was right to award the try. The fact that the "room full of referees" debated it at length should be all the evidence they need as referees who presumably know that video evidence must be "clear and obvious" in order to dismiss the notion.

I suggest you were confused. There is a difference between whether the pass might actually have been marginally forward, and whether there was sufficient evidence to over-rule the try.

I think Brian Moore's comments are appropriate here ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/10486890/The-truth-hurts-for-Wales-as-they-are-consistently-beaten-by-southern-hemisphere-sides.html ):

"If I had a penny for every fan, Welsh rugby writer (same thing) and Twitter-bore that does not know that the law says it is the direction of the ball from the pass (flat or back) not the direction it travels thereafter (back, flat or even forward due to the laws of physics) that counts, I would be a rich man."

He also points out the pass that set North away for his first try was similar.

Sorry if this has already been posted. Just back and can't be bothered trolling through the endless posts. I trust the game was good.

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:If it had bounced it wouldn't have changed it at all. What happens after a bounce is irrelevant. What happens in flight is irrelevant. It's the direction IT WAS PASSED IN and that was clearly backwards.

According to the law it's nothing to do with the direction it was passed in, it's where the second contact is made, if running into a wind you can american style throw the ball one handed 10 yards forward, however if it bounces or is received behind you it's play on.

But the ball leaves Folau's hand at point A and is caught at point B (shown to me today as point B being 1.36m in front of point A) then if it bounces momentum is used as an indicator of the ball not going forward? Correct?

Then why when the Welsh lad (dont know his name) who knocks the ball on while 'tackled early' by Cooper, again point A leaving the hands, and point B making contact with the floor (shown to me today as point B being .74m in front of point A) where his hands are clearly facing backward again, is it given as a knock on (hence no advantage allowed) and not advantage as momentum has ensured the ball moving forward?

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.

PASS vs KNOCK-ON?

So if I throw a 20 yard forward pass that bounces what am I penalised for?

whether it bounced is irrelevant. if your hands passed the ball forwards its a forward pass. to take you utterly absurd example, if you threw the ball backwards but high in the air and the wind caught it and took it 20 yards forwards, it would not be counted as a forward pass. if the ball had bounced off your thick head, initially backwards but the wind took it 20 yards forwards, that would be a knock on?

clear?

motion of hands (which effectively incorporates momentum) for passing. bounce (or next contact with a player if no bounce) for a non-pass, and hence knock on.

clear?

You can't have a knock on off the head. Also the it's no mention in the law of momentum. The law States that if the ball moves in the direction of the opposition goal line then it must be awarded as a forward pass

mckay1402 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:If it had bounced it wouldn't have changed it at all. What happens after a bounce is irrelevant. What happens in flight is irrelevant. It's the direction IT WAS PASSED IN and that was clearly backwards.

According to the law it's nothing to do with the direction it was passed in, it's where the second contact is made, if running into a wind you can american style throw the ball one handed 10 yards forward, however if it bounces or is received behind you it's play on.

But the ball leaves Folau's hand at point A and is caught at point B (shown to me today as point B being 1.36m in front of point A) then if it bounces momentum is used as an indicator of the ball not going forward? Correct?

Then why when the Welsh lad (dont know his name) who knocks the ball on while 'tackled early' by Cooper, again point A leaving the hands, and point B making contact with the floor (shown to me today as point B being .74m in front of point A) where his hands are clearly facing backward again, is it given as a knock on (hence no advantage allowed) and not advantage as momentum has ensured the ball moving forward?

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.

PASS vs KNOCK-ON?

So if I throw a 20 yard forward pass that bounces what am I penalised for?

whether it bounced is irrelevant. if your hands passed the ball forwards its a forward pass. to take you utterly absurd example, if you threw the ball backwards but high in the air and the wind caught it and took it 20 yards forwards, it would not be counted as a forward pass. if the ball had bounced off your thick head, initially backwards but the wind took it 20 yards forwards, that would be a knock on?

clear?

motion of hands (which effectively incorporates momentum) for passing. bounce (or next contact with a player if no bounce) for a non-pass, and hence knock on.

clear?

You can't have a knock on off the head.  Also the it's no mention in the law of momentum.   The law States that if the ball moves in the direction of the opposition goal line then it must be awarded as a forward pass

See message above:

and:

Rule

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=12

Here's the IRB interpretation video (the Australia explanation re released under the auspices of the IRB's rugby show Total rugby).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg&feature=youtu.be

It's pretty unambiguous that it's relative to the player not the ground.

Can't believe you're still going on about this bizarre "knock on versus forward pass" rubbish.

It's very clear what the laws say and mean and it's very clear and obvious that the pass was fine.

You need to move on and not get caught up in Gatlands spin.

It is the angle of the incident force applied to the ball by the player in respect to the opposition goal line which determines a forward pass, not the "movement" or trajectory of the ball acting under that force.

You keep deliberately misquoting the law. Stop doing it.

As this is only ever a matter that can be resolved satisfactorily in TV-broadcast matches, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to adapt the Hawkeye system to track the path of the ball to display the motion of the ball.

More inexplicable for me though is how Amazon can deliver a bracelet from China for my daughter's Christmas stocking filler for 59p gross.

BT had something similar to Hawkeye for one of the AP games at the weekend. I can't remember if it was for a forward pass or offside.

Portnoy, its not so much the wit of man that prevents the adaption of the Hawkeye syem, its more the requirement that it would need about a hundred TV camera on the sideleine (the length of the field) at right angles to the field. And then another hundred cameras running the length of the other side of the field.

In cricket hawkeye is aimed at the one point, the set of stumps. which do not move.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:As this is only ever a matter that can be resolved satisfactorily in TV-broadcast matches, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to adapt the Hawkeye system to track the path of the ball to display the motion of the ball.

More inexplicable for me though is how Amazon can deliver a bracelet from China for my daughter's Christmas stocking filler for 59p gross.

Sigh.

It's not the path of the ball that is important in the decision. It's the angle of the force applied to the ball in the pass. You can't track that like hawk-eye. And just between you and me and the world, hawk-eye is largely a load of Love sacks. I've mentioned this before, happy to have a huge argument and explain exactly why on another thread but let's not do that here.

Laurie,

Or just a stable blimp/drone with a real-time 3D view of the field.  

You could also control the sidelines and actually find out whether the conversion went over the posts - inside or outside the post in question... and zoom in on the ref's bald patch when he receives the correct verdict.

Maybe we could put a little GPS transmitter in the ball and plot whether the ball went backwards by way of global positiioning.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe we could put a little GPS transmitter in the ball and plot whether the ball went backwards by way of global positiioning.

You could also use it to see if the forward velocity of the ball increases or not with a pass (equivalent of the 'momentum' pass).

aucklandlaurie wrote: Portnoy, its not so much the wit of man that prevents the adaption of the Hawkeye syem, its more the requirement that it would need about a hundred TV camera on the sideleine (the length of the field) at right angles to the field. And then another hundred cameras running the length of the other side of the field.

In cricket hawkeye is aimed at the one point, the set of stumps. which do not move.

No. Trigonometry exists as do fast computers. Virtual visual grids overlaid on the pitch are a piece of p!ss so tracking the ball should be relatively easy. As would rotating the virtual image.