What was Wayne Barnes Thinking?

First topic message reminder :

Before I start on this one let me get something out first. This is not a "We were robbed by the ref" post. No sour grapes or blaming the ref.

This is a question about trying to understand WB's thought processes in the 10 seconds or so after the incident which led to Quade Coopers yellow card. This is how I saw it:

Quade Cooper in with an early tackle...... Penalty to Wales....... No signal from WB for advantage and no whistle.

Ball knocked on by Wales.......... Play should be stopped and taken back for the penalty...... Still nothing from WB

George North Picks up the ball......... Play should now definitely be stopped If he didn't see the penalty offense then perhaps he was playing advantage to Australia..... If he hadn't seen the knock on then perhaps he was still playing advantage to Wales even though he didn't signal it.

Everyone on the pitch stops, seemingly waiting for WB to blow up for something, the crowd starts to get restless and eventually George North saunter under the posts. Every player on the pitch has committed the cardinal sin of not playing to the whistle.
Now WB blows up BEFORE GN touches down, and then asks for a video replay which confirms a penalty offense followed by a knock on therefore penalty to Wales.

Now my question is Why did he blow up at that point? if he wasn't sure about the penalty or knock on wouldn.t it have been better to let GN touch down first? If he had seen either then why no signal for advantage or earlier whistle?

Any ideas please.

I'm not the man sausage here mate.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. I used to think "village idiots of rugby" was a euphemism.

now, now, just because you just set a record for how quickly a thread can get locked there's no need to take it out on him...

Swperb wrote:Ok, for fear of evoking the wrath of the forum I shall refrain from referenceing the Australia game on this thread henceforth, as clearly I am a bitter, bitter person.  

But as a hypothetical question, (totally unrelated to game I must not mention) according to the 'hand rule', what would stop a player from turning their back to the opposition and throwing the ball with their hands in a backward motion over the heads of the opposition to a fellow player?

I note your location is at home

Stay there and don't ever leave

I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm not the man sausage here mate.

Talking of science lessons glorious, just figured out you Kiwi types must have been AWOL during biology at school…60 Million sheep, 3 million people….no wonder you are always so prone to getting colds, must be all that al fresco wool fiddling.  

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm not the man sausage here mate.

Perhaps not, but you are acting like one.

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Yes, I understand momentum. But to me, watching a player pass a ball forward just looks wrong. It appears its just something I'm going to have to get used to.

If a ball is passed forward in a stadium, and the ref doesn't see it, does it make a noise?

Casartelli wrote:If a ball is passed forward in a stadium, and the ref doesn't see it, does it make a noise?

Depends where you are and who threw the pass. The noise is either a roaring cheer or boos.

But anyway, lets stop all the talk about sausages. It's making me hungry and my fridge is broken so no food in the house.  

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body. Due to joints and stuff. The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards. Even chimpanzees could do it. If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement. You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you. Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

Wow. You don't get it at all. The hands are attached to the body. Even if the hands move backwards, the ball is moving forwards with the momentum of the entire body.

I can't believe you guys don't know this stuff. It's not even physics, it's basic human experience. Have you never run around with a ball? ever in your life? really?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

Wow. You don't get it at all. The hands are attached to the body. Even if the hands move backwards, the ball is moving forwards with the momentum of the entire body.........

I'm going to need a video clip of that!

EVERY PASS is 'forward' if the passer is moving because the object being passed/kicked, (ball/glorious's head) is in motion and stays in motion. The object will move forward relative to the speed of the passing player, the refereeing of passing refers to the position of both players relative to the ball and motion of the hands.

Casartelli wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

Wow. You don't get it at all. The hands are attached to the body. Even if the hands move backwards, the ball is moving forwards with the momentum of the entire body.........

I'm going to need a video clip of that!  

How some of you guys feed or dress yourselves is beyond me. It truely is.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

Wow. You don't get it at all. The hands are attached to the body. Even if the hands move backwards, the ball is moving forwards with the momentum of the entire body.........

I'm going to need a video clip of that!  

How some of you guys feed or dress yourselves is beyond me. It truely is.

'Truely'?

Honestly and

GloriousEmpire wrote:Honestly and

truely madly deeply?

Savage Garden.  Now there were some genuine SH rugby fans.

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

stop. the "joints and stuff" are what connect the hands to the body. if you sit in a car going 100mph, no matter what you do with your hands (not going to speculate) they will also be going, at any given moment about 100mph, and over any time period longer than that (ie a few moments) they will be going EXACTLY the same speed as your body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

See you in a week.

quinsforever wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

stop. the "joints and stuff" are what connect the hands to the body. if you sit in a car going 100mph, no matter what you do with your hands (not going to speculate) they will also be going, at any given moment about 100mph, and over any time period longer than that (ie a few moments) they will be going EXACTLY the same speed as your body.

And yet a baseball pitcher (I'll use a sports example, rather than a speeding car(???)) can throw a ball at 90mph+, while STANDING STILL.

It's all in the movement of the hands I tell ya!

i don't know what to say.

the movement of your hands has left me speechless.

Casartelli wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

stop. the "joints and stuff" are what connect the hands to the body. if you sit in a car going 100mph, no matter what you do with your hands (not going to speculate) they will also be going, at any given moment about 100mph, and over any time period longer than that (ie a few moments) they will be going EXACTLY the same speed as your body.

And yet a baseball pitcher (I'll use a sports example, rather than a speeding car(???)) can throw a ball at 90mph+, while STANDING STILL.

It's all in the movement of the hands I tell ya!

It's incredible. You write STANDING STILL in captial letters. But still don't get it?

GloriousEmpire wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

See you in a week.

love it.

this is my all time favourite

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

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Swperb wrote:I just don't like the wording of either the original law or the 'hand rule'. If you take either literally you can make silly statements like that. I just think it is not thought through and now allows the ball to move forward when passing.

Basics

Newton's law

An object in motion stays in motion.

The ball is moving in player 1s hands and relative velocity means when he passes it remains moving forward until it is caught by the receiver

Hands move independently of the body.  Due to joints and stuff.  The only thing touching the ball, in most normal passing scenarios, is those hands.

Thus you can pass a ball backwards even if you are running forwards.  Even chimpanzees could do it.  If the hands are moving faster than your other bodyparts, this will counteract any forward movement.  You just have to make sure your hands move faster than the rest of you.  Which isn't difficult.

This 'momentum' garbage is a load of SH guff created to justify breaking a fundamental law of the game.

stop. the "joints and stuff" are what connect the hands to the body. if you sit in a car going 100mph, no matter what you do with your hands (not going to speculate) they will also be going, at any given moment about 100mph, and over any time period longer than that (ie a few moments) they will be going EXACTLY the same speed as your body.

And yet a baseball pitcher (I'll use a sports example, rather than a speeding car(???)) can throw a ball at 90mph+, while STANDING STILL.

It's all in the movement of the hands I tell ya!

It's incredible. You write STANDING STILL in captial letters. But still don't get it?

i'll give it one last try. lets say your baseball pitcher is standing on the back of a really fast tractor doing 90mph, and he drops the ball, not forwards, not backwards, but straight down, and it takes 1 whole second to hit the floor (it's a tall, fast tractor). in that time the ball will have gone forwards 40.23 meters!

funnily enough (but not to those who understand gravity) that is also the distance that his ball would cover if thrown WHILE STANDING if it were in the air for 1 whole second and thrown at 90mph.

If he's on a 'tall fast tractor' travelling at 90mph (which would be quite exciting), but his hand, and thus the ball, travels at 100mph (relative to the ground) backwards, then would the ball travel at a net (backwards) speed of 10mph????

I would pay good money to see tractor rugby.

no, if the ball went backwards at 100mph relative to the ground the ball would have to have been thrown backwards at 190mph. that's some arm.

quinsforever wrote:no, if the ball went backwards at 100mph relative to the ground the ball would have to have been thrown backwards at 190mph. that's some arm.

Really? Show your workings.

last try. on the tractor analogy. yer man gently throws the ball directly backwards, only 5 m (if he had been standing still) in a nice gentle loop that took 1 second for the ball to hit the ground.

in that time the ball would have traveled forwards 35.23metres. but not been thrown forwards.

90+ (x)=-100

therefore (x) = -190

seriously you need to pretend you were just winding us up an concede the field. trying to do you a favour here.

Far away, small, far away, small...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Far away, small, far away, small...

Pull your trousers up Glorious, you'll get frost bite

Some people here don't follow the fundamentals of physics, do they?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Far away, small, far away, small...

Did they broadcast that show in New Zealand too???

This forward pass thing is beyond the intellectual grasp of financial analysts and fake Kiwis. Even t'internet is not providing meaningful answers. The IRB urgently need some physicists on board, get this sorted.

hammer was on here earlier, and i think he actually is a physicist. he agreed with the fake kiwis and financial analysts.

CJ is a doctor so has a pretty good understanding of physics, gravity and vectors.

I'm not a doctor quite yet

quinsforever wrote:hammer was on here earlier, and i think he actually is a physicist. he agreed with the fake kiwis and financial analysts.

CJ is a doctor so has a pretty good understanding of physics, gravity and vectors.

Depends what sort of doctor he is. Anyway, there's no way a ball would have to be thrown at 190mph to make it travel backwards off a big massive suped-up tractor doing 90mph, so you're officially no help on this.

We need some brainy folk to explain forward passes here, pronto.

Given the wind drag, probably not, closer to 145 I reckon.

But to explain simply, if you are running with the ball at x mph, the ball is travelling at x mph before it is even thrown. Throwing it sideways and backwards exerts a sideways movement to it (freely applied as it is not moving in that plane yet), a vertical movement as gravity is no longer resisted, and a backward force. This is the same as driving forwards and then slamming into reverse. However before the ball can possibly travel backward, just like the car, it has to negate all of its forward movement as it is being carried forward at the point of release. This is like a brake of sorts and until the ball has "stopped" in this plane it cannot reverse direction as it has mass. It must decelerate before it can accelerate. This principle is the reason for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. It's why run ups work in jumping and throwing.

Anyway, marginally forward passes have always been allowed. It's only just become a problem, apparently, for some unknown reason...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Given the wind drag, probably not, closer to 145 I reckon.

Are you factoring in the Coriolis effect? If you'd ever actually been to the southern hemisphere you'd know this was key.

If you are trsvelling forward at 90mph, and you throw a ball backwards at 90mph you will effectively have countered the forward motion.

So to ensure backward motion of the ball you only need to throw backwards at a rate of more thn 90mph.

90.0000000001 will already provide a backward motion on the ball.

Although you would need to measure in microns to measure it if it has remained airborn for but a second or two

Flat passes are allowed so an exit velocity of 90mph would be fine

Biltong wrote:If you are trsvelling forward at 90mph, and you throw a ball backwards at 90mph you will effectively have countered the forward motion.

So to ensure backward motion of the ball you only need to throw backwards at a rate of more thn 90mph.

90.0000000001 will already provide a backward motion on the ball.

Although you would need to measure in microns to measure it if it has remained airborn for but a second or two

Thanks Bilt. Any chance you could also ban Quins/Mysti for making Einstein spin in his grave?

 

Casartelli wrote:

Biltong wrote:If you are trsvelling forward at 90mph, and you throw a ball backwards at 90mph you will effectively have countered the forward motion.

So to ensure backward motion of the ball you only need to throw backwards at a rate of more thn 90mph.

90.0000000001 will already provide a backward motion on the ball.

Although you would need to measure in microns to measure it if it has remained airborn for but a second or two

Thanks Bilt.  Any chance you could also ban Quins/Mysti for making Einstein spin in his grave?

 

I think he is doing more than spinning in his grave mate.

I suspect he has already revised his theory on relativity.  

Also shouldn't we be thinking of accelerations/decelerations not speeds? Only the throwing matters and you can't throw the ball at a speed, you project it with an accelerating force

Cas - you said this

"his hand, and thus the ball, travels at 100mph (relative to the ground) backwards"

for the ball and his hand to travel at 100mph relative to the ground his hand and the ball need to be moving at 190mph backwards.

for the ball and his hand to travel at 100mph relative to the CAR moving at 90mph in the other direction, the hand and his ball would be moving at 10mph backwards relative to the ground.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Also shouldn't we be thinking of accelerations/decelerations not speeds? Only the throwing matters and you can't throw the ball at a speed, you project it with an accelerating force

Absolutely.

But if some are struggling with this concept, imagine you bring theoretical physics to this argument?