For Ruck's Sake

Let's revisit this, because having just watched parts of the weekends entertainment, my frustration with what is being allowed to go on continues to escalate.

1. How to form a ruck:

"(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed."

Note: a ruck is not formed by players diving on top of a tackled player.

2. How to join a ruck:

"
(a)
All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
"

Note: players cannot dive on top of a tackled player. Or leap onto the ground on the opposition side of the ruck.

3. How to join a ruck part 2:

"(b)
A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck."

Note: players cannot dive headlong onto a tackled player or fall into the space between the ruck and the opposition half back.

4. How to behave in a ruck:

"(d)
All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet."

Note: players may not go down on one knee and then grapple at the ball, or lean over the ruck, support their weight weight with their hands or otherwise be off their feet shielding or grappling for the ball.

5. Other penalisable offenses:

"Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(c)
Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(e)
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f)
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick"

Fairly clear.

Now let's examine what is happening during rucks:

A player is tackled. Attacking players are burrowing lead long individually through the ruck area, not bound to anyone and with their heads often lower then their hips. These players are then grabbing hold of approaching defensive players and wrestling with them. They will then often topple on top of the ruck, or into the space between the ruck and the opposition half back. They are making no attempt to roll away and often kicking at the ball with their legs or slapping at the ball as it is cleared whilst still offside or on the ground. Further unbound players (and Robshaw is my prime offender here) are standing unbound behind or over the ruck, and reaching around with one foot and kicking at the ball on the opposition side of the ruck. Players continue to arrive at the ruck from the side and launch themselves with one shoulder into opposition players also lying on top of the ruck. The ball is often handled by several attacking players all lying on the ground before it finally finds it's way to the back of the ruck.

None of this is legal. It's getting worse. Referees are allowing it to occur at every single breakdown. Two years ago super rugby had a big crack down on ruck behaviour where pretty much every offence was penalised by short arm free kicks (under ELVs) when the ELVs were watered down, these be game full arm penalties (mostly) and we had a brief penalty festival before all the constituent team managed to figure out that they needed to STAY ON THEIR FEET, BIND CORRECTLY, ROLL AWAY, NOT HANDLE THE BALL (unless they were the tackler, or on their feet and had their hands on the ball before the ruck was formed).

My particular pet peeve is this seemingly new law (not written down anywhere) where a defensive player/tackler gets his hands on the ball which fails to be released by the tackled player. Whilst he his wrestling for it one or more attacking players blow through the ruck (unbound, often going off their feet) at which point the defender is knocked over and then penalised for "not surviving the clean out". This ruling is just fantasy invention of certain referees which seems to be gaining popularity (Joubert, Owens) and it really gets on my wicket.

The ruck laws are clearly written, the intent is obvious. I agree reality is a complex situation but to continue to ignore these laws is to turn the game into a completely different sport.

The IRB need to sort this out, and NOW.

And before I get the three favourite response "the ABs/McCaw are the worst offenders" or "any ruck could be penalised either way" or "teams need to adapt to the referees interpretation" let's agree those are different discussions. This is a nation agnostic plea for referees to return to the clean, legal rucking that accelerated super rugby and turned rugby back into a rugby contest and not a mass pile up of bodies slowing ebbing up and down the pitch, punctuated by occasional inexplicable penalties.

You would've loved it if bod had been penalised for not surviving the clean out though

It's a good post GE. Despite the usual moths to the flame, the ruck is indeed a complex problem and clearly some rules are overlooked. The scrum and the breakdown continue to be the main points of contention and the ruck is a more significant problem because it occurs throughout the game.

In NZ we had the campaign Bring Back Buck. It should be reignited under the slight tweak Bring Back Ruck. A solution the IRB do not want to entertain much like their politically correct views on scrumming.

GE,

It would be worth having a good read through this

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17344-What-happened-to-the-rules

Youll probably blow your lid mind but it does go into some discussion on the subject of elite reffing vs low level "by the laws" reffing and how and why interpretation is made.

I can see where you are coming from and agree to an extent.
However, do we then apply the letter of the Law at all times?
The forward throw rule for example - it simply states that if the ball is moving toward the opponent's try line it is a forward pass, it takes no account of momentum as is usually reffed.

I agree with GE. (Help me please). I think refs could blow at almost every ruck/breakdown. They don't because of fear of recriminations. If its true that they could see a genuine fault at every ruck it means that at least one person is breaking the law every time. So why do refs choose to ignore them on some occasions and not others? A very bad situation meaning refs can influence the outcome at will. The irb are at fault for not addressing the real and worsening problem.

nobbled wrote:I can see where you are coming from and agree to an extent.
However, do we then apply the letter of the Law at all times?
The forward throw rule for example - it simply states that if the ball is moving toward the opponent's try line it is a forward pass, it takes no account of momentum as is usually reffed.

No it doesn't. It says "thrown forward", not "moving forward". Re-read the laws.

englandglory4ever wrote:I agree with GE. (Help me please). I think refs could blow at almost every ruck/breakdown. They don't because of fear of recriminations. If its true that they could see a genuine fault at every ruck it means that at least one person is breaking the law every time. So why do refs choose to ignore them on some occasions and not others? A very bad situation meaning refs can influence the outcome at will. The irb are at fault for not addressing the real and worsening problem.

Yep, spot on.

NZ seem to benefit from this more often than not.

Hey Notch. Where have I 'attacked' anybody?

I'll send you a PM.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

nobbled wrote:I can see where you are coming from and agree to an extent.
However, do we then apply the letter of the Law at all times?
The forward throw rule for example - it simply states that if the ball is moving toward the opponent's try line it is a forward pass, it takes no account of momentum as is usually reffed.

No it doesn't. It says "thrown forward", not "moving forward". Re-read the laws.

Quite. This is the problem with literalists, they decide what they want to read then justify their opinions with it.

Justify their opinions using logic and facts? Jesus, the villains!

Does the mere mention of NZ in this context constitute impropriety or an attack? It just shows how defensive some are about NZ and their behavior at the ruck.
The fact is that in McCaw NZ have exposed and 'interpreted' the laws of the ruck more 'successfully' than any other nation.

No I don't buy that (and please actually read the OP - where I've already said let's stay clear of the "it's all Richie McCaw's fault" or "NZ cheat" childish nonsense).

McCaw infrequently actually offends. He pushes the boundary early and finds the referees interpretation. But this is not what I'm talking about.

There would be no need for this approach from fetchers if referees actually called the ruck according to the laws.

It's the alleged "clean out" I'm talking about here. Guys piling into the ruck from all angles, off their feet and then disrupting the ball. Where did the "clean out" come from? Because it's not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game.

Super rugby has been accused of degrading the ruck into "jog up and lean" because of the strict application of the "you must stay on your feet" part of the laws.

Personally I believe the law should be implemented as it's written "you must ENDEAVOUR to stay on your feet" along with a host of stipulations about angles and positions of entry and binding. It's also notable that it's illegal to collapse a ruck, in exactly the way it's illegal to collapse a maul.

Strict and harsh treatment of those who are currently swamping the breakdown area with large numbers of players using incorrect angles of entry and body positions during this mythic "clean out" are not endeavouring to stay on their feet and arguably collapsing the ruck. They are also not correctly bound.

If referees pinged this relentlessly we'd get quicker ball, faster game, more entertainment, less frustration.

The other element is the "covering the ball" we see - and this is where fetchers are to blame. Again is super rugby it in illegal to bridge the ball and then take backwards to collect the ball. A fetcher must support his weight with his feet and place the hands directly ON the ball - first time - if he misses, even accidentally and bridges then he is penalised for sealing off.

I'm not seeing any referees blowing up for bridging or sealing by fetchers at all in the AI or 6 nations.

I actually terrifyingly agree with GE.

Go back and watch the ScotlandvEngland game. Yes the pitch was terrible but every single ruck a Scotsman would be laying on the English side grappling with the players on the floor. For some reason the ref decided to let this go up until the final quarter of the game, where by suddenly it was a yellow card offense.

I think a lot of it comes down to the nationality of the ref and the leagues they ref.

A good example Yappy.

For another, when was the last time you saw a short arm free kick awarded because a player had deliberately allowed his head or shoulders to drop below his hips in a ruck?

Didn't George Smith make an entire career out doing just that? Limpet over the ball with his head at ground level and his behind sticking up in the air? Often praised by commentators as a "great position" (no innuendo intended).

GloriousEmpire wrote:A good example Yappy.

For another, when was the last time you saw a short arm free kick awarded because a player had deliberately allowed his head or shoulders to drop below his hips in a ruck?

Didn't George Smith make an entire career out doing just that? Limpet over the ball with his head at ground level and his behind sticking up in the air? Often praised by commentators as a "great position" (no innuendo intended).

Since the weekend Peter O'Mahoney has been much praised on other forums for clamping himself onto the ball, often pulling it towards to tackled player in order to then claim a penalty.

Yep Steffon Armitage has made a career out of this too. His body shape is almost impossible to move when in that position as well.

It's ironic because I remember a couple of seasons back Leicester Tigers decided to ruck exactly as a pack to the letter of the law during part of the season and in the 3 or 4 games I watched (in Europe and in the Prem) they absolutely annihilated the opposition who were attacking the breakdown in 1's or 2's and on their hands and knees. I don't think they've ever qot such quick ball. Then they got rid of their breakdown coach and it's gone to pot.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

nobbled wrote:I can see where you are coming from and agree to an extent.
However, do we then apply the letter of the Law at all times?
The forward throw rule for example - it simply states that if the ball is moving toward the opponent's try line it is a forward pass, it takes no account of momentum as is usually reffed.

No it doesn't. It says "thrown forward", not "moving forward". Re-read the laws.

If a ball moves forward after being passed or thrown then it must have been thrown forward. you play with semantics at the expense of the spirit of the laws.

When I see guys go into that position I'm always amazed someone doesn't break their back - the law is there to prevent injury and it seems astonishing that nobody has had a serious spinal injury or lascerated a kidney getting a should into the curved back.

englandglory4ever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

nobbled wrote:I can see where you are coming from and agree to an extent.
However, do we then apply the letter of the Law at all times?
The forward throw rule for example - it simply states that if the ball is moving toward the opponent's try line it is a forward pass, it takes no account of momentum as is usually reffed.

No it doesn't. It says "thrown forward", not "moving forward". Re-read the laws.

If a ball moves forward after being passed or thrown then it must have been thrown forward. you play with semantics at the expense of the spirit of the laws.  

Oh let's not go there again. You seem to be one of the last people who are struggling with this. Maybe dredge up one of the previous threads if you're still not convinced. Im done trying to explain physics 101 to people who want to insist that the earth is flat, momentum doesn't exist, the earth is the centre if the universe, heavy things fall faster or light things float on water.

Also "semantics" means "the meaning of" so with respect to laws, semantics are
Vital and not an insignificant detail.

But you like to stretch the meaning of the written word in the law book to support your flawed understanding of the same. Come on thrown forward v moves forward is a case in point.

Would just mean the majority of running tries would be ruled out if momentum was ignored. Think the 2 French passes in their 3rd try probably sent forward but were thrown backwards. I agree with GE. About the rule and the several threads which went before.

Would mean pretty much any pass made at pace would be illegal. Even if you throw it over your head directly behind you, if you're running at any speed, it travels towards the opposition goal line. I'm with GE on this. Pretty sure the IRB's ruled on it anyway.

There was some tests done a while back where they showed a player having to angle his throw back 30 degrees when running flat out to avoid the ball travelling forward.
The intent and meaning of the written law in that case is clearly understood at the elite level : the action of the throw has to be not forwards, not the direction in which momentum carries the ball.
The IRB has a video explaining it. The law may not be clearly and explicitly worded, that doesnt mean it doesnt have an understanding thats clearly understood, agreed, and well communicated at the elite level.

There is a "cone of momentum" created by ignoring the effect of momentum, which narrows behind a player as he increases his pace. Discounting momentum when ruling forward passes would see the game become very narrow and static, very easy to defend. It's a nonsense idea and I think 99.9% of people agree that the IRB and referees have it right. It's bizarre that the 0.1% that don't get it seem to include SOOO many commentators.

But this isn't the topic of this thread. This is about the insanity being allowed to ensue at breakdowns.

Ruckin Heck:
A recent article in the New Zealand Dominion Post reported that a woman, Anne Maynard, has sued Wellington Hospital, saying that after her husband had surgery there, he lost all interest in sex.
A hospital spokesman replied:
"Mr. Maynard was admitted for cataract surgery. All we did was correct his eyesight."

Thrown forward, passed forward, or any other forward all rely on one very important thing. Ie, forward of what? There must be a reference point. We all know that when a body is moving there will be an element of that body's momentum imparted on the object thrown. If the irb are allowing passes to go forward of the passer's position at the time of the pass then they have in effect changed the spirit of the law.

Anyway, back to the op once again the irb and others in position of power over how rugby is played have got it completely wrong. They let any law be disregarded when it suits them. Includes forward passes, squint feeds to scrums, etc.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The other element is the "covering the ball" we see - and this is where fetchers are to blame. Again is super rugby it is illegal to bridge the ball and then take backwards to collect the ball. A fetcher must support his weight with his feet and place the hands directly ON the ball - first time - if he misses, even accidentally and bridges then he is penalised for sealing off.

I'm not seeing any referees blowing up for bridging or sealing by fetchers at all in the AI or 6 nations.

I might be wrong on this but I think Walsh penalised Warburton for this in the Wales v England game last season (and possibly a couple of others). Warburton got quite a long explanation from Walsh, as I recall, and still didn't seem to have a clue what he had done wrong, which was fair enough as he had probably never been penalised for it before.

englandglory4ever wrote:Thrown forward, passed forward, or any other forward all rely on one very important thing. Ie, forward of what? There must be a reference point. We all know that when a body is moving there will be an element of that body's momentum imparted on the object thrown. If the irb are allowing passes to go forward of the passer's position at the time of the pass then they have in effect changed the spirit of the law.

Anyway, back to the op once again the irb and others in position of power over how rugby is played have got it completely wrong. They let any law be disregarded when it suits them. Includes forward passes, squint feeds to scrums, etc.

Not if he passed it backward whilst running forward. The ball will always travel forward from the position he was in when he threw it, especially if the pass is flat.

More relevant to the ruck debate the "secret laws" guidance currently states that the saddle roll is legal, despite it being wrestling in the ruck.
Like a few other things part of the decision is based on trying to cut down on dangerous play and encourage clearing the ruck area by means other than charging in with the shoulder. Same logic for not allowing "shoeing" anymore which became legalised stamping. Relatively safe alternatives give the opportunity to compete for the ball still.

One of the biggest problems for refs and players in all this is deciding when a ruck is formed/ended. Theres a lot of things that are legal if the "ball is out" or "thats not a ruck" but not when it is a ruck.

In general when issuing penalties refs should always be sure they saw the whole action, be sure who the player concerned was, be sure the offence had a material effect on the game. They are always going to miss a hell of a lot, but then how often can we even agree when watching back endless replays? One great phrase I heard a while back when advising on this was "we are hunting whales not minnows" .. worry about the big fat blatant stuff first then go crazy trying to catch all the little technical stuff later. I guess theres always a concern with refs that they will try and prove how smart they are by catching players out with intimate knowledge of the laws and borderline slips. Its that stuff that really pees people off and make the game unplayable. All officiating should remember its primary concern is safety followed by making the game flow followed by being a dick for the sake of it.

Nah I don't buy that. The fact is that there is so much chaos, so many "minnows" as well as "whales" because the laws are just not applied. Players try it and get away with it and then continue to do so. Ping hard and early and the minnows will dissipate.

The "material effect" is also wrong in my view. Take the NZ v England game recently when Joubert took it upon himself to implement a new set of laws at the ruck which stated "if the defending team do not inject as many players as the attacking team, then ruck laws do not apply to the attacking team". Which is just making an absolute mockery. Point is, NZ didn't bother to commit players because achieving a turn over was so unlikely given all the English players diving in and sealing off that they would've been wasting their time.

The game can't be "allowed to flow" by ignoring the laws, it should be encouraged to flow by applying them. If teams persist then they should receive yellow cards.

At the moment referees are saying "there's a lot if them in there, they'll probably win the ball - let's ignore the 12 offences and move on"

Argentina tried that three years ago and got away with it for a couple of games and were then severely treated in a backlash.

This is an excellent post. The thing that annoys me is the number of people charging into rucks without properly binding, and England certainly do this too. It should be very obvious when a ruck is formed and when it ends but this is also variably refereed

Thanks CJ.

I recall Australia questioning NZ's "clean out" many moons ago, they were rebuffed and told it was legal, but I'm trying to marry up the process with a law that doesn't put all of the clean-ees off-side.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Thrown forward, passed forward, or any other forward all rely on one very important thing. Ie, forward of what? There must be a reference point. We all know that when a body is moving there will be an element of that body's momentum imparted on the object thrown. If the irb are allowing passes to go forward of the passer's position at the time of the pass then they have in effect changed the spirit of the law.

Anyway, back to the op once again the irb and others in position of power over how rugby is played have got it completely wrong. They let any law be disregarded when it suits them. Includes forward passes, squint feeds to scrums, etc.

Not if he passed it backward whilst running forward. The ball will always travel forward from the position he was in when he threw it, especially if the pass is flat.

You are joking aren't you?

englandglory4ever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Thrown forward, passed forward, or any other forward all rely on one very important thing. Ie, forward of what? There must be a reference point. We all know that when a body is moving there will be an element of that body's momentum imparted on the object thrown. If the irb are allowing passes to go forward of the passer's position at the time of the pass then they have in effect changed the spirit of the law.

Anyway, back to the op once again the irb and others in position of power over how rugby is played have got it completely wrong. They let any law be disregarded when it suits them. Includes forward passes, squint feeds to scrums, etc.

Not if he passed it backward whilst running forward. The ball will always travel forward from the position he was in when he threw it, especially if the pass is flat.

You are joking aren't you?

Why would he be joking? This is how it's being refereed and is fair enough; throwing the ball backwards to a player who is behind you when you throw the pass is perfectly within the spirit of the law.

not this flaming debate again

a ball passed flat will move forward if the passer is moving

a ball passed flat will move flat if the passer is stationary

a ball passed back will move forward if the passer is moving

a ball passed back will move back if the passer is a dwarf

englandglory4ever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Thrown forward, passed forward, or any other forward all rely on one very important thing. Ie, forward of what? There must be a reference point. We all know that when a body is moving there will be an element of that body's momentum imparted on the object thrown. If the irb are allowing passes to go forward of the passer's position at the time of the pass then they have in effect changed the spirit of the law.

Anyway, back to the op once again the irb and others in position of power over how rugby is played have got it completely wrong. They let any law be disregarded when it suits them. Includes forward passes, squint feeds to scrums, etc.

Not if he passed it backward whilst running forward. The ball will always travel forward from the position he was in when he threw it, especially if the pass is flat.

You are joking aren't you?

Nope, GE is absolutely right

Nope he's not. The ball will NOT always travel forward of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. However, one of the vectors affecting its actual path will be the same direction that the passer is traveling. But it won't necessarily go forward of the passer. GE likes some laws that are overlooked by refs but not others. Maybe because NZ love a forward pass.

No. The wording of the law talks about the direction the ball is thrown not where it is passed and actually travels. Most passes thrown backward by a player moving at pace will travel incrementally forward. We did the maths and if you were running, in order for the ball to go backward you would have to pass it backward with an incredible force

englandglory4ever wrote:Nope he's not. The ball will NOT always travel forward of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. However, one of the vectors affecting its actual path will be the same direction that the passer is traveling. But it won't necessarily go forward of the passer. GE likes some laws that are overlooked by refs but not others. Maybe because NZ love a forward pass.

Even if it does go forward, that is not a forward pass. Momentum of passer is passed to ball so ball will go forward. Simple physics.

englandglory4ever wrote:Nope he's not. The ball will NOT always travel forward of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. However, one of the vectors affecting its actual path will be the same direction that the passer is traveling. But it won't necessarily go forward of the passer. GE likes some laws that are overlooked by refs but not others. Maybe because NZ love a forward pass.

Dude, can you not see that you are the last member of the flat earth society on this?

anyway. McCaw is still a #$%^&.

He's actually a model gentleman

You arent colonial you are a colonial. Theres a difference.

Anyway back to the topic. My main memory of your beloved ELVs was teams realising that if the defending team was going to be penalised for merely being too close to a ruck then it s made sense to adopt world war 1 tactics: walk slowly toward the enemy hoping to either gain an inch of ground or have them penalised. Have the scrum have spend two minutes organising his "pods" of pals and then repeat.
What we ended a period of endless yellow cards and no turnovers or teams refusing to commit anyone to the ruck at all ...and no turnovers unless the tackled player was utterly isolated.
Inbetween that was bouts of aerial ping pong bought on by teams not able to kick to touch anymore.
They were a disaster.

Now I know youd argue that this was the NH ruining things by
A : using tactics
B : the refusal to adopt the short arm penalty which wouldve made the committing of "minor" penalties a risk worth taking.

Im not sure Im as down on the current trend toward committing players to the ruck as you are GE. And before you blame the English for it they started copying SA after taking a battering. It does mean that theres a competition for the ball, and when it does come out theres space.
I really dont like rugby league. Ive tried watching it many times and I just cant get into it. Maybe Im a racist but I dont want to see Union go down a route of every tackle being followed by a break in play and reset (through a free kick).
But Ill grant you that the short arm penalties thing should be looked at again to encourage referees to use their powers more.
That said I still hold by the principle that referees should be there to enable the game, not just to look for opportunities to use their whistle. Theres a big difference to "deciding how the game should be played" and "inventing rules" and using powers with discretion following directions. Im sure there are some instances where they have crossed into the former (most notably steve walsh and his "I dont care I want them to win" rule)

I don't care how many players a team commits to the breakdown PSW, I also don't have a problem with the laws.

What I do have a problem with is referees ignoring the laws allowing bridging, sealing off, the ubiquitous return of the squeeze ball, handling the ball on the ground, unbound "clean outs" and the increasing occurrence of the flying wedge to break the gain line.

All of these things are illegal, clearly so, and should either be policed appropriately, or the IRB should have the professionalism to rewrite the law book to represent what they believe should be legal.

At the moment the tackled player is being allowed To hold on to the ball until his mates arrive and leap into a heap around him in, it's absurd.

Colonial commoner or Colonial is maybe a term you use, PSW, but it is not one I associate myself with.

The difference you state between inventing rules and deciding how the game should be played is not at issue here. GE is right to point out that there are rules which are clearly not being followed so maybe it is the time either to change those rules to make life easier for the refs or make sure they enforce the current ones.

The laws exist but will always be open to interpretation, the elite referees follow the guidance on their implementation form the IRB. Those are the rules, which arent entirely public.
Enforcing the laws without any guidance would lead to an even messier game than is there at the moment, which is where the guidance comes from. Momentum passes being a good example.
This isnt so much refs making up their own rules as being guided as to what is and isnt acceptable and how the laws should be understood.
We have seen some examples of the guidance pushing back toward the laws, like refs being instructed to start enforcing straight feeds again. There was a push back toward being stricter on release of both players and ball a couple of years ago, thats slipped back.
I do agree theres many cases where they need to keep the pressure up to enforce more strictly.

Oh god help. YES the ball will travel forward depending upon the pace and direction of travel of the passer. We all know that. Jeez!

But what is important in rugby is does the ball travel forward of the position of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. By forward of the passer I mean forward of the passer's position towards the opposition try line. It's this last bit that GE doesn't like because if he agreed with it then half the tries given to Nz would have been disallowed. As I said Nz love a forward pass.