Refereeing Issues from the England v Ireland game

First topic message reminder :

First of all, I should say I'm an England fan that considers Nigel Owens to be pretty much the best referee in rugby today.

That being said, I had 3 issues with decisions (and processes) in the England v Ireland game on Saturday.

1. Forward Pass - Jonny May's try was ruled out after 'eagle eyed' intervention from the TMO for a Tom Youngs forward pass.

I have an issue with this. Stuart Barnes commended the decision and phrases like 'look at the cut of the grass' were being used on television. The judgement on forward passes has become the least enjoyable part of modern rugby for me. Here's why:

Trying to judge a forward pass on a static camera is very difficult, especially in marginal decisions. The players are moving, the ball is moving and the camera is still and often at an off-perpendicular angle. It's hard to judge. Having done some refereeing myself, it's easier on field because you tend to be moving with play and the relative movement of the ball is easier to judge. I can't say whether Youngs' pass was forward or not, but I don't believe the officials could from the replay either.

Here's what I'd like to see:

a - TMO reviews of forward passes to only be asked for by the referee or assistant. Not initiated by the TMO. All the on field officials (who were looking and moving) thought it was OK.
b - Hawkeye technology to be developed to make the decision - The instant the ball leaves a passer's hand, the ball must be travelling perpendicularly to the opposition's line faster than the passer was moving in the same direction. Seems tailor made for Hawkeye to me. Some things that look forward, won't be (and vice versa)

ADDENDUM - Look at 32.08 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YST2-ig4b6U - May was behind Youngs when pass was thrown AND it appears we was behind him when he caught the ball (looking at the pitch markings). The ball travelled forwards, yes, but I can certainly understand why the on field officials didn't see it (or the commentators, etc).

2. Offside from a knock on - Jonathan Joseph running back towards his own line 'knocks on' and someone in front picks it up - penalty (40.00 on the video)

This is more of a query than a substantive issue.... Of course, if this actually happened, it is correct. From the TV shots it's not clear what did happen, but the fact the Joseph was running back towards his own line makes me doubt the 'knock on' element. I can't say for sure, but was Nigel too quick to look for the offense....? I suppose I'll trust Nigel on this one.

3. Offside at a maul - Wigglesworth's try disallowed - Penalty (1:26:35 on video)

2 issues here:

a - within 2 phases - TMO said it was in protocol of 2 phases. Watch it again - Wood took the ball from the offending maul.... Ruck.... Launchbury took it on... Ruck.... Wigglesworth snipes. Is this really what they mean by 2 phases?

Here's the wording:

"2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls"

Well, it was further back than the 2 previous rucks, so this was wrong as a point of law......

To rub salt in the wound, Owens then awarded a penalty against England for Offside. This has to be the most uncharitable interpretation of the law here. There were no Ireland players involved and the ball was 'passed' forward from Robshaw to Wood. This was a technical infringement more akin to a forward pass, or accidentally offside - Scrum.

Rant over.

The rule, or at least the IRB clarification of it as of 2 years ago, is that the ball can move very forward if the ball's direction on leaving the hands is backward. I'm not sure which is the case for 1), but it looked very forward with no halting of young's momentum to amplify it, so my suspicion is that it is a forward pass

2) harsh but fair

3) Wasn't sure on this - "hand off" passes, as the Americans call them, aren't really accounted for in the rules and as technically there is no air time it is very difficult to tell whether they count as a pass in real terms or a forward pass can possibly apply. Technically, with Robshaw holding the ball, is it in fact a ruck anymore? If so, it's at least accidental offside, if not it's very fluffy and poorly catered for in the rules and probably best seen as a funny type of two man maul with no offside at any point. In balance of probability and judgement, it's probably illegal and would disallow the try, though whether it's "allowed" to be checked is up in the air. Disallowing the try, fair enough IMO though, as once you've seen that it's hard to justify leaving it in unless you are very sure of loopholes in the rules to allow it. Penalty harsh, though, no way it's going to be deliberate as the same effect and result would come from Wood being behind Robshaw at this point

ChequeredJersey wrote:The rule, or at least the IRB clarification of it as of 2 years ago, is that the ball can move very forward if the ball's direction on leaving the hands is backward. I'm not sure which is the case for 1), but it looked very forward with no halting of young's momentum to amplify it, so my suspicion is that it is a forward pass

Any links to that? I don't see that on World Rugby website.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=12

Until I can find the video:

https://m.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1x6d2o/irb_answers_to_the_ffr_about_forward_passes_and/

Key words are "thrown forward" not "goes forward" and a very very basic understanding of Newtonian physics. I'm literally amazed that after the number of times this gets discussed that there's still confusion

The only object that the law refers to, in relation to the travel of the ball, is the deadball line. The law defines what forward is for us. Whatever his state of movement of positioning or direction of hands, the ball either goes towards the deadball line or it doesn't.

It's nice that the IRB produced a video. But it clearly contradicts the law, I find it curious that they subsequently neglected to codify that in the 'Laws of the Game'.

goneagain wrote:The only object that the law refers to, in relation to the travel of the ball, is the deadball line. The law defines what forward is for us. Whatever his state of movement of positioning or direction of hands, the ball either goes towards the deadball line or it doesn't.

It's nice that the IRB produced a video. But it clearly contradicts the law, I find it curious that they subsequently neglected to codify that in the 'Laws of the Game'.

No it doesn't. Forward can refer to the direction of the ball's release not the direction it eventually moves in. It has been referred this way for a long time

wrfc1980 wrote:Was also a bit annying when England hit Ireland on the counter were in their 22 with quick ball and a great chance to score a try when the ref whisltes due to an injury to one of the Irish players. Play was stopped the Irish guy (can't remember who) had some treatment and was OK to carry on. Owens apologised to Robshaw as England were left with a scrum out in rather than the great attacking opportunuty they had seconds before hand. Thought Owens blew up far to quickly.

Thought that Owens called that perfectly myself. Connor Murray was knocked out and not moving. Owens looked at the play, back to Murray and made the correct call in the eyes of player safety. Long may that continue in my books. Connor looked like he wanted to play on but Owens said something like 'He was knocked out and motionless, concussion protocols please' and Murray was removed with Redden coming on for the remainder of the game. Absolutely correct decision.

As for the forward pass, well it was forward but a real shame as that move warranted a try so bit of a shame for May.

TMO intervention annoys me to be honest, there just seems to be a lack of consistency.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

goneagain wrote:The only object that the law refers to, in relation to the travel of the ball, is the deadball line. The law defines what forward is for us. Whatever his state of movement of positioning or direction of hands, the ball either goes towards the deadball line or it doesn't.

It's nice that the IRB produced a video. But it clearly contradicts the law, I find it curious that they subsequently neglected to codify that in the 'Laws of the Game'.

No it doesn't. Forward can refer to the direction of the ball's release not the direction it eventually moves in. It has been referred this way for a long time

When the ball is released it is moving in one direction and does not change that direction. Your Newtonian physics will tell you that it can't change direction without another force acting upon it.
As written in the Law, the frame of reference is defined relative to the deadball line. Not the player. It's the old 'observer on the platform looking at someone throw a ball backwards on a moving train' scenario. The Law tells us we are on the platform, not the train.

I know how the law has been interpreted for a long time, hell I'm a kiwi and the ABs would probably fall foul of a literal application more than most. The point I am trying to make is that the Law is ignored virtually every game.

If it's thrown backwards and wind blows it towards the dead ball line, that would be a forward pass by your interpretation.

Scottrf wrote:If it's thrown backwards and wind blows it towards the dead ball line, that would be a forward pass by your interpretation.

Why? If the ball is not moving towards the deadball line when released by the player, then no problem.

And it's lucky it's not interpreted as the platform frame of reference, or 80% of all passes would be called forward.

The law should state:

If the ball is travelling towards the opponents dead ball line with more speed relative to the ground after release of the ball, a forward pass has taken place.

It should take into account momentum, has to really else almost every pass is forward. Inconsistency reigns supreme though over this law.

spaynter wrote:And it's lucky it's not interpreted as the platform frame of reference, or 80% of all passes would be called forward.

That and following posts are my point. The Law is an ass! Highlighted when an unofficially documented clarification contradicts it.
I don't think it is acceptable that newcomers to the game are expected to trawl the internet for old videos to enable them to interpret (read ignore) the Laws of the game as laid out in official documentation.
Fix the bloody Law.

Doesn't contradict it as such as standing still you throw the ball backwards it goes backwards but while running forward the same pass may not.

The Law makes no comment on whether the player is moving or not. It really is quite clear in what it defines as forward.

Law 12 wrote: ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

The ball either goes towards the deadball line or it doesn't.

12.2 A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.

As I've said a player can throw the ball backwards yet it will travel forwards. There is a difference.

Backwards/forwards are relative terms. Read the whole Law, the definition of forward is laid out. It's relative to the deadball line, nothing else.

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

As I've said a player can throw or pass the ball backwards and the ball can still travel forwards. You need to focus on the throw or pass the ball bit.

But that's not what the Law says.

Yes it is. Throw the ball forward is key. Think about it from a standing position I can throw a pass a metre behind myself to you; fair pass?

Now if we're running forward the momentum of that will mean despite the same pass being thrown (which presumably everyone will say is ok from the first example) the ball may actually travel forward from where the pass was actually made but the pass itself was backwards, as in the example.

It's not the same pass. As soon as the ball leaves the hands it is travelling towards the opposition deadball line. The very definition of forward in the Law.
I completely understand what you are saying, and agree that's how it should be interpreted, but the Law is very clear in it's definitions and field of reference.

Clearly then I agree it does need rewording. A ball can be thrown backwards and travel forward and not be deemed thrown forwards, we both agree that's what the law means which I suppose is why they brought out the clarification. What should the wording be?

goneagain wrote:The Law makes no comment on whether the player is moving or not. It really is quite clear in what it defines as forward.

Law 12 wrote: ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

The ball either goes towards the deadball line or it doesn't.

The issue is that if you applied that strictly then nearly every pass where the passer is moving at speed would be forward passes.

It's very difficult to make the ball actually travel backwards if you are running forward, because when it leaves your hands it has all of your forward momentum, so unless you hurl it backwards faster than you are moving forwards, it will go forwards too. The IRB has a video that illustrates this by having a player throw the ball backwards over his head while running - clearly backwards by any reasonable definition, but the pitch markings in the clip show equally clearly that the ball goes forward relative to the pitch. It's very counter-intuitive, but that's physics for you.

So if we applied the law literally, no-one would ever pass unless they were static. In practice, we fudge it and say "if the player made an attempt to give the ball backward momentum, it's OK, even though it actually goes forward."

The challenge is finding a consistent way of judging that. The current interpretation is "if it looks forward, it is forward." Personally, I think this is an appalling decision. Passes that actually go in the same direction can look very different depending on the angle of view and what happened to the passer after the pass was made. It introduces a ton of subjectivity into assessing forward passes, because the ref has to consider multiple factors which are a) counter-intuitive, b) can look different in different situations even if they are actually the same, and c) are largely subjective. It's a recipe for inconsistency.

The previous interpretation looked at the direction of the hands at the point the ball was passed: were they pointing flat or backwards? If so, it's OK. I much prefer this, because it reduces the issue to one variable, which is the primary determinant of whether the player was trying to pass backwards.

For instance - in most of the angles for the Youngs pass, it looked like he clearly passed it forward. But most of those angles were ones that accentuated the way it looked. The one angle where there was any doubt was the one that looked at his hands and body - and I felt that he was square to the touchline (which would have been enough under the old interpretation) - but the TMO dwelled on the other angles. Interestingly, the side-on angle was the one that both Owens and Poite (who in the past has been very sharp at spotting forward passes) had in real time. The decision made was the right one under the current interpretation, but I think the current interpretation is badly wrong.

The irony is that the current approach looks more consistent but produces less consistent results, whereas the former one produces consistent results but confuses the heck out of people, mainly because commentators haven't been brought on board. The IRB should have invested (or got the unions to invest) a bit of time in coaching the broadcasting teams on why they were using the "look at the hands" interpretation and got them all bought in.

If they'd stuck with that for a season or two, we might have gotten the hang of it. Possibly, as they get used to using hawkeye, they might go back to it - the chances are that hawkeye can calculate the relative speeds of the players and ball which would a) show that nearly all passes are "forward", b) allow for a more accurate analysis of momentum and c) give us all a handy lesson in physics. Rugby - the educational sport.

The "thrown forward" is now interpreted as "hands went forward" because if you are running there is momentum

Try my post at 8.56am for wording?

Biltong wrote:The "thrown forward" is now interpreted as "hands went forward" because if you are running there is momentum

No - they've rowed back from that this year

Even hands going forwards or backwards can be made more complicated if you're not running straight down the pitch. If you're running diagonally, the angle of your hands could be up to 45 degrees forward and ball could still go backwards.

Hawkeye technology for me, or leave it to the on field officials with no TMO.

Hawkeye would surely just give the direction of the ball as it travels?

I’m afraid you’re all wrong – quantum physics (obviously applicable in rugby) states that the ball went both forward and backward, and as described in the sum of histories interpretation actually went in all directions. Which accounts for Tom Youngs difficulty in the LO.

In fact, following the uncertainty principle, the very act of the TMO looking at the passing action meant that he influenced it.

The only righteous recourse in this case was to disallow the try, award an off-side for May catching it, YC Youngs and sack the TMO.

Hawkeye technology tracks motion. It would need to be developed to track the player and path of the ball for, say, 1m after it's left the passer's hands.

It can then find both speeds relative to the dead ball line. If the ball's speed directly toward the dead ball line increases, it's forward.

I knew Tom Youngs was small, Barney......

goneagain wrote:

Scottrf wrote:If it's thrown backwards and wind blows it towards the dead ball line, that would be a forward pass by your interpretation.

Why? If the ball is not moving towards the deadball line when released by the player, then no problem.

There is if the effect of the wind is immediate.

Scottrf wrote:

goneagain wrote:

Scottrf wrote:If it's thrown backwards and wind blows it towards the dead ball line, that would be a forward pass by your interpretation.

Why? If the ball is not moving towards the deadball line when released by the player, then no problem.

There is if the effect of the wind is immediate.

The effect would be cumulative over the course of the ball, but theres no exception for wind (unlike momentum) in the laws / interpreations. Nor is there for subtle variations in the earths magentic field or acts of god.


Automated systems are goign to have many of the same problems as the naked eye all the same. How does it judge the point of release? With manay passes the hands and arms follow through and often give the viewer the impression the throw happened well after it did. Camera angle rarely give a clear picture of when this actually happened.

Hawkeye is expensive and takes time to produce results, especially as there would need to be a significant amount of manual inpout to ensure the correct players are being tracked by their center point mass, the correct release point is used and the center point of the ball is tracked. The current sporting uses of hawkeye and similar tracking use static views and track just one ball, even then they take some manual input and dont produce isntant results.


Lets stop over complicating the sport. Forward passes are a bitch. This one was blantant and shouldve been picked up by an on the field official, boo hoo. That doesnt mean I want to see every pass fed through a comittee of expeterts and computer simulations so they can make a decision some people still disagree with. OK it gives time to make a cup of tea but I have better things to do with my life than sit and wait to see if there was an infringment in a previous life time that requires punishing.

Gooseberry wrote:
Lets stop over complicating the sport. Forward passes are a bitch. This one was blantant and shouldve been picked up by an on the field official, boo hoo. That doesnt mean I want to see every pass fed through a comittee of expeterts and computer simulations so they can make a decision some people still disagree with. OK it gives time to make a cup of tea but I have better things to do with my life than sit and wait to see if there was an infringment in a previous life time that requires punishing.

That's not what this is proposing. Let the on field officials call forward passes. If they miss them, whatever. If they want to check a marginal pass (up to 2 phases before), give them an objective way to do it. Not a bloke looking at off centre static camera shots. Some extant technology wouldn't take any longer than all those replays on Saturday. Everyone signs up to it and no-one can feel hard done by.

The main problem is the 'flat pass'.  Outlaw the flat pass and you'd have less angst on these 'forward pass???' debates....and the ref and TMO would have an easier time too.

Either the ball must go back or we re-invent the rules and allow it to go forward.  But this half-way house of the 'flat pass' is just players looking to be on the absolute border...and we all know the border is always a dicey place to be if you're looking for a legal life with no bandettos stealing your donkeys

Ball must be sent back from the opponent's dead ball line.  That's easier to see and smoother to judge.... and tougher on the players but who cares, let the coaches think themselves through the new tighter rules.

spaynter wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:
Lets stop over complicating the sport. Forward passes are a bitch. This one was blantant and shouldve been picked up by an on the field official, boo hoo. That doesnt mean I want to see every pass fed through a comittee of expeterts and computer simulations so they can make a decision some people still disagree with. OK it gives time to make a cup of tea but I have better things to do with my life than sit and wait to see if there was an infringment in a previous life time that requires punishing.

That's not what this is proposing. Let the on field officials call forward passes. If they miss them, whatever. If they want to check a marginal pass (up to 2 phases before), give them an objective way to do it. Not a bloke looking at off centre static camera shots. Some extant technology wouldn't take any longer than all those replays on Saturday. Everyone signs up to it and no-one can feel hard done by.

My argument is it let it happen and screw the two phases back. Its already been demonstrated that TMOS cant be trusted not to overstep the mark (it happened in the 6 nations to england as well) and decide to go back to 1954.
The arms race for replays and technology doesnt help the endless argumenst about injustice, even with hawkeye hotpsot snickers and geoff boycotts gran theres still a hoo haa over at least one decision in every cricket game. All it does is focus the argument on a narrower and more detailed point of contention and further undermine the on the field officials. Its all a bit spider and fly.
TMOs were supposed to fix all this like a mgic sponge....now here we are a couple of years later arguing they need more money and technology chucking at them? Where does it end?

The exact scenario we were told the rules on TMOS were determined to avoid has occured time and again. Their use has crept and crept and its only led to demands for more. Referees become increasingly unwilling to make a call, and increasingly blamed for getting it wrong when the decision isnt even clear from the technology.

SecretFly wrote:The main problem is the 'flat pass'. Outlaw the flat pass and you'd have less angst on these 'forward pass???' debates....and the ref and TMO would have an easier time too.

Either the ball must go back or we re-invent the rules and allow it to go forward. But this half-way house of the 'flat pass' is just players looking to be on the absolute border...and we all know the border is always a dicey place to be if you're looking for a legal life with no bandettos stealing your donkeys

Ball must be sent back from the opponent's dead ball line. That's easier to see and smoother to judge.... and tougher on the players but who cares, let the coaches think themselves through the new tighter rules.

flat passes....changing the line of legality doesnt change the contention, its still a fine line.
You also seme to be mixing up flat passes (neither backwards nor forwards) with momentum. I can see an argument for getting rid of the momentum interpretation, that way you do have a more objective point to judge form. What it woudl do though is effectively neuter running and passing rugby

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I’m afraid you’re all wrong – quantum physics (obviously applicable in rugby) states that the ball went both forward and backward, and as described in the sum of histories interpretation actually went in all directions. Which accounts for Tom Youngs difficulty in the LO.

In fact, following the uncertainty principle, the very act of the TMO looking at the passing action meant that he influenced it.

England fans can rest assured that under the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics in billions of parallel universes the try was in fact awarded.

?? I'm mixing up nothing.  A player right now can throw a ball laterally (neither backward or forward - on the borderline between back and forward.)  

That gives forum talkers leverage to always question the validity of the throw....'Did he pass it forward or flat?????'  Yeah, we could watch it replayed a million times in HD slow-mo and you'd still have people saying a forward was a flat.
Less chance of someone trying to argue a flat pass was back.  The mind sees forward and back easier than flat, is what I'm saying.  The brain responds quicker to the cues.

But flat is one specific point. A millimeter either side and it's not flat, so it solves no debates or contentions at all. There will always be a borderline, and if you can't see it now, you can't detect a flat pass.

We're back to physics and some people seem to find it easy and some people find it hard.

But better the butter fudge of 'flat' for everyone as it allows teams to bluff and score... bluff and score...particularly at speed.

Scottrf wrote:But flat is one specific point. A millimeter either side and it's not flat, so it solves no debates or contentions at all. There will always be a borderline, and if you can't see it now, you can't detect a flat pass.

It's much easier to see both back and forward than flat. Refs don't micro view micromilimetres, neither do TMOs, they interpret. They interpret much easier on back and forward than flat. Flat allows many more online debates than would exist if a ban on flat happened.

My point is that if you can't tell what passes are forwards or backwards, you can't identify a flat pass. It's a continuum. No pass is truly flat, it will just be forwards or backwards a minute amount.

The player instinctively wants to get an edge...therefore the edge would generally be to test the legality of forward...play to the edge of forward.  
Which is flat.  The edge of forward is flat and that's where most debate rests.  

And given it's an edge the player instinctively wants in a forward momentum game, then that becomes the most contentious area.
If you force them to only throw back by making flat illegal then that still doesn't make the player less inclined to try to get a forward edge.  In the heat of the moment he'll still try to play to the edge of flat and forward.  But now at least those moments of "was it actually forward and not just flat?" will disappear because both would be illegal.  

The person claiming it was a good pass then can't say well it wasn't forward.  What was it then?  Flat?  If you say flat, that was also illegal.

The urge of the player is to put the ball forward towards the opposition try line - that's the instinct.  Not much benefit would accrue from trying to make a flat pass look like it went back.  The involuntary urge is to place the ball forward.

SecretFly wrote:The player instinctively wants to get an edge...therefore the edge would generally be to test the legality of forward...play to the edge of forward.  
Which is flat.  The edge of forward is flat and that's where most debate rests.  

And given it's an edge the player instinctively wants in a forward momentum game, then that becomes the most contentious area.
If you force them to only throw back by making flat illegal then that still doesn't make the player less inclined to try to get a forward edge.  In the heat of the moment he'll still try to play to the edge of flat and forward.  But now at least those moments of "was it actually forward and not just flat?" will disappear because both would be illegal.  

The person claiming it was a good pass then can't say well it wasn't forward.  What was it then?  Flat?  If you say flat, that was also illegal.

The urge of the player is to put the ball forward towards the opposition try line - that's the instinct.  Not much benefit would accrue from trying to make a flat pass look like it went back.  The involuntary urge is to place the ball forward.

This would lead to more forward passes and less open play. I don't think that's the way to go.