Forward pass or momentum...becoming a farce.

As per the title. The argument over momentum taking the ball forward rather than a forward pass is now becoming a complete farce.

In the Munster/Scarlets game, Munster’s last try was given after the TMO discussed the final pass which was clearly forward. Sky commentator, then mentioned the pass was good because of momentum taking the ball forward, etc, and then you heard the TMO and referee, making the same point and awarding the try.

I totally appreciate this can happen, but you don’t have to be Einstein or have a Master Degree in Physics to know this cannot be the case if the player passing is STATIONARY at the time he makes the pass. Hence the pass has to be forward.

If you are going to check this with the TMO, and lucky they did, as the pass didn’t look forward at normal pace during play, it was only obvious forward, in the replay, when you could see the grass lines (ie shades on the grass). But during the replay you can see the pass as forward and player making the pass is stationary.

By the way, Munster deserve the win, but if they had got the BP try that would have been really wrong.

Didn’t see it, but I’m all for the ‘hands facing backward but ball still travelled forward = fine” ruling as we wouldn’t have much of a game otherwise. The ball always travels forward in some way when passed by a person running forwards. Loads of videos on YouTube showing the science behind it.

But you’re right, if the passer is stationary and the ball travelled forward then it has to be a forward pass as there’s no forward momentum at play, so that forward momentum must have come from the hands = forward pass!

The Oracle wrote:Didn’t see it, but I’m all for the ‘hands facing backward but ball still travelled forward = fine” ruling as we wouldn’t have much of a game otherwise. The ball always travels forward in some way when passed by a person running forwards. Loads of videos on YouTube showing the science behind it.

But you’re right, if the passer is stationary and the ball travelled forward then it has to be a forward pass as there’s no forward momentum at play, so that forward momentum must have come from the hands = forward pass!

What if it's windy?

Totally agree Oracle. Munster deserved the win, but that try could have lead to a BP, and with chase for the play offs would have been so wrong.

The TMO examined it.  The same TMO who examined the earlier try which he judged to be double movement.  Sky guys didn’t agree with that one.

On S4C the English language commentators - Nick Webb and Sean Holley - took care to remind us that John Lacey was Irish in case anyone disagreed with his rulings in the Ospreys v Leinster match -  but then added that he was ex-Munster so he was unlikely to do a Leinster any favours.  The TMO in the match was also queried for a Leinster try just before half-time and the commentator said meaningfully “of course the TMO is Simon McDowell from BELFAST  - another professional referee himself”.

I thought I was listening to 606v2....

Totally agreed, that Munster try shouldn't have been awarded (though i would have given the 'double movement' one earlier on..) as the pass was at least a meter and a half forward coming from a stationary player.

There are so many grey areas in modern rugby that i think this is pretty straightforward, it was a shocking decision.

VinceWLB wrote:Totally agreed, that Munster try shouldn't have been awarded (though i would have given the 'double movement' one earlier on..) as the pass was at least a meter and a half forward coming from a stationary player.

There are so many grey areas in modern rugby that i think this is pretty straightforward, it was a shocking decision.

So two shocking decisions then?

I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the science of it and the laws, rather than the nationality of the refs, Pot. Nice try though. Save that stuff for the other thread.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Didn’t see it, but I’m all for the ‘hands facing backward but ball still travelled forward = fine” ruling as we wouldn’t have much of a game otherwise. The ball always travels forward in some way when passed by a person running forwards. Loads of videos on YouTube showing the science behind it.

But you’re right, if the passer is stationary and the ball travelled forward then it has to be a forward pass as there’s no forward momentum at play, so that forward momentum must have come from the hands = forward pass!

What if it's windy?

If we need to make an allowance or exception for wind then every single forward pass could be argued to be down to wind and we’ll let everything go. Cue scrum halves being replaced with quarterbacks. No thanks.

Edit: actually if the wind takes it then it’s forward I think. Same as with windy lineouts that are given as squint throws.

The Oracle wrote:I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the science of it and the laws, rather than the nationality of the refs, Pot. Nice try though. Save that stuff for the other thread.

I wasn’t referring to the nationality. Vince said he would have awarded the double movement non-try but said the forward pass one awarded was a shocking decision. Hence my question - two shocking decisions by the same TMO?

Pot Hale wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the science of it and the laws, rather than the nationality of the refs, Pot. Nice try though. Save that stuff for the other thread.

I wasn’t referring to the nationality.  Vince said he would have awarded the double movement non-try but said the forward pass one awarded was a shocking decision.  Hence my question - two shocking decisions by the same TMO?

Why throw in the stuff about S4C then? A little off topic wasn’t it? There’s enough negativity on the other thread from a couple of Welsh posters. Why fuel it more?!

Pot Hale wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the science of it and the laws, rather than the nationality of the refs, Pot. Nice try though. Save that stuff for the other thread.

I wasn’t referring to the nationality.  Vince said he would have awarded the double movement non-try but said the forward pass one awarded was a shocking decision.  Hence my question - two shocking decisions by the same TMO?

I think the double movement rule is slightly open to interpretation and this was 50/50.. Now the forward pass was clear cut.

The Oracle wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the science of it and the laws, rather than the nationality of the refs, Pot. Nice try though. Save that stuff for the other thread.

I wasn’t referring to the nationality.  Vince said he would have awarded the double movement non-try but said the forward pass one awarded was a shocking decision.  Hence my question - two shocking decisions by the same TMO?

Why throw in the stuff about S4C then? A little off topic wasn’t it? There’s enough negativity on the other thread from a couple of Welsh posters. Why fuel it more?!

What other thread, Oracle?

Never mind game over.

Pot Hale wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the science of it and the laws, rather than the nationality of the refs, Pot. Nice try though. Save that stuff for the other thread.

I wasn’t referring to the nationality.  Vince said he would have awarded the double movement non-try but said the forward pass one awarded was a shocking decision.  Hence my question - two shocking decisions by the same TMO?

Why throw in the stuff about S4C then? A little off topic wasn’t it? There’s enough negativity on the other thread from a couple of Welsh posters. Why fuel it more?!

What other thread, Oracle?

Never mind game over.  

The one(s) where some Welsh posters claim there is an Irish ref conspiracy. That’s the place for ref nationality chat. Or rather, where it’s being discussed. This one seems to be more about forward passes, direction of the hands, physics and laws.

Stop complaining, the TMOs do a great job and never get it wrong.

Not sure if any of you follow American Football. Their biggest TMO/Video Review problem they have is defining what is a caught football. Sounds bizarre, right? But how many steps after a ball is 'caught' before the ball is dislodged is a major debate and, even more bizarre, some games have turned on these decisions. Odd because sometimes whether a catch or not clearly and easily passes or fails the 'eye' test.

So, to me, we see passes clearly forward or not based on the 'eye' test, yet there seems to be bureaucratic definitions just as in the NFL which defy logic. I wonder how much of this is simply a fear to be embarrassed after TMO review. Then they get it wrong - sometimes. It seems so simple if a ball goes forwad from the passer it is forward, no? How does it become a federal case?

The onus is on the player to pass the ball not physics, if the player lets the ball go forward during the pass then it is an illegal pass.

If a player passes the ball and it bounces, and bounces forwards it is considered a knock on, despite the laws of physics and momentum

maestegmafia wrote:The onus is on the player to pass the ball not physics, if the player lets the ball go forward during the pass then it is an illegal pass.

If a player passes the ball and it bounces, and bounces forwards it is considered a knock on, despite the laws of physics and momentum

Seems like it should be simple, right?

maestegmafia wrote:If a player passes the ball and it bounces, and bounces forwards it is considered a knock on, despite the laws of physics and momentum

Only if it hits the ground in front of where he passed it from. If he passes it backwards (or flat) it hits the ground and then bounces forward - even a long way - it is not deemed a forward pass. The pass is deemed complete when it comes into contact with another player or the ground. What happens after that point has no bearing on the pass.

Of course in the passage of play for Gareth Edwards try for Barbarians against NZ in 73 there are probably two passes that actually go forward after Phil Bennett starts the move (pass to John Dawes and then Papa Quinnell's pass to Edwards). Both are caught in front of where the passer released the ball.

No9 wrote:As per the title. The argument over momentum taking the ball forward rather than a forward pass is now becoming a complete farce.

In the Munster/Scarlets game, Munster’s last try was given after the TMO discussed the final pass which was clearly forward. Sky commentator, then mentioned the pass was good because of momentum taking the ball forward, etc, and then you heard the TMO and referee, making the same point and awarding the try.

I totally appreciate this can happen, but you don’t have to be Einstein or have a Master Degree in Physics to know this cannot be the case if the player passing is STATIONARY at the time he makes the pass. Hence the pass has to be forward.

If you are going to check this with the TMO, and lucky they did, as the pass didn’t look forward at normal pace during play, it was only obvious forward, in the replay, when you could see the grass lines (ie shades on the grass). But during the replay you can see the pass as forward and player making the pass is stationary.

By the way, Munster deserve the win, but if they had got the BP try that would have been really wrong.

I like how you have stated it was clearly forward when it's not the case and even if the ball moves forward it doesn't constitute a forward pass as the hands actually clearly went backwards

Having finally watched it, I cannot see how anyone can state with certainty that the hands clearly went backwards. For me a man who is standing still throws a ball that is close to flat but is always going forward.

LondonTiger wrote:Having finally watched it, I cannot see how anyone can state with certainty that the hands clearly went backwards. For me a man who is standing still throws a ball that is close to flat but is always going forward.

So a hand that is in front of him and ends up behind him isn't his hands going backwards? Im confuzziled

Depends what direction your body is facing.

I will accept it is possible that the interpretations of the law may deem that specific pass as backwards (with reservations though). If they do however it is a case of the law being an ass. The man is stationary and the ball travels in a direction that is towards the Scarlets line immediately on leaving the hand. It should by all common sense practicalities be a forward pass.


PS the hands facing backwards argument refs use is potentially garbage anyway. It is quite easy, by rolling the hands over or under the ball, make it go forwards even if the arms and hands go backwards.

LondonTiger wrote:Depends what direction your body is facing.

I will accept it is possible that the interpretations of the law may deem that specific pass as backwards (with reservations though). If they do however it is a case of the law being an ass. The man is stationary and the ball travels in a direction that is towards the Scarlets line immediately on leaving the hand. It should by all common sense practicalities be a forward pass.


PS the hands facing backwards argument refs use is potentially garbage anyway. It is quite easy, by rolling the hands over or under the ball, make it go forwards even if the arms and hands go backwards.

It's also quite possible for the wind to carry the ball forward

For me on the try it was borderline. If you're going to give the adv to the attacking team you give it but you have to be consistent in that. The first score that was ruled out was a much more egregious piece of officiating. Absolutely baffling so i dont know did that play a part.