PDA

View Full Version : NO ACTION:Intentional forward pass?



chopper15
12-01-11, 20:01
Some months back I queried if refs ever penalise an intentional forward pass, accepting that such intent is difficult to determine.

Giving 'miscreants' the benefit of doubt unfortunately encourages chancing, a scrum being the probable sanction should the ref spot it.

I've just attempted Question Reference Number: 151.

Blue #5 has the ball and hands off to Blue #6 who was a step ahead of him. What do you do?

Having been given an explicit 'hands off' to his team- mate ahead of him and no other qualification as to intent I assumed it had to be deliberate.

Needles to say I got this question wrong, giving A as the answer - PK where ball-carrier handed the ball on.

The correct answer is: D. Award a scrum, with Gold throwing-in, where Blue #6 received the ball.

The qualifying law then, apparently, explained why refs don't give PKs for forward passes:

11.6b : When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is off-side. The receiver is accidentally off-side and a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing-in the ball.

The receiver is explicitly identified as being 'accidentally' off-side and by association with the answer the ball-carrier is deemed not to have passed it forward intentionally.

Shouldn't 11.6 read . . . . When a player unintentionally hands the ball to a team-mate in front . . .?


***

Dixie
12-01-11, 20:01
Chopper, I can't be sure but I suspect the assertion of accidental offside is explicitly there to ensure the ref doesn't have to agonise about intent along the lines you did. As to justification, the accidental offside would be the first offence ... even if the deliberate hand-over was made knowing the player was in front.

didds
12-01-11, 20:01
Shouldn't 11.6 read . . . . When a player unintentionally hands the ball to a team-mate in front . . .?


***

I know what you mean... but if we think about it usually a passer is always intentionally passing/handing the ball to a teammate.

I guess it is seen the same as when a player makes a forward pass to a player in front ogf him. He intended to make the pass - but it is treated as an "intentional" forward pass even though clearly it always had to be made forward. ie it does not presuppose a deliberate act.

I think.

didds

Davet
12-01-11, 22:01
If it did you'd be right.

But it doesn't.

If the Law makers thought like you the they'd have written it that way.

But they didn't.

Whayt does that tell you?

chopper15
12-01-11, 23:01
If it did you'd be right.

But it doesn't.

If the Law makers thought like you the they'd have written it that way.

But they didn't.

Whayt does that tell you?



They're not as perceptive as I am? :hap:

Davet
12-01-11, 23:01
That's certainly one possibility.:)

Rit Hinners
14-01-11, 02:01
The act of handing off is intentional, as is passing. The issue is weather the forward part is intentional.

If in open play I can easily see how a player might be called for intentionally doing so. In a maul, that wheels this way and that, a player can easily become disoriented and hand off the ball to a player up field from them.

Davet
14-01-11, 10:01
The issue is not whether it was intentional.

The Law says scrum down, so scrum down, don't over complicate and agnonise over thngs that are not relevant.

TheBFG
14-01-11, 11:01
The act of handing off is intentional, as is passing. The issue is weather the forward part is intentional.

If in open play I can easily see how a player might be called for intentionally doing so. In a maul, that wheels this way and that, a player can easily become disoriented and hand off the ball to a player in front of them.

there you go, changed that for you, don't need US Football terms on this site :wink:

crossref
14-01-11, 11:01
surely it's hard to imagine anyone intentionally passing forward... really it's HIGHLY unlikely that the referee would fail to notice... so passing forward is always going to cause you to lose possession, with a scrum against you and possibly a penalty.

Intentional knock-ons are different - they happen when the opposition are in possession, and you are either conceding a PK to save a likely try. Or you are balancing the upside of perhaps making an one-handed interception with the chance of a PK if it goes wrong.

Simon Thomas
14-01-11, 11:01
this a non issue and non question for me - most passes are "intential" and the direction often controlled by the relative position of the receiver. In the "heat of the match" the pass is made and ref calls it forward, blows and scrum awarded.

we all know (as experienced rugby men) what a deliberate forward pass looks like (a la US Football style is) and would penalise it accordingly.

OB..
14-01-11, 11:01
Offhand I can't remember ever seeing a PK for an intentional throw forward. Has anybody here ever given one?

crossref
14-01-11, 12:01
i just about had a case - I had a thread about it here : a small U13 player panicked at the sight of marauding forwards and threw it forwards to a surprised team mate who caught it.

I gave a PK. two grounds
- intentional forward pass
- or, if you think that's unsmypathetic at U13, and the 'panic' is best treated kindly as unintentional KO, then the its a PK for being in front of a KO, and playing ball.

Feedback here was that even though there was two good reasons for a PK, even so some people thought perhaps I was unsympathetic at that level and scrum would have been better.

gwgs
14-01-11, 13:01
Gotta draw the line between sympathetic refereeing and law somewhere, a throw forwards like that is as good as any to PK.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
14-01-11, 13:01
Gotta draw the line between sympathetic refereeing and law somewhere, a throw forwards like that is as good as any to PK.

I would view that as "that is unsympathetic" at U13 although perhaps 5m out from goal and about to get mullered I MAY lean towards PK.

In your (crossref's) defence is it materially any different from throwing it into touch?

I think if laddo shits himself in midfield and throws it forward a PK is a bit harsh.

In fact at about U14 I refereed a game where a wee fella did hurl the ball into touch when faced with a 13 year old with a 5 o'clock shadow (it was only 11 o'clock as well) bearing down on him. It was difficult to not laugh however I think matey was relieved to be alive.

Davet
14-01-11, 14:01
At U13 I'd have been inclined to scrum down.

There is no specific offence of a deliberate forward pass, unlike a deliberate knock-on.

To ping him for deliberately offending, which is effectively what you did, seems a tad harsh given that his move was assessed by you as a panic reaction, and therefore hardly a calculated attempt to gain an advantage.

crossref
14-01-11, 15:01
in context his team were under lot of pressure, had been driven backwards about 20m or so, and were now inside own 22m...

In my mind I was penalising not the throw so much as the catcher who caught it in an offside position, and turned and mauled. Beam him up and very possible try was on, it was certainly building (nowhere near PT yet, though)

I had two options, both of which would have been acceptable and defensible, and yes I agree : I erred on the harsh side.

But I am not displeased about it: I blew my whistle; both options (scrum or PK) occured to me, I ran it through my mind, weighed them up and made a quick decision.

shrug - I am not sure I would make a different one even now, mainly because it denied the other team an excellent attacking position. but yes it was the harsh one.

gwgs
14-01-11, 17:01
I suppose had the other player actively avoided the throw forward a scrum is a fair way to restart.

I dunno, I've never reffed that young before so I'm not sure how sympathetic you should be. All I know is that I didn't have a clue of the law when I was at U13.

OB..
14-01-11, 18:01
There is no specific offence of a deliberate forward pass, unlike a deliberate knock-on.

Law 12.1 (e)

Intentional knock or throw forward.A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

crossref
14-01-11, 18:01
if the surprised teammate had avoided the ball.... then the marauding opposition who caused the panic would certainly have picked the ball up, and more likely than not would have scored a try.

hence my PK.

(not a PT, by any stretch: it was still 15-20m from try line, and other defenders to get past.. but it would have been on)

chopper15
14-01-11, 20:01
Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

Pass to . . . Throw to . . . Knock to . . . Hand to. . . Slip to. . . . Lob to. . . Tap to. . . Scoop to. . . Punch to. . . Roll to. . . Flip to. . . Tap to. . .

Knock or Throw? Which is what? Does/should it matter to the ref? :hap:

Perhaps the law should simply start with. . . A player must not knock the ball forward . . . ? Deliberation is up to the ref to determine.

Davet
14-01-11, 20:01
OK, OB, can't deliberately throw forward, I stand corrected.

ctrainor
14-01-11, 21:01
When I first saw this thread I thought the heading said International Forward Pass.
We used to see a hell of a lot of them back in the day and sadly occasionally still do
Fortunately RL allow more these days
:cry: :Nerv:

OB..
14-01-11, 21:01
Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

Pass to . . . Throw to . . . Knock to . . . Hand to. . . Slip to. . . . Lob to. . . Tap to. . . Scoop to. . . Punch to. . . Roll to. . . Flip to. . . Tap to. . .

Knock or Throw? Which is what? Does/should it matter to the ref? :hap:

Perhaps the law should simply start with. . . A player must not knock the ball forward . . . ? Deliberation is up to the ref to determine.
[Bzzzzz] Repetition! (© Just a Minute)

Since the law is headed "Knock-on or Throw Forward", it surely makes sense to put in both aspects. Note however that 12.1 (e) does not actually say "knock-on", so recovering the ball does not get round it.

tim White
15-01-11, 19:01
[Bzzzzz] Repetition! (© Just a Minute)

Repetition of "to" and lots of full stops as well.:D

OB..
16-01-11, 00:01
[Bzzzzz] Repetition! (© Just a Minute)

Repetition of "to" and lots of full stops as well.:D

Unless you are Victor Borge, the full stops do not count.

chopper15
16-01-11, 15:01
The title is Intentional forward pass . . . may you be be missing my point?

'Knock' is more of a chancy action with hand/fist/arm (not forearm?), 'throw' being more of a deliberate action when only hands are used.

How does a ref categorise my list when determining judgement?

Eg. 'Scoop' the moving ball back over the 22 to a team- mate ie., instead of picking it up, who kicks the ball down-field direct into touch.:hap:

Phil E
16-01-11, 15:01
with hand/fist/arm (not forearm?),

You're at it again :nono:

I think you will find that your forearm is part of your arm. That's why it has "arm" in it. :rolleyes:

The law says hand or arm. so that's everything from the tip of your fingers to your armpit.


arm

–noun
1. the upper limb of the human body, esp. the part extending from the shoulder to the wrist.
2. the upper limb from the shoulder to the elbow.

chopper15
16-01-11, 19:01
You're at it again :nono:

I think you will find that your forearm is part of your arm. That's why it has "arm" in it. :rolleyes:

The law says hand or arm. so that's everything from the tip of your fingers to your armpit.

I didn't intend it to be a here I go again, Phil. I wasn't sure if the Law lords intended it to be from hand to armpit or just as far as the elbow . . . hence my query. Thanks for the confirmation.

Opinion on my 'here we go again' other queries would also be appreciated, Phil:hap:

chopper15
16-01-11, 19:01
I didn't intend it to be a here I go again, Phil. I wasn't sure if the Law lords intended it to be from hand to armpit or just as far as the elbow . . . hence my query. Thanks for the confirmation.

Opinion on my 'here we go again' other queries would also be appreciated. :hap:

Sorry, duplicated reply.


A Yorkshire man takes his cat to  the vet. 
 
Yorkshireman: "Ayup, lad, I need to talk to  thee about me cat." 
 
Vet: "Is it a  tom?" 

Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it with  us." 
.................................................. ................................. 
 
A  Yorkshireman's dog dies and as it was a favourite pet he decides to have a  gold statue made by a jeweller to remember the dog  by. 
 
Yorkshireman: "Can tha mek us a gold statue of yon  dog?" 

Jeweller: "Do you want it 18  carat?" 

Yorkshireman: "No I want it chewin' a bone yer daft  bug ger!" 
 
.................................................. .............................................. 
 A  Yorkshireman's wife dies and the widower decides that her headstone should  have the words "She were thine" engraved on it. 
   
 He calls  the stone mason, who assures him that the headstone will be ready a few  days after the funeral.
  True to his word the  stone mason calls the widower to say that the headstone is ready and would  he like to come and have a look. 
 
When the widower gets  there he takes one look at the stone to see that it's been engraved "She  were thin". 
 
He explodes: "'ells bells man, you've left  the blood y "e" out, you've left the  blood y "e" out!" 
 
The  stone mason apologises profusely and assures the poor widower that it will  be rectified the following morning. 

Next day comes and the  widower returns to the stone mason: "There you go sir, I've put the "e" on  the stone for you". 

The widower looks at the stone and then  reads out aloud: 
 
"E, she were  thin". 
 
.................................................. .............................. 
 
Bloke  from Barnsley with piles asks chemist "Nah then lad, does tha sell  arse cream?" 
 
Chemist replies "Aye, Magnum or  Cornetto?"



Profound apologies. I tried to delete a duplicate and this appeared for some inexplicable reason. It was an Email I had then sent to my son-in-law who's a proud born and bred Yorkshireman.

chopper15
16-01-11, 19:01
Sorry duplicated reply.:rc:

Phil E
16-01-11, 20:01
Sorry, duplicated reply.
A Yorkshire man takes his cat to *the vet................

That was better than your original post :clap:

dave_clark
16-01-11, 21:01
bit of a random tangent, but quite amusing nevertheless :)

chopper15
17-01-11, 16:01
bit of a random tangent, but quite amusing nevertheless :)

. . . so what's the opinion on my 'scoop back' scenario?:sad:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
17-01-11, 16:01
. . . so what's the opinion on my 'scoop back' scenario?:sad:

Are we still talking about arse cream?

NB Chopper for future reference "a Tom" = at home is a Rotherham dialect/accent.

Despite being only 25 miles or so as the crow flies from me I have trouble understanding some folk from Barnsley.

Hull is another good Yorkshire accent which is not difficult to understand but is very different from the rest of the county.

eg

Pearls = People from Poland
Perp = His holiness
Fern = For making calls on
Naan = Nine
Naanty naan = 99 etc etc

Phil E
17-01-11, 17:01
Hull is another good Yorkshire accent which is not difficult to understand but is very different from the rest of the county.


Stop trying to sound sophisticated. :rolleyes:

You all talk funny, wear flat caps and have ferrets down your trousers.
Don't try to pretend different. :nono:

Dixie
17-01-11, 17:01
NB Chopper for future reference "a Tom" = at home is a Rotherham dialect/accent. And in London is a whore. often easily confused with the Rotherham definition, I'm unreliably informed.

Simon Thomas
17-01-11, 17:01
but easily spotted by the wearing of a golden ankle chain :wink:

Phil E
17-01-11, 21:01
but easily spotted by the wearing of a golden ankle chain :wink:

You seem to know all the inner secrets ST :chin:

Been entertaining your clients again :wow:

Bill Lee
30-01-11, 10:01
Surprised to see this one still running. A referee has enough to do without having to decide if if a throw forward is intentional. Should this occur on say a L6 game or above, and the same individual threw 3 blatantly forward and consecutive passes then the referee can apply a sanction because he has deemed this to be repeated infringements.

However, I think its rubbish and it should have been kicked into touch following P11 by ST. Who said ....its a non issue.

chopper15
31-01-11, 20:01
Surprised to see this one still running.

However, I think its rubbish and it should have been kicked into touch following P11 by ST. Who said ....its a non issue.



SimonT's #11; this a non issue and non question for me - most passes are "intential" and the direction often controlled by the relative position of the receiver.

A non issue, non question and rubbish when the ball-carrier is controlled by the relative position of the receiver eh, Bill?

Methinks you've put your credibility at stake as a threader with that comment. :hap: :clap:

SimonSmith
31-01-11, 21:01
Wow. That's......that's.....well, chutzpah springs to mind.

chopper15
01-02-11, 00:02
Wow. That's......that's.....well, chutzpah springs to mind.

Agree Simon up to a point. . . more thoughtlessness in my humble opinion. Never even bothered to qualify the comments.:wow:

As with chutzpah, of course.:hap:

Adam
01-02-11, 13:02
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

chopper15
01-02-11, 17:02
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

Loss of concentration, AJ?:hap:

To throw a pass to a team mate in front of you has to be more deliberate than instinctive. Yet the benefit of doubt you accept as the norm? wow:

Adam
01-02-11, 17:02
Loss of concentration, AJ?:hap:

To throw a pass to a team mate in front of you has to be more deliberate than instinctive. Yet the benefit of doubt you accept as the norm? wow:

I cannot envisage a situation where I would even contemplate giving a PK for an intentional forward pass.

Where this differs from a deliberate knock forward is that with a forward pass, your team is in possession and in control, and it is a lack of skill or timing that has caused the ball to travel forward. The deliberate throw forward will not have been what the player intended, unlike a deliberate knock forward where the player's sole focus is to prevent the other team retaining possession and/or territory.

With a forward pass the intention is for their team to retain possession and do something positive with the ball.

With a deliberate knock forward the intention is to illegally disrupt their opponent's possession by doing something negative.

There is the fundamental difference, so now leave it rest.

Even if there happens to be a freak scenario (American Football style) then I would trust the referee's judgement on the day. I would expect that every referee would award a scrum and explain that you can't do that in rugby.

Awarding a PK for a deliberate throw forward is akin to pulling a gigantic rabbit out of a hat and is absolutely not what any player would expect.

OB..
01-02-11, 17:02
Remember the occasion when Will Greenwood forgot to touch down in in-goal? His throw for the drop-out (he thought) was clearly an intentional forward pass, but the referee merely awarded a scrum.

chopper15
01-02-11, 18:02
Reference AJC: With a forward pass the intention is for their team to retain possession and do something positive with the ball.

With a deliberate knock forward the intention is to illegally disrupt their opponent's possession by doing something negative.

There is the fundamental difference, so now leave it rest.

Awarding a PK for a deliberate throw forward is akin to pulling a gigantic rabbit out of a hat and is absolutely not what any player would expect.




Come off it, AJ, you throw in the knock forward and fundemental difference red herring to justify your ' now leave it to rest'.

What I'm trying to understand is why all (?) refs accept that a deliberate forward pass is highly unlikely re. your analogy.

Ball-carriers aware of this can/will chance it if a team mate is ahead shouting for the ball with the line but a few strides away knowing it's not to be a penalty should the ref spot it. And if he doesn't . . . . well worth the 'try'. :clap:

Adam
01-02-11, 18:02
Ball-carriers aware of this can/will chance it if a team mate is ahead shouting for the ball with the line but a few strides away knowing it's not to be a penalty should the ref spot it. And if he doesn't . . . . well worth the 'try'. :clap:

Well how do you go about distinguishing the difference? With a knock forward it's clear whether it's deliberate or not depends on the hand movements of the player. I don't see how you can conclusively differentiate for a throw forward.

Adam
01-02-11, 18:02
Remember the occasion when Will Greenwood forgot to touch down in in-goal? His throw for the drop-out (he thought) was clearly an intentional forward pass, but the referee merely awarded a scrum.

But no one caught it so it's a knock forward?

SimonSmith
01-02-11, 18:02
Ball-carriers aware of this can/will chance it if a team mate is ahead shouting for the ball with the line but a few strides away knowing it's not to be a penalty should the ref spot it. And if he doesn't . . . . well worth the 'try'. :clap:

This is where we disagree.
You're making a huge, sweeping statement that I have to say I cannot validate having been refereeing for a few years now.

Forward passes I see are either bad execution, or when the supporting player has overrun and the passer doesn't adjust to withhold the pass in time.

THAT'S accidental. No-one does it as a ploy, which is what they would have to do in oder to warrant a penalty.

OB..
01-02-11, 19:02
But no one caught it so it's a knock forward?

Technically it is a throw forward. It is normally called a forward pass, but in fact you do not need a receiver.

OB..
01-02-11, 19:02
I have been trying to think of a scenario for an intentional throw forward.

A player throwing the ball over an opponent and running round him to catch it, having confused it with an accidental knock-on he had seen?

An isolated full back who has been tackled, so in order to get the ball as far as possible from his goal line, he hurls it upfield?

Can anyone do better?

I think the provision is just in the laws for completeness. There is no need to search around for some ordinary situation for it to apply to.

chopper15
01-02-11, 22:02
I have been trying to think of a scenario for an intentional throw forward.
There is no need to search around for some ordinary situation for it to apply to.


I repeat. What I'm trying to understand is why all (?) refs accept that an intentional forward PASS is highly unlikely.

You're unsuccessfully trying to construct a scenario to justify why refs don't/shouldn't penalise an intentional THROW forward - an action that lacks the more controlled intent of a PASS. And you all, apparently, refuse to see it from the canny players'/coaches' viewpoint.

And the 'ordinary situation' which most of us have witnessed?

Ball-carriers aware of this can/will chance a THROW forward - even a more risky PASS - if a team mate is ahead shouting for the ball with the line but a few strides away knowing it's not to be a penalty should the ref spot it. And if he doesn't spot it? . . . . it's well worth the 'try'.:clap:

Adam
01-02-11, 22:02
Chopper, I don't see how you tell if someone has thrown the ball forward accidentally or deliberately.

How do we go about determining that? Until you can conclusively show that it is deliberate, I will be awarding scrums all day long.

chopper15
01-02-11, 22:02
Chopper, I don't see how you tell if someone has thrown the ball forward accidentally or deliberately.

How do we go about determining that? Until you can conclusively show that it is deliberate, I will be awarding scrums all day long.

A throw can be difficult to spot as intentional, I admit, it invariably appears uncontrolled. A pass, however, is a controlled action. And in the circumstances I describe penalise with the justification that the gain was great the loss small and worth the risk.:hap:

Accidental/deliberate offside and obstruction decisions are made often enough.

PS. At least accept that a PASS forward can be deliberate instead of simply denying it; and take the circumstances into consideration to nail it . . . it's cheating.

Davet
01-02-11, 23:02
What I'm trying to understand is why all (?) refs accept that an intentional forward PASS is highly unlikely.

Because that's what our collective experience playing and refereeing tells us.

You suggest that a player will cunningly throw a pass forward hoping the ref will miss it.

If it's that marginal the he may not think it is forward.

If it's not that marginal then 99% of the time he will not get away with it - and knows it. If he is able to think about it he alsoknows he'd be better taking contact and recycling than 99.5.% chance of turning over posession, especially near the oppo goal line.

You have wholly theoretical bee in your bonnet, and frankly it won't give any honey.

chopper15
02-02-11, 00:02
Will CHANCE a PASS forward, Davet.

And it surprises me when you state 'experience as a player'. You should know that a chanced PASS is worth the risk of a scrum if 'safer' options seem futile.:hap:

OB..
02-02-11, 02:02
chopper - as so often you are trying to fit the game to your particular reading of the laws. If you tried it the other way round ie you tried to understand the laws as seen from the point of view of the way the game is played you would be more in tune with the way everybody else looks at things.

If anybody adopted your idea, it would be disastrous - it would make passing a dangerous activity and slow the game down unacceptably. No player, no referee, no assessor sees it your way.

Ian_Cook
02-02-11, 10:02
chopper.

Deliberately throwing a pass forward is quite difficult to do; doing it in such a way as to try to disguise the fact it is forward even more so.

All of a player's training and instricts teach teaches them to throw the pass backwards. If you have ever looked at (and listened to) the ARU Forward Pass video, you will hear the commentator say that when they tried to film a deliberate forward, Ryan Constable, the Queensland rugby player who was throwing the passes, had to try several times before managing to throw one, and even then, it looked strained or forced.

Yes, I acknowledge that it is possible for a player to throw pass forward, but it is unlikely to happen.

Simon Thomas
02-02-11, 10:02
we all say it just isn't an issue, so why not stop flogging this dead one ?

in 30 years of playing, and 10 of officiating I have never saeen a deliberate forward pass in the way you define it. Of course they happen for all the goods reasons OB and others explain above.

Ian_Cook
02-02-11, 12:02
In closing, a little humour.

Now this might be RL, and its not really a deliberate forward pass, it is accidentally on purpose, and its quite funny....

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B4V9hXqLZ6c" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="480"></iframe>

PS: the tackle was a definite :norc: in both codes, but this was quite a few years ago and they were lot easier on tip tackles then.

chopper15
02-02-11, 15:02
Your clip, Ian. He heeled the ball to the opposition. Why didn't the ref play advantage?

With regard to playing the ball forward.

I specifically refer to the deliberate PASS forward accepting that the THROW is difficult to spot as intentional.

A PASS forward, a more controlled move and easier to spot and sanction than the THROW is not difficult to do, Ian . . . . if options are nil all you do is chance it.:hap:

The ref may miss it, if not it's a scrum. Players, of course, can take a worthwhile risk knowing that refs won't/can't penalise it.

And, OB, you exaggerate just to suit your argument. Should you try to see it from the players' point of view, perhaps you'll realise why they're content with refs' somewhat blinkered attitude and non recognition regarding this simple issue:clap:

I think it's about time refs took the risk aswell, and should a PASS be forward to a team mate . . . penalise the cheat. :love:

OB..
02-02-11, 15:02
I specifically refer to the deliberate PASS forward accepting that the THROW is difficult to spot as intentional.It is a distinction without a difference. The law penalises an intentional throw forward. It is a part of the law that is (virtually?) never used, for sound reasons based on the nature of the game.


I think it's about time refs took the risk aswell, and should a PASS be forward to a team mate . . . penalise the cheat. :love:
You are advocating maverick referees. (If you can find any who agree with you ...)

I see no benefit to the game in your idea.

chopper15
02-02-11, 22:02
It's obviously time for me to back down now. I genuinely thank you all for indulging me, needless to say I enjoyed it. :hap:

Just one last query. When Greenwood forgot to ground the ball and threw it for the restart, what justification would the ref have given when he incorrectly gave a scrum rather than a penalty kick for a deliberate throw forward?:clap:

PS. And in Ian's clip, why didn't the ref play advantage?:sad:

4eyesbetter
02-02-11, 23:02
PS. And in Ian's clip, why didn't the ref play advantage?:sad:


Incorrect play-the-ball is a penalty offence; given the option between having a new set of 6 starting near the mark and a new set of 6 20m further upfield, the team'll take it 20m further upfield every time. Penalty advantage almost never occurs in RL, because the greater advantage is always in having tackle 1 after the penalty - even if you don't want to kick it upfield because you're close to the goal line, we'll still give the penalty 99&#37; of the time so you can tap and go and have tackle 1 again.

didds
02-02-11, 23:02
Just one last query. When Greenwood forgot to ground the ball and threw it for the restart, what justification would the ref have given when he incorrectly gave a scrum rather than a penalty kick for a deliberate throw forward?

my interpretation: Because in terms if what constituted "live play" in Greenwood's head, it wasn't a throw forward that was deliberate.

didds

Ian_Cook
02-02-11, 23:02
Incorrect play-the-ball is a penalty offence; given the option between having a new set of 6 starting near the mark and a new set of 6 20m further upfield, the team'll take it 20m further upfield every time. Penalty advantage almost never occurs in RL, because the greater advantage is always in having tackle 1 after the penalty - even if you don't want to kick it upfield because you're close to the goal line, we'll still give the penalty 99% of the time so you can tap and go and have tackle 1 again.

Additionally, it was quickly obvious why the player played the ball in the wrong direction; he was concussed! Player safety first and foremost.

4eyesbetter
02-02-11, 23:02
Additionally, it was quickly obvious why the player played the ball in the wrong direction; he was concussed! Player safety first and foremost.

I do find it hard to buy "it was for player safety" as an argument for anything that happened in RL in the 80s TBH ;-)

Ian_Cook
03-02-11, 03:02
I do find it hard to buy "it was for player safety" as an argument for anything that happened in RL in the 80s TBH ;-)

Probably right. The ref was signalling a PK, and they don't play advantage the way we do in RU.

Spot on with the year too 4eyes, Victa were the Magpies' major sponsor from '78 to '82

chopper15
03-02-11, 11:02
my interpretation: Because in terms if what constituted "live play" in Greenwood's head, it wasn't a throw forward that was deliberate.

didds

Thanks for the 'clip' explanation, I wasn't aware it was RL.

The Greenwood 'throw forward' was a deliberate act, never-the-less, Didds, and it may not have been 'live play' for Greenwood but for all other paticipants it was an obvious penalty.

The ref's duty to manage that infringement was to give consideration to all those other paticipants not to just one man, particularly if a chance of a 3 pointer was crucial to the outcome of the game.

I guess the majority of you refs out there are with me on that one?:hap:

SimonSmith
03-02-11, 12:02
A PK would have been correct in law, and bollocks in management.

It wasn't intentional. Intentional would be to think: I am going to throw the ball forward in an attempt to gain an advantage.

What WG was thinking was "I touched down, and am throwing the ball to the FH for a drop out". If you really do equate that to a deliberate throw forward then I suggest you step back and question your rugby-related values.

OB..
03-02-11, 12:02
The Greenwood 'throw forward' was a deliberate act, never-the-less, Didds, and it may not have been 'live play' for Greenwood but for all other paticipants it was an obvious penalty.

The ref's duty to manage that infringement was to give consideration to all those other paticipants not to just one man, particularly if a chance of a 3 pointer was crucial to the outcome of the game.

I guess the majority of you refs out there are with me on that one?:hap:

At the time, I do not remember anybody at all suggesting it should have been a penalty. Everybody thought it was just a humorous mistake. YMMV.

Davet
03-02-11, 18:02
Chopper, you are exemplifying precisely the sort of Jobsworth attitudeand lack of empathy and management capacity that would see you rapidly advancing along the progression sequence in refereeing, from low level, to lower level.

I say advancing because clearly you are not looking which way you are going.

Simon Thomas
03-02-11, 18:02
I guess the majority of you refs out there are with me on that one?:hap:

I would hope not - it would be terrible management at that level and totally lacking in match empathy. I do not recall anyone asking for a PK rather than scrum 5m - who thought it was an obvious PK ? It appears only you !

chopper15
03-02-11, 22:02
Ref. SimonS: A PK would have been correct in law, and bollocks in management.

I did point out that, The ref's duty to manage that infringement was to give consideration to all those other paticipants not to just one man, particularly if a chance of a 3 pointer was crucial to the outcome of the game..

Admirable as it is, it appears principle influenced your replies. Did nobody consider the issue of contempt those replies indicate for all those other participants, including the clubs and supporters?

And were these deliberately hurtful comments you charged me with really necessary?

My thread was only prompted by nothing more than simple curiosity seeking another 'take' on an actual occurrence which, incidentally, I remember and thought nothing of at the time.

Please, just have another read and reflect.

Re.SimonS: If you really do equate that to a deliberate throw forward then I suggest you step back and question your rugby-related values.

Re.Davet: Chopper, you are exemplifying precisely the sort of Jobsworth attitude and lack of empathy and management capacity that would see you rapidly advancing along the progression sequence in refereeing, from low level, to lower level.
I say advancing because clearly you are not looking which way you are going.

SimonSmith
04-02-11, 00:02
I stand by my comments - reread the thread. Sooner or later you have to see that the reason you're rowing this boat alone is because you're wrong.

Of course principle affected the reply. Are you saying you want unprincipled referees?

OB..
04-02-11, 12:02
Ref. SimonS: A PK would have been correct in law, and bollocks in management.That assertion is simply wrong.

You are trying to insist that referees should interpret the law in a particular literal way. I have often commented that referees are expected to apply the laws sensibly. A PK for a forward pass is only appropriate if there is an intention to cheat involved.

You don't want to believe that, but it would appear everybody else does. You lose.

Phil E
04-02-11, 13:02
That assertion is simply wrong.

You are trying to insist that referees should interpret the law in a particular literal way. I have often commented that referees are expected to apply the laws sensibly. A PK for a forward pass is only appropriate if there is an intention to cheat involved.

You don't want to believe that, but it would appear everybody else does. You lose.

Chopper, this is what separates the fan on the touchline who has read the law book from cover to cover; and the Referee who is out in the middle every week "managing games".

If you apply the law book, you get a lot of whistle and no rugby. :nono:

If you manage the game, you less whistle and much more rugby. :clap:

That is our job, to facilitate a game of rugby breaking out.

chopper15
04-02-11, 13:02
Your more measured replies are appreciated. Thank you.:clap:

But what makes you think the points I raise are my beliefs, which, I assume, prompt your mean minded attacks on me?:sad:

No I don't want unprincipled referees ,Simon. More open minded and considerate ones would also be nice.:hap:

SimonSmith
04-02-11, 14:02
Your more measured replies are appreciated. Thank you.:clap:

But what makes you think the points I raise are my beliefs, which, I assume, prompt your mean minded attacks on me?:sad:

No I don't want unprincipled referees ,Simon. More open minded and considerate ones would also be nice.:hap:

Chopper, I'm sorry, but I don't believe that that's right.

by definition, I think, a close minded referee is one who simply rigidly applies the laws as writ, with no feel for circumstance or the game.

I would wager most of the referees each Saturday, and 99% of the posters here ARE open minded and considerate. Why would I do that? Because we ARE open minded enough to know when to opt for a management approach rather than a rigid application.

My interpretation of what you're looking for, based on this and other threads is a referee who shares your oft-times quirky world view. Those of us who persist with time tested and true 'received' wisdom are being accused of close minded and learning by rote. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OB..
04-02-11, 15:02
But what makes you think the points I raise are my beliefs, which, I assume, prompt your mean minded attacks on me?:sad:
If the views are not yours, and you don't agree with them, then why bring them up?

The views you express get "attacked" aka disagreed with. Why is that mean-minded?

chopper15
04-02-11, 15:02
I merely suggest or query a logical facet of our game, Simon, which you term 'quirky', hoping it'll prompt and develop into an interesting debate.:hap:

Some of you then assume it's my belief and put the boot in. Why?:sad:

Other not so quirky points I raise by pushing logical interpretation produce varying opinions and when I pursue them for a consensus I get irritation (usually it's too hypothetical and so won't bother) and obfuscation if there's doubt that any opinion they may have may not quite cut the mustard with their peers.

Simple queries like the free kick scrum option or a scrum taken back over the 22. I'm still not sure if the ball touched in the scrum by the opposition frees the ball for a DG or direct kick to touch. Check the threads if you don't believe me.:clap:

And as far as your, 'I think, a close minded referee is one who simply rigidly applies the laws as writ, with no feel for circumstance or the game'. Perhaps that should read 'ref rote' instead of the 'laws as writ'?:hap:


PS. And the PK sliced into touch?

PPS. 'If the views are not yours, and you don't agree with them, then why bring them up?' Hopefully my comments will answer your 'anti-hypothetical' query too. OB?

Phil E
04-02-11, 16:02
Other not so quirky points I raise by pushing logical interpretation

I rarely come across any logic in your posts :bday:

chopper15
04-02-11, 16:02
I rarely come across any logic in your posts :bday:

Ah! 'rarely'. I understand the significance of that little face thingie now, Phil. And I always thought it was blowing a raspberry. It is indeed my birthday. Thanks Phil, don't suppose you'll ever get any kinder that that.:clap:

So if my logic-applied - FK scrum DG, scrum back-over 22, and PK sliced into touch queries, are included in those rarities are you going to give an opinion on the outcome and risk being judged by your peers?:hap:

Phil E
04-02-11, 16:02
And I always thought it was blowing a raspberry.

That's how I use it :wink:

Happy Birthday!

chopper15
04-02-11, 16:02
That's how I use it :wink:

Happy Birthday!

Obfuscator!:norc:

OB..
04-02-11, 17:02
I merely suggest or query a logical facet of our game, Simon, which you term 'quirky', hoping it'll prompt and develop into an interesting debate.:hap: Your mindset is different from those of us whose main interest in such points is actual practice. Theoretical ones or improbable scenarios are rarely of much interest.


Some of you then assume it's my belief and put the boot in. Why?:sad: "Putting the boot in" is an emotive phrase. We tell you why we disagree. Thereafter the main problem is your unwillingness to accept that, so you keep on gnawing at the same bone of little contention.

Other not so quirky points I raise by pushing logical interpretation produce varying opinions and when I pursue them for a consensus I get irritation (usually it's too hypothetical and so won't bother) and obfuscation if there's doubt that any opinion they may have may not quite cut the mustard with their peers.Your concept of logical interpretation usually means taking your own view and ignoring others. All too often the laws are ambiguous. A lot is left to a referee's judgement since that is the only practical way to deal with it. We don't always agree on some ambiguities, and a consensus on here had no great meaning in the wider scheme of things. Sometimes we find ourselves having to apply the law in a way we do not personally agree with.


Simple queries like the free kick scrum option or a scrum taken back over the 22. I'm still not sure if the ball touched in the scrum by the opposition frees the ball for a DG or direct kick to touch. Check the threads if you don't believe me.:clap:

And as far as your, 'I think, a close minded referee is one who simply rigidly applies the laws as writ, with no feel for circumstance or the game'. Perhaps that should read 'ref rote' instead of the 'laws as writ'?:hap:


PS. And the PK sliced into touch?
Evidence of your unwillingness to let a topic drop.


PPS. 'If the views are not yours, and you don't agree with them, then why bring them up?' Hopefully my comments will answer your 'anti-hypothetical' query too. OB?
If you are using it as an example of somebody else's silly idea, or as an illustration of an ambiguity, etc, you need to say so. Otherwise I shall continue to assume you think the idea has some value.

Bill Lee
04-02-11, 18:02
Chopper, your biggest problem is that you are too selective in what you choose to disagree with in my case Post 40, I agreed with St's P11, not every word but the Those in Bold RED print.

Most of the Posts are from experienced referees / former referees who have spent years officiating and from this comes the experience to manage, not be whistle happy, to have empathy and able to apply common sense. All of this is mentioned in the following :- P11, P51, P55, P57, P60, P61, P74, P77, P81 & P88. Suggest you re-read those listed.

Adam
04-02-11, 19:02
As I said before,

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................. ..

This topic is pointless and boring. Chopper will not let it rest despite us knowing it's a moot point. It's pointless debating as nothing is going to change anyone's minds.

Referees will continue to give scrums for throw forwards and Chopper will continue being Chopper.

dave_clark
04-02-11, 19:02
nearly up to 99 posts on this topic :)

chopper15
04-02-11, 19:02
But do you accept that a chanced PASS (ie. deliberate) is worth the risk if 'safer' options seem futile and the imposition of a penalty sanction is out of the question?

After all defenders will often chance a deliberate knock-on to prevent a certain try. There's no hesitation then in deciding if it was a genuine attempt to retrieve the ball or not.

Bill, my apologies if you consider I've misread your criticisms but as you pointed out it's me against the world and all those threads are difficult to digest . . . as you all probably feel about my attempts to get recognition that an intentional pass - not throw- forward can be chanced . . .that's all.:hap:

PS. Anybody willing to address my 'old chestnut' queries #83, mentioned a few threads ago . . . please?:hap:

OB..
04-02-11, 20:02
chopper - you don't seem to take any notice of what we say unless it is what you want to hear. I have made many efforts to answer the points you are raising yet again. I give up.

chopper15
04-02-11, 21:02
chopper - you don't seem to take any notice of what we say unless it is what you want to hear. I have made many efforts to answer the points you are raising yet again. I give up.

So do I. Thanks.:hap:

Adam
04-02-11, 23:02
A Player Is Not Going To Throw A Pass Forward Deliberately. Even If He Does There Is No Way We, As Referees Would Be Able To Adjudicate It Conclusively.

This Is Where It Differs To A Knock Forward, As You Can Tell Whether It Was Deliberate By Their Actions. You Don't Have To Read Their Brain To See Whether A Knock Forward Was Deliberate, Which You Would Have To Do For A Forward Pass.

chopper15
05-02-11, 14:02
. . . . . and here was me pointing out the knowing ball-carriers old ploy just in case rookie refs weren't aware of it.:sad:

Simon Thomas
05-02-11, 20:02
as an ex "knowing ball-carrier" of 30 years playing experienbce I have never ever come across the "old ploy" of a deliberate forward pass.

and as they say in the Dragon's Den - "so am I now out"

chopper15
05-02-11, 21:02
as an ex "knowing ball-carrier" of 30 years playing experienbce I have never ever come across the "old ploy" of a deliberate forward pass.

and as they say in the Dragon's Den - "so am I now out"

. . . . or, 'here endeth the lesson'. :hap:

30 years, Simon? That's 10 years longer than me. :clap:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
05-02-11, 23:02
I think it should be a PK for a deliberate forward pass.

Adam
06-02-11, 04:02
I think it should be a PK for a deliberate forward pass.

I might have guessed you'd have an opinion! :p

PaulDG
06-02-11, 19:02
I think it should be a PK for a deliberate forward pass.

I gave a PT for a deliberate throw forward today.

Ladies match, very inexperienced players, utterly no malice in it but a goal line scramble and a defender 2 ft from the goal line threw the ball away from the attacker (who, in my opinion was certain to get it otherwise) upfield.

PT and a quick talk with the captain and offender about why I felt I had no choice.

All quite happy, captain commented that she didn't even know the ref could give a PT as she'd never heard of it before, "happy to learn", she said.

crossref
06-02-11, 20:02
an unempathetic ref, going by the book, could have YC'd her as well :-)

Simon Thomas
06-02-11, 20:02
an unempathetic ref, going by the book, could have YC'd her as well :-)

and should have done so as per IRB requirements and letter of the Law in "Chopper-land" :wink:

tut tut Paul DG :Nerv:

Adam
06-02-11, 20:02
I gave a PT for a deliberate throw forward today.

Ladies match, very inexperienced players, utterly no malice in it but a goal line scramble and a defender 2 ft from the goal line threw the ball away from the attacker (who, in my opinion was certain to get it otherwise) upfield.

PT and a quick talk with the captain and offender about why I felt I had no choice.

All quite happy, captain commented that she didn't even know the ref could give a PT as she'd never heard of it before, "happy to learn", she said.

This will now cause this thread to go on to 500 posts! Thanks. :nono:

In fairness a scenario like this would only ever happen during an inexperienced (and low level) match. If that is the case I would probably award a scrum and explain what they have done wrong.

Simon Thomas
06-02-11, 20:02
In fairness a scenario like this would only ever happen during an inexperienced (and low level) match. If that is the case I would probably award a scrum and explain what they have done wrong.

AJ - and miss the PT and YC opportunity - you feeling ok ? :wink:

chopper15
06-02-11, 21:02
Some months back I queried if refs ever penalise an intentional forward pass, accepting that such intent is difficult to determine.

Giving 'miscreants' the benefit of doubt unfortunately encourages chancing, a scrum being the probable sanction should the ref spot it.

I've just attempted Question Reference Number: 151.

Blue #5 has the ball and hands off to Blue #6 who was a step ahead of him. What do you do?

Having been given an explicit 'hands off' to his team- mate ahead of him and no other qualification as to intent I assumed it had to be deliberate.

Needles to say I got this question wrong, giving A as the answer - PK where ball-carrier handed the ball on.

The correct answer is: D. Award a scrum, with Gold throwing-in, where Blue #6 received the ball.

The qualifying law then, apparently, explained why refs don't give PKs for forward passes:

11.6b : When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is off-side. The receiver is accidentally off-side and a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing-in the ball.

The receiver is explicitly identified as being 'accidentally' off-side and by association with the answer the ball-carrier is deemed not to have passed it forward intentionally.

Shouldn't 11.6 read . . . . When a player unintentionally hands the ball to a team-mate in front . . .?


Piss Off!:love:

PaulDG
06-02-11, 21:02
In fairness a scenario like this would only ever happen during an inexperienced (and low level) match. If that is the case I would probably award a scrum and explain what they have done wrong.

Well yes, but the attacking side were literally 2 feet from the goal line, if the attacking girl had had just two or three seconds more to reach out, she'd have scored.

Anywhere else on the pitch and I'd have been more "understanding". Essentially, I was "understanding" anyway and no one objected in the slightest to the decision.

It wasn't one of my favourite PTs but I don't believe anything else would have been just.

jcas1403
01-11-11, 22:11
The issue is not whether it was intentional.

The Law says scrum down, so scrum down, don't over complicate and agnonise over thngs that are not relevant.

I can understand the question though. some years ago I was playing in a game where we was mullering the opposition in the scrum. They was a good attacking and a good tackling side, but their scrum technique was awful and the forwards really did not break quickly out of the scrum when it was over. this gave us a bit of an advantage when we was throwing the ball around because our fly half and captain was throwing quite a few dodgy passes, on more than one occasion he threw a dummy pass, then as the outside centre overran, he threw the ball slightly forward, behind the back of the opposition player... he got away with it the first time and we scored. he did this a few more times but the referee was wise to it now, but every time we got a scrum on their line, and we won most of them and scored of at least one of them... for the rest of the game every time we got close to their line, he would throw a forward pass, happy with having a scrum.
after the game our captain confessed that he was deliberately forcing the scrum such was our dominance in this one area. I can confess that I have also used this technique before against a team where the pack seemed to be getting more and more demoralised and having their energy sapped with each and every scrum.

crossref
01-11-11, 22:11
I love it ! after 100s of posts at last a just about plausible scenario of why someone might throw a deliberate forward pass.

Yes, if I was the ref, and if I managed to realise what what was happening, I would give a PK for that.
Might call it 'deliberate throw forward' but more likely I'd call it 'intentionally offending' which of course comes to the same thing.

OB..
02-11-11, 01:11
I love it ! after 100s of posts at last a just about plausible scenario of why someone might throw a deliberate forward pass.

Yes, if I was the ref, and if I managed to realise what what was happening, I would give a PK for that.
Might call it 'deliberate throw forward' but more likely I'd call it 'intentionally offending' which of course comes to the same thing.Reminds me of a story from Rugby League.

Once upon a time they used to push in the scrums, and the penalty for offside was a scrum to the opposition. One team in the Challenge Cup final had such a dominant scrum that every time they lost the ball they contrived an offside offence and won the ball back in the scrum. (So the law was changed.)

jcas1403
02-11-11, 18:11
Reminds me of a story from Rugby League.

Once upon a time they used to push in the scrums, and the penalty for offside was a scrum to the opposition. One team in the Challenge Cup final had such a dominant scrum that every time they lost the ball they contrived an offside offence and won the ball back in the scrum. (So the law was changed.)


that was the 1966 challenge cup final... wigan had lost their hooker to injury and had to put a non specialist hooker into the pack.... st helens scrum half alex murphy kept straying offside to get the scrum knowing that wigan had no player who could strike for the ball.... rugby league hookers never used to strike with just one foot, they would hang onto the props and swing both feet forward, sometimes into the opposition front row to strike, so wigan was at a serious disadvantage.

rugby league scrums used to be won and lost purely on the ability of the hooker... one of the best examples is the 1978 challenge cup final (st helens v leeds) where both hookers where hanging onto their props and throwing themselves at the ball.... it didnt matter who's throw it was, many where won against the throw

Lee Lifeson-Peart
02-11-11, 18:11
that was the 1966 challenge cup final... wigan had lost their hooker to injury and had to put a non specialist hooker into the pack.... st helens scrum half alex murphy kept straying offside to get the scrum knowing that wigan had no player who could strike for the ball.... rugby league hookers never used to strike with just one foot, they would hang onto the props and swing both feet forward, sometimes into the opposition front row to strike, so wigan was at a serious disadvantage.

rugby league scrums used to be won and lost purely on the ability of the hooker... one of the best examples is the 1978 challenge cup final (st helens v leeds) where both hookers where hanging onto their props and throwing themselves at the ball.... it didnt matter who's throw it was, many where won against the throw

I can't believe Alex Murphy would do something like that! :biggrin:

OB..
02-11-11, 22:11
jcas1403 - thanks for that. I hoped somebody would be able to provide the details. It must be in one of my books, and I couldn't find it via google.

Aphrodite007
04-11-11, 19:11
Another circumstance where it may happen.. if a team knows that time is up and they are under pressure they could throw the ball forward. If the ref pulls it back for the scrum then the game is over.

chopper15
05-11-11, 13:11
Another circumstance where it may happen.. if a team knows that time is up and they are under pressure they could throw the ball forward. If the ref pulls it back for the scrum then the game is over.


So why isn't that a PK?:chin: . . . . and if not in kicking range, a :norc:

didds
05-11-11, 17:11
Another circumstance where it may happen.. if a team knows that time is up and they are under pressure they could throw the ball forward. If the ref pulls it back for the scrum then the game is over.

yes... and I would never underestimate the actions of a pressured player... but there would be other better options to kill the game in such circumstances that wouldn't have the possibility to end up backfiring eg George Gregan "knock on", kick ball out even if backwards over own DBL, run into touch/over DBL/TIG.

didds

PS even the Gregan knock-on stands the chance of the deliberate PK scenario of course.

chopper15
05-11-11, 18:11
yes... and I would never underestimate the actions of a pressured player... but there would be other better options to kill the game in such circumstances that wouldn't have the possibility to end up backfiring eg George Gregan "knock on", kick ball out even if backwards over own DBL, run into touch/over DBL/TIG.

didds




PS even the Gregan knock-on stands the chance of the deliberate PK scenario of course.


. . . . and wouldn't a :norc: be justified if not within kicking distance? :hap:

crossref
05-11-11, 18:11
So why isn't that a PK?:chin: . . . . and if not in kicking range, a :norc:

it is a PK.

chopper15
05-11-11, 19:11
it is a PK.

Restricting the deliberate throw forward to a PK maybe OK if it's in kicking range, cr, but it's no deterrent if it's not within range. Then it's sheer contempt for the ref and the LoG.:sad:

pwhaling
06-11-11, 23:11
I gave a penalty for a forward pass yesterday. It was a mens college division II semi final, both experienced teams:
Black was attacking, kicked over red's defensive line. Red full back caught the ball on about 3 or 4 meters from ingoal. Red's full back was completely isolated, with black charging down on them, he looked around for support. He saw a red player coming back for support, so he paniced and threw the ball to him, however he was a good 10 to 15 feet infront. So tweet, penalty. (No one complained about the decision for once).
As soon as I saw this, I thought about this posting.

OB..
07-11-11, 02:11
I gave a penalty for a forward pass yesterday. It was a mens college division II semi final, both experienced teams:
Black was attacking, kicked over red's defensive line. Red full back caught the ball on about 3 or 4 meters from ingoal. Red's full back was completely isolated, with black charging down on them, he looked around for support. He saw a red player coming back for support, so he paniced and threw the ball to him, however he was a good 10 to 15 feet infront. So tweet, penalty. (No one complained about the decision for once).
As soon as I saw this, I thought about this posting.Why would an experienced full back not (a) call Mark; or (b) kick. It sounds more like a football player trying a shovel pass!

SimonSmith
07-11-11, 02:11
Your definition of "experienced" and D2 "experienced"? Not the same thing.

pwhaling
08-11-11, 02:11
Your definition of "experienced" and D2 "experienced"? Not the same thing.

Touche. Regardless, it made me smile.

jcas1403
22-11-11, 18:11
I can't believe Alex Murphy would do something like that! :biggrin:


I know, shocker LOL