PDA

View Full Version : [Law] England South Africa . Forward passes ?'



CrouchTPEngage
12-11-16, 17:11
I thought i could spot a forward pass when i see one but i ,and the match commentators , were bemused at the 2 that were missed in that game.
One for tbe SA try was a back door pass. The other a pass near the SA 22 from a long kick catch.

I say 'missed' but they werent . Garces reviewed the first back door pass with the tmo and it was ajudged Not Forward.

I am aware of the guidance on looking at the direction of the hand movement but even so. Really ?

Glad the game outcome didnt hang on those decisions. Otherwise a well reffed game though. I just need some further refinement on my mental model of how to spot a fwd pass.

Ian_Cook
12-11-16, 22:11
If a "back door" pass is what I think it is (a player facing the opponent's DBL flicks the ball behind him) then it cannot possibly be forward.

merge
12-11-16, 23:11
The one out the back of the hand always remained behind the player who passed it, so wasn't passed forward.

didds
12-11-16, 23:11
back door pass?

This?

https://youtu.be/zbyfe6Qv4rw?t=31

didds

leaguerefaus
13-11-16, 07:11
I believe he's discussing the pass to the no. 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPNu_TlEX0
Start at 2:10

Ian_Cook
13-11-16, 08:11
I believe he's discussing the pass to the no. 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPNu_TlEX0
Start at 2:10

Nothing wrong with it.

1. Made to look worse because the passer was falling and slowing, thereby exaggerating the apparent forward travel of the ball.

2. The forward travel of the ball was purely down to momentum of the passer. If the passer was standing still and he executed the exact same passing action, the ball would not have gone forward from him.

The Fat
13-11-16, 10:11
Play on

dave_clark
13-11-16, 11:11
so not as clearly and obviously as it looked in the pub yesterday then, but flat at best i would say. it may have been out of the back of the hand, but if the hand was turned... it still doesn't look to be clearly propelled backwards.

but play on seems reasonable.

leaguerefaus
13-11-16, 13:11
so not as clearly and obviously as it looked in the pub yesterday then

Things have a habit of being that way!

Those passes often don't look good but because of how they're thrown, it's actually very hard for one of them to go forward from the hand.

dave_clark
13-11-16, 14:11
i disagree - if the hand is turned (as IMO the passer's hand was), it's actually quite simple to put one of those forwards.

but ultimately academic of course - not clearly and obviously forward has the same effect as a mile backwards. both are play on.

Taff
13-11-16, 15:11
. but ultimately academic of course - not clearly and obviously forward has the same effect as a mile backwards. both are play on.
Which is what I think Garces had in mind when he as good as said it looked OK from the first clip - implying that it didn't look so good from the 2nd clip. Ie it failed the "clear and obvious" test.

Ian_Cook
13-11-16, 19:11
so not as clearly and obviously as it looked in the pub yesterday then, but flat at best i would say. it may have been out of the back of the hand, but if the hand was turned... it still doesn't look to be clearly propelled backwards.


not clearly and obviously forward has the same effect as a mile backwards. both are play on.

Firstly, as you imply, a throw does not have to be backwards, it only has to be not forwards, so flat is not forwards.

Secondly, I maintain that the is noit thrown forwards at all.

The ball keeps the momentum of the passer, in other words it travels forwards at the same speed that the passer is traveling forwards (ignore the ball relative to the ground and watch only the ball and the passers head)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/NFP-ENGvSAF.gif

Note that the ball keeps pace with the passer. A ball thrown forwards will have the forward momentum of the passer PLUS the additional momentum given by the passer as he throws the ball in the direction he is traveling. This is not rocket science, its year 12 high-school physics.

This clip proves that the passer did not impart any additional forward momentum over and above his own. If he had, the ball would have got ahead of him.

dave_clark
13-11-16, 20:11
thanks - sky sports didn't show from that angle and at that speed repeatedly...

looks flat, so happy with play on.

didds
14-11-16, 10:11
Things have a habit of being that way!

Those passes often don't look good but because of how they're thrown, it's actually very hard for one of them to go forward from the hand.

we have a "silly 5 minutes" section at training with our colts squad... one exercise we have is a back-of-the-hand exercise. Its as much to demonstrate to the lads that it isn't as easy as they think it it, as much as improving the skill. Its a "think about what this really means and needs" type exercise. Everybody wants to be SBW.

There are a lot of forward passes...

didds

Phil E
14-11-16, 11:11
Looked flat to me. Play on.

Dixie
14-11-16, 15:11
I thought it lacked the Clear & Obvious element, though I wouldn't have objected whichever way the call went.

I thought in real time that South Africa were hard done by in the lack of a penalty try. 19'43" into the game, the score is 7-6: May's try against a Lambie PK and DG. SA are pressing deep in Englands 22 near the right touchline and Garces plays penalty advantage for yet another England In-At-The -Side. Lambie accordingly puts in a neat little kick to the corner which has JP Petersen knocking the ball back from just the right side of the left touchline under pressure from Mike Brown. The ball comes back off one (or forward off the other) of them, causing Marland Yarde to panic (20'04") and scoop the ball sideways into touch in goal. Had he not done so, Willie le Roux would certainly have touched down. Garces immediately went back for the penalty.

Whether that touchdown would have been a try depends on whether the ball went into in-goal as a knock-back by Brown or a knock-on by Petersen. Given the tight margins demonstrated by the Lawes try later on in the game, I was surprised that Garces elected not event to ask the TMO to look at the play - though I suspect that the outcome would have been the same. Nonetheless, was Garces right not to look at it?

crossref
14-11-16, 15:11
I thought it lacked the Clear & Obvious element, though I wouldn't have objected whichever way the call went.

I thought in real time that South Africa were hard done by in the lack of a penalty try. 19'43" into the game, the score is 7-6: May's try against a Lambie PK and DG. SA are pressing deep in Englands 22 near the right touchline and Garces plays penalty advantage for yet another England In-At-The -Side. Lambie accordingly puts in a neat little kick to the corner which has JP Petersen knocking the ball back from just the right side of the left touchline under pressure from Mike Brown. The ball comes back off one (or forward off the other) of them, causing Marland Yarde to panic (20'04") and scoop the ball sideways into touch in goal. Had he not done so, Willie le Roux would certainly have touched down. Garces immediately went back for the penalty.

Whether that touchdown would have been a try depends on whether the ball went into in-goal as a knock-back by Brown or a knock-on by Petersen. Given the tight margins demonstrated by the Lawes try later on in the game, I was surprised that Garces elected not event to ask the TMO to look at the play - though I suspect that the outcome would have been the same. Nonetheless, was Garces right not to look at it?

I noticed that! And I bet Eddie Jones did as well.

Yarde had two moments of pani and madness in that game, this was one, and the silly tackle in the air was the other.
He was very lucky not get carded for one or the other - in this instance he was just lucky that Petersen had knocked it on (or if he didn't knock it on, lucky that Garces didn't check with the TMO).
In the other instance it was pure luck that the south african he hit in the air wasn't up-ended by it.

Yes, I thought JG could have had a look at that --- but I wondered if he had actually blown his whistle before Yarde touched it, at the moment Petersen knocked on. If the whistle had gone, it couldn't have been a try. Or an offence.

OB..
14-11-16, 18:11
Maybe the AR had called something in?

Pinky
14-11-16, 19:11
what about the try at 35 mins, surely a KO by Brown?

- - - Updated - - -

what about the try at 35 mins, surely a KO by Brown?

thepercy
14-11-16, 21:11
what about the try at 35 mins, surely a KO by Brown?

- - - Updated - - -

what about the try at 35 mins, surely a KO by Brown?

I thought it was a knock-on as well. If not from his hand, then from his upper leg.

merge
14-11-16, 21:11
I thought it was a knock-on as well. If not from his hand, then from his upper leg.

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward

How can you have a knock on from the upper leg? It may also be defined as not a kick, but doesn't fit the definition of a knock on.

Mandrason
14-11-16, 21:11
I thought it was a knock-on as well. If not from his hand, then from his upper leg.

Definition of a knock on
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

Brown didn't have possession of the ball
Knock on can only occur whe a player hits it forward with the hand or arm
Therefore its fine if it went forward from his upper leg, no knock on, try stands

EDIT: merge was faster...

Pinky
15-11-16, 00:11
I thought it had hit his arm, and continued to go forward. It also hit the hand of the SA player, but that didn't change anything for me. KO, sorry no try! No criticism of Garces, he asked the TMO any reason not to award and was told he could award the try. Not sure I agree with the TMO.