PDA

View Full Version : Closed



chopper15
01-05-09, 14:05
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopper15
In lengthy and confused discussion, OB. I don't recall anyone venturing a rewrite for perusal.

OB; Then perhaps you missed it.

Quote:
I would've appreciated a comment from you or, even better, your ideas for a rewrite just as an academic exercise; redirected as and if necessary to a new thread.

OB; I have been over this so many times that I don't think I have anything new to say, so I am not about to start a new thread on it.


Can't find any rewrite suggestions, OB, only lengthy and confused discussion which included a fly hitting and stopping an express train.

And I was so proud of my effort;

Definition- Throw Forward: A throw or pass directed forward of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play (LPL).

. . . . and would have appreciated comments, particularly the phrase 'lateral line of play', which I think (IAH) is the obvious datum reference to replace the goal-line which created the anomoly at the outset.:hap:

Donal1988
01-05-09, 14:05
Chopper I dont understand the point of this thread.

PaulDG
01-05-09, 16:05
Chopper, we don't get to write Laws, we just get them handed to us by the IRB.

However, if they did want to clarify this one and if they did want to adopt the Ozzie interpretation (perhaps they do not?), they could simply take this note from the Laws of the Game for the other code:

The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.

chopper15
01-05-09, 16:05
Chopper, we don't get to write Laws, we just get them handed to us by the IRB.

However, if they did want to clarify this one and if they did want to adopt the Ozzie interpretation (perhaps they do not?), they could simply take this note from the Laws of the Game for the other code:

The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.

Thanks, Paul, that's a new one on me. Certainly wordy when you compare it with;

Definition- Throw Forward: A throw or pass directed forward of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play (LPL).


Donal, I was only replying to OBs comment in the previous thread;

ie.,It is also essential IMHO to re-write the definition of a throw forward so that we get rid of the constant misunderstanding.

thinking he was inviting suggestions as an academic exercise, but somebody promptly closed the thread down. :sad:

It may have been the mention of 'ninety nine' that triggered it.:hap:

OB..
01-05-09, 17:05
Definition- Throw Forward: A throw or pass directed forward of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play (LPL).

. . . . and would have appreciated comments, particularly the phrase 'lateral line of play', which I think (IAH) is the obvious datum reference to replace the goal-line which created the anomoly at the outset.:hap:
The current definition of "forward" works perfectly well with either the classic or the momentum interpretation. The source of the problem is that the expression "throws or passes the ball forward" is ambiguous.

Classic view: this refers to the ball itself travelling forward.
Momentum view: this refers to the throwing action, and is thus relative to the player.

There are several ways to tackle this, and the Rugby League one is good. Unfortunately it would probably be politically impossible to copy it.


Alternatives:
Physics: the thrower must not add to the forward speed of the ball.
Action: the throwing action must not be forward of the thrower.
Outcome: the initial direction of the throw must not be such as to send the ball forward of the position the thrower would have reached had he maintained a constant speed from the time of the throw.
Paraphrase: "throws or passes the ball with a forward action relative to the thrower"

TBH I don't really care how it is done as long as somebody grasps the nettle. The IRB is certainly not going to ask us to help.

PaulDG
01-05-09, 21:05
The current definition of "forward" works perfectly well with either the classic or the momentum interpretation. The source of the problem is that the expression "throws or passes the ball forward" is ambiguous.

I don't believe it does, OB. I strongly believe the only definition of forward the current Law supports does not allow the momentum interpretation. It seems to me that our language has to be distorted to Gordon Brownian proportions to pretend that it does.

(However, I'm quite happy to apply the momentum interpretation unless directed otherwise by my society.)

OB..
01-05-09, 22:05
I don't believe it does, OB. I strongly believe the only definition of forward the current Law supports does not allow the momentum interpretation. It seems to me that our language has to be distorted to Gordon Brownian proportions to pretend that it does.

(However, I'm quite happy to apply the momentum interpretation unless directed otherwise by my society.)
If you are on a train going to London, it does not matter in the slightest that the train is moving and London is stationary. London is "forward".

You do not need to have something with an identical vector to define it. Anything beyond the player in the required direction will do.

If you don't agree, please explain why it doesn't work for you.

chopper15
02-05-09, 00:05
The anomaly, of course, was created by using the opposing team’s dead ball line as a relative reference. This datum line is only suitable for defining a forward pass from a stationary ball-carrier.

To suit both static and moving ball-carriers the direction of the pass must be judged using a datum reference immediate to the ball-carrier, which is the lateral line of play.

Should the ball-carrier then be stopped as the ball leaves his hands, the 'forward' judgement is then restricted only to that immediate point in time. . . . the continuing movement forward which causes the anomaly at present is then irrelevant.

I think OB’s simple but cogent phrase, "throws or passes the ball with a forward action relative to the thrower" must prompt the question . . . why on earth wasn’t it written like that in the first place. :clap:

PS And all credit to refs for interpretting the law that way now:clap:

gillburt
02-05-09, 00:05
I think OB’s simple but cogent phrase, "throws or passes the ball with a forward action relative to the thrower" must prompt the question . . . why on earth wasn’t it written like that in the first place.



Because the law was clearly written by an ex-front row, who never expected to be moving when passing.... er... actually never expected to be moving..... no, hang on, never expected to pass, ... no, I mean ever get the ball.....

Ian_Cook
02-05-09, 06:05
I think OB has posted this one before,


1948. Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

The R.U.Decided: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball, which must be at the discretion of the referee."


This is clear and unequivocal. The Rugby Union (short for what we now call the RFU) was the Guardian of the Laws of the Game at that time. It would seem that the Lawmakers intended the momentum interpretation, at least from 1948 onwards, and since the 1948 Laws predate our own, and as far as I am aware, no Law or Law ruling has been made to contradict this "Ruling" in 1948, then the momentum interpretation must be the correct one

A pass thrown forwards from the hands is a forward pass
A pass thrown backwards from the hands is not a forward pass, even if it travels forward after it is released, as the travel of the ball is irrelevant!

Of course, in the South, we have known this all along. :biggrin:

NOTE: OB said this was from "Royds" so presumably he means Sir Percy Royds' History of the Laws of the Game.

Admiral Royds was a former England International and President of the RFU. He had a distinguished career as a referee with the London Society.

PaulDG
02-05-09, 08:05
If you don't agree, please explain why it doesn't work for you.

Very simply because "forward" is defined as "towards the opposition DB line".

If it was defined in terms of direction of movement of the player, then the momentum interpretation would be correct. The definition rules it out.

IMHO though this is an error - as we know, the Law "Lords" are not masters of technical writing and one cannot generally read the LoTG as one would read a technical specification.

So, while I'm happy the momentum interpretation is what is intended (as Ian points out, supported by an earlier ruling), I don't agree that that's what the book says.

chopper15
02-05-09, 13:05
IMHO though this is an error - as we know, the Law "Lords" are not masters of technical writing and one cannot generally read the LoTG as one would read a technical specification.

So, while I'm happy the momentum interpretation is what is intended (as Ian points out, supported by an earlier ruling), I don't agree that that's what the book says.


The date of that ruling was 1948 for goodness sake.

How long does it take the IRB to update the LoG?

All those interim rulings, do they ever bother?

The ELVs are pending and they've yet to decide - should they ever be officially asked, for clarification on such things as the ' 5m in trams throw' and the '22m roll-on in touch' gain-in-ground kick. Why do the Union bodies allow them to get away with it?

Davet
02-05-09, 13:05
I am happy to apply momentum where it is clearly involved, I am happy to use the ground and lines as a guide, and make a judgement.

Just because a player is running forward it doesn't mean the ball is automatically excused all forward vector components.

It is always a judgement call - and the refs judgement is always infallible.

OB..
02-05-09, 13:05
The anomaly, of course, was created by using the opposing team’s dead ball line as a relative reference. This datum line is only suitable for defining a forward pass from a stationary ball-carrier.
You are wrong.

Moreover it follows my post asking you to explain why you think the current definition of "forward " does not work. Did you not read it? Can you explain why you disagree?

All that is needed to define the direction is something outside the immediate frame of reference ie the player with the ball. Since the player can be anywhere on the field of play, the opposition dead ball line is perfect since wherever the player is, that line will always be forward from him. I do not understand how you can fail to accept that as a fact.


To suit both static and moving ball-carriers the direction of the pass must be judged using a datum reference immediate to the ball-carrier, which is the lateral line of play.
You have failed to define the "lateral line of play". This is a phrase you have invented, so you have an obligation to define it. I suspect you can only define it by using some notion of "forward" - the lateral line being at right angles to that.

OB..
02-05-09, 14:05
Very simply because "forward" is defined as "towards the opposition DB line".

If it was defined in terms of direction of movement of the player, then the momentum interpretation would be correct. The definition rules it out.
I cannot make sense of that. A player can stand facing forward, or he can be running forward. Both can use the identical definition of "forward". It does not require or reject movement by the player.

The momentum view looks at the action of the player and decides if that is towards the dead ball line with respect to the player ie if the movement towards the dead ball line is greater than the player's movement in that direction. The word "forward" simply allows you to judge this against something not immediately involved in the action, as in my example of a train going "forward" towards London.

The classic view makes a similar judgement, but looks at what the ball does, ignoring the player.

If you think the definition of "forward" is wrong, please explain quite how you would change it to cover the momentum view.

OB..
02-05-09, 14:05
The Rugby Union (short for what we now call the RFU) was the Guardian of the Laws of the Game at that time.
A minor historical point: up to 1999 the RFU produced its own law book, but from 1931 onwards the rubric at the front said "as framed by the International Rugby Board". the law book would contain guidance from both the RFU and the IRB.

In fact IB (later IRB) laws had been used for internationals since 1890. This led to the oddity that in 1893 the Welsh crowd thought they had drawn 14-14 with England (using Welsh scoring values), whereas in fact they had won 21-11.

OB..
02-05-09, 14:05
I am happy to apply momentum where it is clearly involved, I am happy to use the ground and lines as a guide, and make a judgement.

Just because a player is running forward it doesn't mean the ball is automatically excused all forward vector components.

It is always a judgement call - and the refs judgement is always infallible.
During a match, that is the only practical option.

Asking around my society some time back, I found most referees thought they were applying the classic view, but in reality they were not, simply because they were also moving and judged accordingly. In other words, "it looked right."

The difference only really mattered in special circumstances, such as when a line was used to judge, or when a player was tackled just after he had passed.

Technology, of course, allowed Stuart Barnes and co to draw yellow lines across the screen to demonstrate their classic view on many other occasions; and at major matches, some part of the crowd would always be in line with a pass.

chopper15
02-05-09, 15:05
You are wrong.

Moreover it follows my post asking you to explain why you think the current definition of "forward " does not work. Did you not read it? Can you explain why you disagree?.

I think you are referring to PaulDG's challenge, OB. See your thread #7

Mine was the arse-licker if you remember; 'I think OB’s simple but cogent phrase, "throws or passes the ball with a forward action relative to the thrower" must prompt the question . . . why on earth wasn’t it written like that in the first place.'

OB..
02-05-09, 21:05
I think you are referring to PaulDG's challenge, OB. See your thread #7
chopper - I quoted your post. I use quotations to make it clear what I am responding to. Was it meant to be a quote from PaulDG?

Deeps
02-05-09, 22:05
Very simply because "forward" is defined as "towards the opposition DB line".

Correct but you should apply this to the direction in which the ball is thrown by observing the action of the thrower not necessarily from the direction in which the ball appears to be travelling.


If it was defined in terms of direction of movement of the player, then the momentum interpretation would be correct.

It has noting to do with the direction in which the player is travelling nor the direction in which the ball is travelling and refers only to the direction in which the throw was made.


The definition rules it out. Wrong, you have to separate the apples from the oranges.


IMHO though this is an error - as we know, the Law "Lords" are not masters of technical writing and one cannot generally read the LoTG as one would read a technical specification.

So, while I'm happy the momentum interpretation is what is intended (as Ian points out, supported by an earlier ruling), I don't agree that that's what the book says.

This definition was written into Law when plain speakers understood sentence construction and the proper application of English grammar; not so widespread nowadays.

It's simple English grammar, take momentum out of it all together. The player [subject of the sentence] throws [verb, doing word] the ball [object of the sentence, the thing having something done to it] forward [adverb, ampifies the verb]. In the sense of the Lawbook definition of forward, then this is the direction in which the player throws the ball. The definition of forward is in the direction of the opposition goal line as opposed to backward which would be towards the players own goal line.

A player standing on the halfway line can only throw it forwards or backwards therefore or, if he is really skilled, sideways along the halfway line, which for our purposes is not forward. The fact that the player may be concurrently propelling himself towards any point of the compass which may or may not be forwards (usually is which is why there is so much hassle getting people to understand) has nothing whatsoever to do with the direction in which he throws the ball.

The big mistake everybody makes is to look at the resultant force realised by the direction in which the free ball appears to travel after all the forces acting upon it, including gravity, have had their input.

A player running towards his own goal line can still throw the ball forwards even if it appears to be travelling backwards i.e. towards his own goal line. How many would award that one I wonder?

OB..
02-05-09, 23:05
A player running towards his own goal line can still throw the ball forwards even if it appears to be travelling backwards i.e. towards his own goal line. How many would award that one I wonder?
Rare, but I have seen it given. Player running back to collect a kick over his shoulder decided to pass to a team-mate. Unfortunately, by the time he passed he had gone past the team-mate, so the pass was forward. It probably seemed right at the time as it was a normal passing movement - he was just facing the wrong way!

Ian_Cook
03-05-09, 01:05
A "pass" implies a receiver, a "throw" does not!

Just as a point of Law, there is no such thing as a forward pass; the terms "forward pass" or "pass forward" are not used anywhere in the Laws of the Game (although one is used in the Referee Signals which are not part of the actual Laws)

The ONLY term used is "throw forward" as defined in Law 12, and as such, a receiver is not implied, so it seems reasonable that where the receiver catches the ball is not relevant, but the direction in which the player threw the ball is.

Deeps
03-05-09, 10:05
Ian, I thank you.

Deeps
03-05-09, 10:05
Why do the Union bodies allow them to get away with it?

Because the punters like you are not prepared to provide sufficient funding to support the game so that the Unions and iRB can hire another 99 administrators each.

Treadmore
03-05-09, 11:05
This definition was written into Law when plain speakers understood sentence construction and the proper application of English grammar; not so widespread nowadays.

It's simple English grammar, take momentum out of it all together. The player [subject of the sentence] throws [verb, doing word] the ball [object of the sentence, the thing having something done to it] forward [adverb, ampifies the verb].

The proper application of grammar? Then you've shown a poor example Deeps :p

"The player throws forward..." would be better syntax.

However, the syntax of the Throw Forward definition in the laws invites the reader to consider what happens to the ball. Does it go towards the opposition's dead ball line? If so, it's a throw forward.

The Throw Forward definition, as written, does not invite the reader to consider "the direction in which the throw was made."

Ian_Cook
03-05-09, 13:05
However, the syntax of the Throw Forward definition in the laws invites the reader to consider what happens to the ball. Does it go towards the opposition's dead ball line? If so, it's a throw forward.

No it does not, it asks what direction the ball was thrown in. The path the ball takes over the ground is utterly irrelevant, the direction is which you throw the ball is what counts.

So if you are the referee, and you see a player running towards the opposition DBL and he throws the ball to a running teammate directly behind him, but the speed that they are running is fast enough so that the ball still travels across the ground towards the opposition DBL, are you going to call that a forward throw?

chopper15
03-05-09, 15:05
Because the punters like you are not prepared to provide sufficient funding to support the game so that the Unions and iRB can hire another 99 administrators each.

Over 60yrs of playing, supervising and watching rugby many at expensive internationals I think I've contributed a fair share.

You're getting as bad as OB in your accusations. A few threads ago he accused me of making up 'lateral line of play'.


Definition.
Lateral pass -a play that involves one player throwing the ball to a teammate

n. Football
1. A usually underhand pass that is thrown sideways or somewhat backward with respect to downfield.2. Football A lateral pass as;
v.intr. To execute a lateral pass.
v.tr. To pass (the ball) sideways or backward.

Deeps
03-05-09, 16:05
Over 60yrs of playing, supervising and watching rugby many at expensive internationals I think I've contributed a fair share.

You're getting as bad as OB in your accusations.

My remark was general and not intended to be accusational however, the funding has to come ultimately from the punters whether directly or as a result of advertising sponsorship. Unions' administration particularly at root and branch is hugely dependent on the volunteer and when serious continuity is important then hired help is required.

My guess is that in answer to your original query is that it ain't seriously broke so we can all live with it and rub along together, even if where we stand with Law and its interpretation is not as watertight as we might like it. Keeping tabs on rulings and directives and then either incorporating them into Law or consciously binning them would need an army of administrators, each with OB's conscientious approach and attention to detail to keep track of it all.

Treadmore
03-05-09, 17:05
No it does not, it asks what direction the ball was thrown in.
Does too :p. It's the 1948 ruling you quoted that introduces the direction of the pass from the hands. The current definition does not mention hands or arms nor use the words direction or propulsion.


So if you are the referee, and you see a player running towards the opposition DBL and he throws the ball to a running teammate directly behind him, but the speed that they are running is fast enough so that the ball still travels across the ground towards the opposition DBL, are you going to call that a forward throw?

If I accept the 1948 ruling, and if I can see the player's hands, then I stand a chance of deciding that "the direction of the propulsion" was not forward. And whether I like it or not, that's the ruling - though I (the referee) do get discretion, which will guarantee I'll decide whatever I want anyway.

If I can't see his hands but do see that the ball is caught (or lands) forward of where the pass/throw was made, then how does the 1948 ruling help me to decide other than a throw forward? (And let's leave wind out of it for now - the ruling doesn't mention it.)

I agree with PaulDG that an interpretation of the Throw Forward definition is being made to fit, when it doesn't.

chopper15
03-05-09, 19:05
Originally Posted by Deeps
Because the punters like you are not prepared to provide sufficient funding to support the game so that the Unions and iRB can hire another 99 administrators each.
My remark was general and not intended to be accusational . . . .


Really?:sad:

1948 is along time ago to come out with an excuse like that, Deeps!

No offence taken.:hap:

Deeps
03-05-09, 21:05
Originally Posted by Deeps
Because the punters like you are not prepared to provide sufficient funding to support the game so that the Unions and iRB can hire another 99 administrators each.
My remark was general and not intended to be accusational . . . .


Really?:sad:

1948 is along time ago to come out with an excuse like that, Deeps!

No offence taken.:hap:

You are a fan and therefore a punter, you pay to watch games along with many others. De facto if the RFU could get more money out of you and your fellow punters, it could hire more administrators to keep on top of directives and rulings to ensure they are either rescinded or incorporated into Law.

Ian_Cook
03-05-09, 23:05
Does too :p. It's the 1948 ruling you quoted that introduces the direction of the pass from the hands. The current definition does not mention hands or arms nor use the words direction or propulsion.



If I accept the 1948 ruling, and if I can see the player's hands, then I stand a chance of deciding that "the direction of the propulsion" was not forward. And whether I like it or not, that's the ruling - though I (the referee) do get discretion, which will guarantee I'll decide whatever I want anyway.

If I can't see his hands but do see that the ball is caught (or lands) forward of where the pass/throw was made, then how does the 1948 ruling help me to decide other than a throw forward? (And let's leave wind out of it for now - the ruling doesn't mention it.)

I agree with PaulDG that an interpretation of the Throw Forward definition is being made to fit, when it doesn't.

So your argument is that because the 1948 ruling is not worded as such in the current laws, it becomes irrelevant.

Well matey, I have some news for you. NO RULINGS issued by the iRB ever end up in the Laws in the wording issued in the ruling. Often, several rulings might be "combined" and end up with revised wording the the LotG, but the actual wordings of the Law Rulings do not end up in the Laws.

A ball that travels forward over the ground is not necessarily a forward pass. This is what SH referees are taught, and without exception, every international referee, every professional club, and provincial level referee (Currie Cup, Super 14, GP, ML, Top 14 etc) uses this interpretation. In the SH it is part of a specific training module (Module 4 if I remember). We are taught to judge "forward' out of the hands of the passer, not by the flight of the ball. If we cannot see the hands for any reason (and this happens very rarely if your positioning is good enough) we are not supposed to "guess".

There is a very simple reason for this. Analysis has shown that if every pass that resulted in the ball travelling towards the opposition DBL were ruled forward, then over 60% of passes in a match at the top levels of the game would be ruled forward. The game becomes near to impossible to play, particularly as players have gradually increased the speed, skill and athleticisim over the last 30 years, running faster and passing longer.

PaulDG
04-05-09, 08:05
Hi Ian,


There is a very simple reason for this. Analysis has shown that if every pass that resulted in the ball travelling towards the opposition DBL were ruled forward, then over 60% of passes in a match at the top levels of the game would be ruled forward. The game becomes near to impossible to play, particularly as players have gradually increased the speed, skill and athleticisim over the last 30 years, running faster and passing longer.

Sure.

But that doesn't alter the fact that the wording does not support the momentum interpretation.

Maybe, one day, it'll be changed. Until then, like one or two other things in the book, we "make it work".

chopper15
04-05-09, 10:05
You are a fan and therefore a punter, you pay to watch games along with many others. De facto if the RFU could get more money out of you and your fellow punters, it could hire more administrators to keep on top of directives and rulings to ensure they are either rescinded or incorporated into Law.

You don't need more administrators you simply need 'qualified' ones.

Also refer to Ian's excellent thread. There's a ref with his feet on the ground and the type of person we could do with on these IRB panels. The track record of these lot is bloody atrocious.

OB..
04-05-09, 13:05
But that doesn't alter the fact that the wording does not support the momentum interpretation.
Yes it does. In fact it is ambiguous, and two notable contributors to this forum, taking opposite views, both took a long time to convince of this FACT.

It is ambiguous simply because fluent English speakers understand it differently.

Do not attempt to apply formal logic, since language does not work that way.

The crucial point is that in one view the word forward applies to the path of the ball, and in the other it applies to the action of throwing the ball.

It does not matter if you personally can only see one view. The other is perfectly genuine.

PaulDG
04-05-09, 15:05
Yes it does...

Oh no it doesn't!

See:


Do not attempt to apply formal logic, since language does not work that way.

You're telling me that the only way it can be interpreted to allow the momentum view is not to apply logic?

Told you.


The crucial point is that in one view the word forward applies to the path of the ball, and in the other it applies to the action of throwing the ball.

The critical point is that the Laws define "forward". No interpretation other than "towards the opposition DBL" is acceptable by the definition given in the Laws


It does not matter if you personally can only see one view. The other is perfectly genuine.

I'm quite happy we all play by the other definition - but don't tell me logic must not be used to understand the "truth" and then tell me I'm the one who's wrong!

You'll be predicting the Premiership by horoscope next!

chopper15
04-05-09, 19:05
And here was I thinking we were trying to suggest a rewrite, as a purely academic exercise, to obviate that ambiguity.:wow:

All credit to OB as the only ref willing to attempt it. :clap:

Ian_Cook
04-05-09, 21:05
The critical point is that the Laws define "forward". No interpretation other than "towards the opposition DBL" is acceptable by the definition given in the Laws

Paul. I think everyone agrees that "forward" is towards the opposition DBL. That is not disputed.

What IS disputed is what "forward" is being applied to by the Laws. Is it the "ball" or is it the "throw"

I am standing on the centre of half way, facing the opposition DBL, with you 2m directly in front, OB 2m directly behind and Chopper, also on the half way line, 2m to my left;

► If I throw the ball to you, that IS forward
► If I throw the ball to OB, that is NOT forward
► If I throw the ball to Chopper, that is NOT forward

If all three of us start jogging towards the opposition DBL while maintaining our positions relative to each other, and I repeat the exercise;

► If I throw the ball to you, that IS forward
► If I throw the ball to OB, that is NOT forward
However;
► If I throw the ball to Chopper, I am saying that it is NOT forward, and you are saying that it IS forward.

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why Law 12 should be interpreted any differently merely because we are all moving instead of stationary. What is more, I find it absurd that if we were able to run fast enough (assuming Chopper can keep up :D ) even the throw to OB running directly behind me, could still be interpreted by you as being forward. It would be the only Law in the book whose interpretation would continuously change depending on how fast the players are running. Ridiculous!

The 1948 ruling is clear and unequivocal, and defines what the term "forward" does and does not apply to;


...the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball...

There no Law Ruling or rewrite of the Laws of the Game since 1948 (that I am aware of) that directly addresses or contradicts this wording, therefore, it still applies. "Forward" applies to the "throw" and specifically, it does NOT apply to the path of the "ball".

Treadmore
04-05-09, 23:05
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why Law 12 should be interpreted any differently merely because we are all moving instead of stationary...It would be the only Law in the book whose interpretation would continuously change depending on how fast the players are running. Ridiculous!

The "classic" view described by OB does not depend at all on the movement of the players! It depends on the ball only - does it go forwards or not?

It is precisely the "momentum" view as described by OB - your view I believe - that does depend upon the movement of the players, with respect to whether a pass is "forward" or not.

Consider your very own scenario with you making a pass on the half way line to OB behind you (let's give Chopper a rest). In the case where you are both sprinting towards the oppo's dead ball line, the 1948 ruling will allow OB to catch the ball forward of the half way line (from where you passed it). However, if you were stood on the half-way line it would be a throw forward for OB to catch forward of the halfway line. It is only your movement in the first instance that allows OB to catch it forwards of where you made the pass. And it is the 1948 ruling that seeks to simplify that player movement dependency - but you are required to observe "the direction of the propulsion".

Back to my earlier question, what do you rule, what are you taught to rule, when (on those rare occassions) you can't see the (running forward) passer's hands/direction of throw but do see that the ball is caught forwards of where they made the pass?

Deeps
05-05-09, 00:05
The "classic" view described by OB does not depend at all on the movement of the players! It depends on the ball only - does it go forwards or not?

It is precisely the "momentum" view as described by OB - your view I believe - that does depend upon the movement of the players, with respect to whether a pass is "forward" or not.

Consider your very own scenario with you making a pass on the half way line to OB behind you (let's give Chopper a rest). In the case where you are both sprinting towards the oppo's dead ball line, the 1948 ruling will allow OB to catch the ball forward of the half way line (from where you passed it). However, if you were stood on the half-way line it would be a throw forward for OB to catch forward of the halfway line. It is only your movement in the first instance that allows OB to catch it forwards of where you made the pass. And it is the 1948 ruling that seeks to simplify that player movement dependency - but you are required to observe "the direction of the propulsion".

Back to my earlier question, what do you rule, what are you taught to rule, when (on those rare occassions) you can't see the (running forward) passer's hands/direction of throw but do see that the ball is caught forwards of where they made the pass?

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: Oh sorry, did I nod off just then; I had obviously joined Chopper for a rest.

I don't think anyone discussing this aspect of the game is really going to change their views although new illustrations of their position are likely to crop up from time to time. When we get down to practical refereeing, the thought of quacking ducks comes to mind. After a few decades of living and breathing the game, I know one when I see one.

Ian_Cook
05-05-09, 03:05
Back to my earlier question, what do you rule, what are you taught to rule, when (on those rare occassions) you can't see the (running forward) passer's hands/direction of throw but do see that the ball is caught forwards of where they made the pass?

Answer.....

The Long version
If I don't see the players hands passing the ball, but I do see the the ball travels towards the opposition DBL...... play on! Just in exactly the same way as, if a ball pops out from behind some players, and I cannot tell whether the ball was knocked-on by a player, or knocked back by his opponent...play on.

The Short Version
I.... DON'T.... GUESS !!!!!!

chopper15
06-05-09, 11:05
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: Oh sorry, did I nod off just then; I had obviously joined Chopper for a rest.

I don't think anyone discussing this aspect of the game is really going to change their views although new illustrations of their position are likely to crop up from time to time. When we get down to practical refereeing, the thought of quacking ducks comes to mind. After a few decades of living and breathing the game, I know one when I see one.

But this just illustrate IRB negligence in maintaining the LoG, Deeps.

Refs' interpretations are committed to memory and passed on. If the IRB had a policy of regularly updating and claifying the LoG, for example;

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

NB. The definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball.

. . . we wouldn't be having this discussion now, interesting tho' it is.

Simon Thomas
06-05-09, 12:05
Chopper - you may well be right but the IRB are not going to re-write the Laws.

We can se the number of Law Rulings that are issued each year (count on your fingers !) and Unions are hesitant to submit them it appears.

There have been a number of projects in the past that scoped the task, and the work involved was seen to be far to large and costly when compared to the benefit accrued.

The IRB have higher priority issues to fix with the discredited ELVs process currently, and the new multiple language translations made over the last few years must have used up lots of resources.

OB..
06-05-09, 21:05
You're telling me that the only way it can be interpreted to allow the momentum view is not to apply logic?
I was trying to pre-empt one of the standard arguments, which is that "the wording can only logically mean one thing". In fact it is ambiguous - not uncommon in any language.


The critical point is that the Laws define "forward". No interpretation other than "towards the opposition DBL" is acceptable by the definition given in the Laws
The critical point is deciding what the word 'forward' refers to. You have decided it refers to the path of the ball with respect to the ground. The momentum view is that it refers to the throwing action with respect to the thrower. I can see both meanings in the current wording.

There is absolutely no problem whatever in using a static point to refer to a moving frame of reference (the player) provided that point is outside the frame of reference. The definition of 'forward' works perfectly for static and moving objects.

Deeps
06-05-09, 21:05
But this just illustrate IRB negligence in maintaining the LoG, Deeps.

Refs' interpretations are committed to memory and passed on. If the IRB had a policy of regularly updating and claifying the LoG, for example;

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

NB. The definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball.

. . . we wouldn't be having this discussion now, interesting tho' it is.


Quack, quack.... is good enough for me and my word is final, remember!

Ian_Cook
06-05-09, 23:05
chopper

So are you suggesting that the Laws of the Game ought to be a "living document"?

chopper15
07-05-09, 18:05
chopper

So are you suggesting that the Laws of the Game ought to be a "living document"?

If by "living document", Ian, you mean something like this clarification is added to a reprint, yes.

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

NB. The definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball.

PaulDG
07-05-09, 21:05
If by "living document", Ian, you mean something like this clarification is added to a reprint, yes.

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

NB. The definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball.

Chopper, mate.

It ain't gonna happen. I'd like it to, you'd like it, heck most of us here would like it.

But, as has been mentioned before, the committee organisation of the IRB, its international nature and the various important pressures on it (for example, keeping an international minority sport going at all during the worst recession since 1930) mean it ain't gonna happen.

So please, you've had your answer, now let it drop.

Thanks.

Ian_Cook
08-05-09, 03:05
PaulDG (or anyone for that matter)

Whatever happened to the "Laws Notes" section?

When I was a referee (ante internetum) we had "pink pages" in the back of our Laws Books. These were called the "Notes on the Laws". In the notes were things that a referee needed to know, that were not in the text of the LotG, such as interpretations and clarifications of the laws.

From time to time at Association meetings, we would be handed out small slips of paper that were to be glued over the existing sections of the Laws and the Notes (white paper for the Laws, and pink for the notes). A discussion would be had concerning the Notes/Laws amendments, and we'd all go off the following Saturday and apply the new amendments.

I'm sure that there was something in those notes about judging forward passes, putting players on the sin bin, judging not straight at line-outs etc. Just the sort of place that Chopper's amendments would go.

Actually, in this modern age, surely what chopper suggests would be very very simple and the cost absolutely minimal. When the Laws committee make a ruling, they could just write an amendment or an explanatory note to the Laws that could be added to the "Master" PDF, which is in turn put up for downloading on www.irb.com.

In fact, it seems so simple, I must be missing something. :rolleyes:

PaulDG
08-05-09, 09:05
In fact, it seems so simple, I must be missing something. :rolleyes:

It's about investment and priorities.

Anyone who uses the RFU's website (esp their forums) knows that the Internet is not something the rugby community in the Northern Hemisphere gives any priority to.

Phil E
08-05-09, 11:05
PaulDG (or anyone for that matter)
Whatever happened to the "Laws Notes" section?

Do you mean like these?

Follow this link (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html), click on the LOTG link at the bottom (where it says read more) and look at page 55.

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS
OF THE GAME AND GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES 55

Only one problem, this is the LOTG for Association Football. Maybe we should have something similar?

chopper15
08-05-09, 12:05
Chopper, mate.

So please, you've had your answer, now let it drop.

Thanks.

Was that was meant exclusively for me, Paul? :sad:

Is it any wonder I'm beginning to get paranoid?

Dickie E
08-05-09, 12:05
It Isn’t Paranoia If They Really Are Out to Get You :wow:

Simon Thomas
08-05-09, 12:05
Until a few seasons ago, I believe each Union printed it's own Laws Book, based on the IRB issued template.

Now it is all done digitally and there is one global IRB Law Book (in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Japanese and Italian).

The IRB web site is pretty good and holds al the versions as PDFs. As we know the Rulings are also posted on the IRB site

But it is up to each Union (and Society) to create and distribute it's interpretations / guidelines etc, and as Paul rightly says this sort of public information is not seen as a priority investment area.

Davet
08-05-09, 13:05
The biggest problem with rewriting the Laws in micro-definition is that you are then faced with
a) a massive document that is virtually unreadable
b) Even then there will be grey areas
c) The specific that ARE there may well not fit the precise circumstances, but referees will nevertheless be constrained to apply them.

The current situation is that referees have the ability to use judgement and to take account of all of the circumstances.

This can lead to inconsistencies bewteen refs and between the same ref but in different games.

This isn't really much of a problem, though it will be even less of one if the way that refs go about their decision making process is similar - hence the value of training sessions at Society level and the value of fora such as this one.

Improvements in consistency reached by that means will be be far better than trying to micro-manage each game from a set of Laws so dense and detailed that no one can be bothered to read and digest. We are not all professionals, with the time and resources to put in to understanding such fine detailed provisions - and the game would have fewer referees prepared to do that work in their own time.