PDA

View Full Version : Knock On or Try ? Law or justice ?



Simon Thomas
04-04-06, 16:04
A tight level 9 relegation match, but highly enjoyable and challenging.

I had a critical incident mid-way second half on half-way line.

A&F running out of defence and high pass between flankers, R fly half at pace reaches up and tips the ball forward with single hand at full stretch and recovers ball in two hands at head height.
I had my whistle to my lips and about to blow (it wasn't immediate re-gather) when he recovered it in both hands so out came whistle.
After look of horror when he realised he was on half-way and aged 30+ plus 5'9" at 14 st (and quite rotund), he set off and eventually made the try line to score.

Match Report from Club Website :A&F their forwards now beginning to tire in the muddy conditions, looked to break from a ruck on half-way only to see Romsey fly-half Creal stretch to bat the ball into the air. As the referee was reaching for his whistle to penalise a deliberate knock-on Creal plucked the ball from the air and charged towards the only remaining defender with all the speed of a slow-motion replay. For whatever reason; be it the sudden solar eclipse caused by the bulk of the charging Romsey man or sheer amazement that such girth would permit a side-step the visitors’ full-back stood motionless as Creal trundled by and in for his sides’ second try.

I had no complaints at the time from A&F, but interesting friendly debate in bar afterwards.
Was it correct decision to play on in Law ? I believe YES
Was it correct decision to play on morally and in justice ? I have my doubts !

Both coaches said they would have accepted me blowing for deliberate knock-on, before the player re-gathered the ball. Then they accepted my point that the ball hit no other player or the ground, and I saw it as a re-adjustment.

Has anyone had a similar situation ?

Bryan
04-04-06, 16:04
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.
Penalty: Penalty Kick.

Does this law differentiate between a knock-on AND "knock the ball forward"? Seems there is no requirement in the ball touching the ground/another player for it to be deemed a "knock forward" though this could just be that the laws are written clumsily.

Anyone?

-Bryan

SimonSmith
04-04-06, 17:04
Possibly I'm out of sync here, but I would certainly have played on.

It was obviously an attempted interception - that came off - as opposed to a slap down. To my mind, positive play and should be allowed.

If he had failed to gather, Simon, would you have penalized for a knock on or for deliberately knocking forward? Because the fact that he gathered it suggests to me to that it would have been the former.

Simon Thomas
04-04-06, 17:04
Bryan

You correctly quote law 12 (e) but one also has to refer to the Definitions - of Knock On and Throw Forward above it.

Sorry to be pedantic but there is either a Throw Forward or Knock On - not a Knock Forward !

It was NOT a Throw Forward but a Knock On, and the way the Knock On definition reads, there are three ways the ball is propelled forwards (players loses possession, hits forward with hand or arm, or ball hits hand or arm and goes forward)

and (the key word in the definition) two ways in which the Knock On is completed (ball touches the ground or another player)

and (here we have the law as I think I applied it) before the original player can catch it.

As he caught a ball propelled forward by his hand (deliberately I must say) before it hit another player or the ground, I had no option but to play on !

Or did I because, it still doesn't feel right.

ExHookah
04-04-06, 18:04
aged 30+ plus 5'9" at 14 st

Tread carefully here mate! :mad:


Actually, I weighed myself today, and I'm down to 195 lbs, which puts me under 14 stone for the first time in a while. My fitness has been feeling good recently, but the weight has been stubborn.

OB..
04-04-06, 20:04
Something of a hobby-horse of mine ….. *

Up to 1999 the law said:A knock-on occurs when the ball travels forward towards the direction of the opponents' dead-ball line after: -

a player loses possession of it, or
a player propels or strikes it with his hand or arm, or
it strikes a player's hand or arm and touches the ground or another player before it is recovered by the player.This wording and layout strongly suggest that the rider about touching the ground etc applies only to the last case.

When the Laws were re-written in 2000 it became:
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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.

There is now no clarity at all, and the usual assumption is that the rider applies to all cases. Whether the IRB intended that or not, I do not know. However the following suggests they intended it:
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.

This does not use the word/phrase "knock-on", presumably because it would not be a knock-on until it hits the ground etc. Therefore this law is phrased so as to make it a penalty offence to knock the ball forward deliberately, whether that constitutes a knock-on or not.
(For completeness, the 1999 version simply said, "The knock-on or throw-forward must not be intentional.")

This covers the immediate point: if you as referee believe the player knocked the ball forward deliberately, then it is a penalty offence. However if you think he was genuinely trying to get hold of the ball, then it may or may not become a knock-on.

For those of you who remember the Tim Stimpson case in South Africa, I have no doubt that Stimpson was genuinely trying to gather the ball, but in fact he knocked it forward first with his right hand, then with his left. He finally slapped his hand down on top of the ball over the goal-line and tried to claim a try. Impossible. It quite clearly became a knock-on when the ball hit the ground without him recovering it first.

However this raises another problem: was Vos entitled to tackle Stimpson after his first attempt to grab the ball? If you say No, then Stimpson is better off being unable to catch the ball. IMHO if he is entitled to keep trying to get hold of it, then the opposition MUST be entitled to tackle him. If not, he gains a major advantage from his own incompetence.

I don't like this situation. It encourages tackling a player who is perhaps quite some way from the ball, but still chasing after it. My suggestion:
"A knock-on occurs when the ball travels forward off a player's hand or arm and it
either hits the ground or another player before he can gain control;
or goes beyond his reach.
The player is deemed to have possession of the ball while he is still in a position to gain control."
That allows a reasonable amount of juggling, during which he can be tackled, but disallows long-distance efforts.

* I heard that. Somebody at the back said "what isn't?". Stop sniggering.

SimonSmith
04-04-06, 22:04
* I heard that. Somebody at the back said "what isn't?". Stop sniggering.

Griffiths? Griffiths? Yes, you boy!

Robert Burns
05-04-06, 02:04
I can't see any problem, play on.

The tip of the ball inflight probably just allowed the player to gain control. He never lost control of the ball forward because at that point he didn't have control.

As it was a high pass I gather there would have been absolutely no way that he could have intercepted that ball any other way than how he did.

Attackers fault for passing the ball in reach of him.

Deeps
05-04-06, 11:04
My take on this situation is one's judgement as to intent. Was the player trying to intercept the ball as best he could to his immediate advantage or was he being purely disruptive in blatting the ball out of the opposition's attack. The former is positive and skilful if it comes off and deserves to be rewarded by playing on. If the attempt fails yet one's perception is that the intent was to intercept, which is the most difficult of the three cases to determine, then a scrum sanction would be appropriate. Clearly any perceived attempt to be purely disruptive would be assessed as negative play devoid of skill and treated more harshly.

The level and temper of the game, skill of the players etc. would be in mind when computing a failed attempt to intercept and on the black and white judgement scale there will probably be a lot of greys resulting in scrummages.

OB..
05-04-06, 11:04
If we assume that the intent was clearly to try and intercept the ball, but it went several feet forward, would you gentlemen allow an opponent to tackle the player before he finally catches the ball?

Deeps
05-04-06, 13:04
If we assume that the intent was clearly to try and intercept the ball, but it went several feet forward, would you gentlemen allow an opponent to tackle the player before he finally catches the ball?

Again we are in the grey here as it is another judgement call. I would put myself in the place of the tackler and assess whether, in his perception, his timing of the tackle was a reasonable and fair judgement of coincidence with the ball carrier catching the ball given the level of the game, skill of the players etc. Clearly one would have to assess whether it was too early or otherwise an unfair contest where the tackler should have competed for the ball instead.

SimonSmith
05-04-06, 14:04
Absolutely.

I totally agree with OB on the Stimpson thing.

If a player tips the ball forward there are only two ways to look at it:


He's playing the ball OR
He's knocked it on and isn't in possession of it.

If (1), then he's playing the ball and is therefore playable himself.
If (2), then he isn't in possession, and in theory should not be tackled. However, as with all things, that isn't an absolute.

I guess I'm saying that the player attempting the interception/putative knock on can't have it both ways: knock it up and forwards, and then claim he can't be played until he's regathered the ball. That just doesn't work.

tim White
05-04-06, 14:04
Apply equity. Did the player gain any advantage from the flight of the ball? Did it disadvantage any opposition player?

My first, and last, thought was if there was space all round, then play on. How would you feel to have been brought back for a knock-on?

Davet
05-04-06, 14:04
I think your call was correct, Simon. The player clearly intended to intercept, the take was not clean, but it was made.

I would compare it to the pass to a team-mate who has slightly over-run his ideal position. The pass consequently goes a little behind him - he stratches his arm back and knocks/ drags the ball forwards to him and completes the catch. I would not penalise that scenario, or any similar. Though if the ball was dropped in the process it would become a knock-on.

Brian Ravenhill
05-04-06, 14:04
"When the Laws were re-written in 2000 it became:
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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line." Quote from OB

Is that the same 'Forward' as in forward pass?

tim White
05-04-06, 14:04
Only if it "FELT" the same;)

ExHookah
05-04-06, 15:04
Is that the same 'Forward' as in forward pass?


It depends which side of the equator you are on. If you are south of it, then you'll hear an explanation involving momentum ;)


My instinct when looking at knocks and whether it's a catching attempt or an attempt to knock it forward is to look at the angles of hand and arm, if it's slapping down, or accross, then it's hard to view that as an attempt to intercept. Simon's scenario is not that unusual, and I think required a judgement call, and it sounds like he was comfortable with his call.

OB..
05-04-06, 20:04
The Laws use exactly the same wording to define "forward" for both knock-on and throw forward.

However that does not settle the argument, since it can apply either to the ball, or to the action of passing.

ex-lucy
06-04-06, 14:04
here's one for you lot ... big centre crashes thru ... up to half way .... gets half stopped .. pops ball over his shoulder blindly to oncoming support .... but thanks to the actual half way line i can see that ball travels forward ...i.e. the pass started on his side of the half way line and was completed on the oppo's side of half way line ....momentum... i blew my whistle and gave a scrum to oppo .... centre and team mates unhappy because the ball clearly went behind the player but i said it went forward because i could see so with adv of a line ...

Davet
06-04-06, 14:04
Ex-Lucy - I'm with you on this. If the ball travels forward it must have been passed forward. If it had been passed backwards then it would have gone backwards. Sophists may disagree, but I have little time for sophistry, it just causes confusion.

The only relationship which matters is in regard to the direction of the opponents dead-ball line - the direction of either pass or ball in relation to any other thing is irrelevant.

Over to OB for a contrary view.

Simon Griffiths
06-04-06, 15:04
I'm in agreement too. Opponents' dead ball line is all that matters for me. Forward is, as far as I'm concerned forward.

However, it is possible to pass forward with a backwards motion (and I'm not just thinking about a player standing the wrong way round). If it's a windy day, it can easily go 'forward'. I'd penalise it. It is part of a player's skill set to judge all factors when making a pass. We don't let hookers throw it to their scrum half just because it's windy.

Deeps
06-04-06, 16:04
.. pops ball over his shoulder blindly to oncoming support .... .... centre and team mates unhappy because the ball clearly went behind the player but i said it went forward because i could see so with adv of a line...

So, you agree the ball was thrown backwards over the shoulder and not thrown forward then? I am not surprised everyone was a little unhappy, presumably they had read the definition of a throw forward on p 50 of the LOTG which mentions nothing about momentum, relative velocity or the ball 'travelling' forward. It is the action of the player not the resultant vector of the ball. And as for Sophites, didn't he drink too much Hemlock?

didds
06-04-06, 17:04
but i said it went forward because i could see so with adv of a line ...


which is why clear;ly the "momentum" reasoning is the only logical one.

Forget the bit about halff stopped centres etc etc etc - as oft repeated by myself simply consider a player running at 20 kph passing a ball directly backwards over his head at 10 kph. Clearly the ball is still moving "forwards" at 10 kph - but equally clearly the ball has manifestly been passed "backwards" .

Toi call such a pass a "forward" pass makes for a very difficult time I would sugest.

Furthermore and conversely.. a stationary player passes the ball towards the opponents dead ball line at 10 kph. A very strong wind however causes the ball to finish at a position closer to the passer's dead ball line than himslef before being caught. Using the lines on a pitch measure then this pass is presumably backwards? And how do you square that?

Momentum is the only sensible way.

didds

OB..
06-04-06, 18:04
Happy to OBlige :)

The argument has nothing to do with sophistry and everything to do with pragmatism.

I agree that the most natural interpretation of the wording in the law is that the ball should not travel forward. I think the alternative argument that the law is referring to the passing action is forced. However I maintain that referees have always allowed some momentum element in practice, simply because the pass "looks good" when everybody is on the move. Applying the natural meaning of the law too literally would kill many parts of the game.

ex-lucy gave an excellent example: if there had been no line, I doubt if he would even have thought about calling it forward. I'm sure even the opposition thought it was an odd decision.

Here is an excellent recent example at top level - Hickie's try for Leinster against Toulouse: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzW5KlXF5d8&search=leinster (http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzW5KlXF5d8&search=leinster)
The pass inside to D'Arcy is released before the 10 metre line, and caught after it. I think the return pass is (classically) "forward" as well. However at the speed those players are moving, nobody raised that point at all.

According to Andrew Cole, the momentum version is the one used at top level.

The current wording leads to unnecessary inconsistency and argument. I think the law needs re-writing, and my suggestion is:
At the moment of release, the ball should not be moving forward faster than the passer.

Deeps
06-04-06, 18:04
Far too complicated. Let's stay with the law as is writ! It quite clearly defines the action of the player where the law is designed to keep the player honest relative to other players on his team. It is not designed for him to have to worry about true motion.

Mike Whittaker
06-04-06, 19:04
The current wording leads to unnecessary inconsistency and argument. I think the law needs re-writing, and my suggestion is:
At the moment of release, the ball should not be moving forward faster than the passer.

I like the idea in principal OB... but could it not be linked into the offside law in some way? ... a pass to a person not intentionally in an offside position?

OB..
06-04-06, 19:04
The major snag in linking it to offside is that the offence is a throw-forward, not a forward pass. In other words, it does not require a recipient, whereas an offside link would.

Robert Burns
06-04-06, 23:04
Could it just not be as simple as the reciever of the ball must be behind the ball carrier when the ball is passed and recieved.

As for Ex Lucy's comment, I disagree.

I had this in the NSS tournament, ball was passed clearly backwards but the wind caught it mid throw and blew it forward, I said play on!

The ball was clearly thrown backwards when it left the hands, I think the same should be apllied if no wind, if the ball is clearly passed back in the passage of play, then play on. Do you really want to blow for such things which is positive play.

If the players are running at speed, the receiver would need to be about 10 metres behind the passer for the ball to ACTUALLY travel backwards. Look at the game flow, not the lines (unless you are not in a position to assess the game flow).

OB..
07-04-06, 00:04
You cannot define a throw-forward with reference to a receiver, because there is no need to have a receiver.

OB..
07-04-06, 00:04
Far too complicated. Let's stay with the law as is writ! It quite clearly defines the action of the player where the law is designed to keep the player honest relative to other players on his team. It is not designed for him to have to worry about true motion.Whether we like it or not, the wording IS ambiguous.

Did anybody look at the clip of Hickie's try I gave earlier? In The Rugby Club they showed this try and nobody even hinted that there was a forward pass. I only spotted this particular example because I was looking for it.

Examples like that convince me that even those of you who are certain you are following your classical interpretation of the law, are not in fact doing so all the time. And that has long been the case.

Mike Whittaker
07-04-06, 09:04
All points well made...

How about adding on page 50 another 'exception'

'Forward pass. Where the receiver of a pass is not in an off side position when the pass is made, then the pass is not deemed as being a forward pass.'

Simon Griffiths
07-04-06, 10:04
We'd end up with American Football style throws instead of cross-field kicks...

Personally I think it's fine as it is, and most players and spectators (along with ourselves I hope) have a good sense of judgment to adjudge whether something was 'forward' taking all the factors into account. You can usually tell from the flight of the ball as well as how it is released what the intention was, and I'd say that we tend to go with that view.

Mike Whittaker
07-04-06, 10:04
You are right of course...

.. but it would make great TV!!!

There was an american called Dawkins at Oxbridge back in the 60s who could throw across the width of the pitch... interesting line out in the varsity match. Funny it never caught on...

Simon Thomas
07-04-06, 11:04
Mike - same happened in the late 70s at Cambridge. We had a centre called Jim Moyes who was a Candaian Intl and had played good standard Canadian Football before converting to rugby. He went on the play for Rosslyn Park with his Cambridge co-centre Peter Warfield of England.
He could do the same cross field pass - which was used once or twice in matches, including (much to their surprise and post match amusement) against 1976/77 Eagles tourists.
However in practice it wasn't that successful as a rugby ball is bigger than an American football and has different flight dynamics - and harder to catch at full speed.
I know this as Iwas occasionally on receiving end in LX CLub training sessions - and invariably found it too difficult to catch his long throws at speed.

OB..
07-04-06, 11:04
I have twice pointed out that you cannot link the definition of a throw forward to a receiver, because there does not need to be one. So far nobody has challenged that view - they have just ignored it!


Personally I think it's fine as it is But people don't agree as to what it is, so how can it be fine?

I was at Cambridge when Pete Dawkins played, and watched his first Varsity game on TV in the JCR. They had a lineout ploy in which the forwards would suddenly turn and run across the field. Dawkins would throw the ball after them and (provided somebody caught it) they could then turn upfield in a devastating manner. However they had used it in a few club games, so it did not come as a surprise, and had no impact.

Nevertheless, some credit Dawkins with the change in the laws that brought in the 15 yard line - even though that did not happen until 1973.

Mike Whittaker
07-04-06, 11:04
I have twice pointed out that you cannot link the definition of a throw forward to a receiver, because there does not need to be one. So far nobody has challenged that view - they have just ignored it!

But people don't agree as to what it is, so how can it be fine?

I was at Cambridge when Pete Dawkins played, and watched his first Varsity game on TV in the JCR. They had a lineout ploy in which the forwards would suddenly turn and run across the field. Dawkins would throw the ball after them and (provided somebody caught it) they could then turn upfield in a devastating manner. However they had used it in a few club games, so it did not come as a surprise, and had no impact.

Nevertheless, some credit Dawkins with the change in the laws that brought in the 15 yard line - even though that did not happen until 1973.

Nobody is ignoring you OB... A throw forward can include 'passes the ball forward' which implies the presence of a.n.other. We were considering the specific situation where there is a.n.other and tossing around ideas to deal with that situation. Just a bit of free thinking..

As for it being just fine, well some of us are quite happy with a situation which allows interpretation which may at time vary according to the game in hand. You may not be happy with that, and that also is no problem :)

Re Dawkins... I was in the middle of the east terrace on that occasion and whilst it may have had no impact it certainly caused a lot of interest for us spectators...

Simon Griffiths
07-04-06, 13:04
As for it being just fine, well some of us are quite happy with a situation which allows interpretation which may at time vary according to the game in hand.
I like it as it is for the same reason. It's what makes rugby laws quite special, and us refs fairly unique in sports officiating circles. We can apply some common-sense to most situations and get the right decision dependent on the factors at hand.

I know one coach, who loves the fact that rugby laws are interpreted differently every week, he reckons that it is one of those things that make you have to adapt, a challenge of the mental/tactical kind.

As Mr Melrose quoted at our conference recently (on the topic of consistency), "Do you want a consistent referee, or one with common sense?"

ex-lucy
07-04-06, 13:04
OB: "ex-lucy gave an excellent example: if there had been no line, I doubt if he would even have thought about calling it forward. I'm sure even the opposition thought it was an odd decision."

correct ... on both accounts.

Burns: "The ball was clearly thrown backwards when it left the hands, I think the same should be apllied if no wind, if the ball is clearly passed back in the passage of play, then play on. Do you really want to blow for such things which is positive play."

i was suitably embarrassed ... as common sense should have prevailed and i should have allowed play on ... (there was no adv to oppos) .... but the line was there and showed 'the ball went frwd' ... only when i replayed it my mind did i think

Davet
07-04-06, 14:04
I actually quite approve of the Law as was writ a few years ago. When it said that it was only forward when there was no doubt that it was forward.

This meant that the ref could be guided by the lines on the pitch, and pick up what everybody else knew was forward. But also, if there were no convenient lines and all was proceeding at pace then the pass could be safely deemed to be OK unless it was clearly forward.

Which is pretty much how I still interpret it.

I really do NOT want to have to try to estimate the running speed of the player, the time the ball was in flight, and the distance it travelled forward, in order to calculate whether the ball went forward relative to the passer or not!

Fabio
07-04-06, 16:04
I really do NOT want to have to try to estimate the running speed of the player, the time the ball was in flight, and the distance it travelled forward, in order to calculate whether the ball went forward relative to the passer or not!

But I believe you don't actually have to. I like (and actually apply) OB's approach: as long as the ball doesn't go forward in relation to the passer, play on. Some (or maybe most) of you might say I am wrong in Law. I know that. I know a forward pass is defined in reference to the opposing goal line. But I am sure all of you apply the same concept I (as well as OB) do. For a player at speed to pass the ball backards, he must throw it at a tremendous speed backwards, what no one actually does. Practically every pass should be deemed forward if the concept in Law was fully applied.

My 2p...

OB..
07-04-06, 16:04
I really do NOT want to have to try to estimate the running speed of the player, the time the ball was in flight, and the distance it travelled forward, in order to calculate whether the ball went forward relative to the passer or not!I claim that is exactly what you are already doing when there are no guiding lines.

Why should the determination depend on whether or not there are lines nearby?

tim White
07-04-06, 17:04
Calm down chaps.

The word FORWARD is applied to the ball carrier. He can be running at 20mph and pass the ball BACKWARDS at 1mph. He has complied with the law but relative to the pitch the ball is travelling forwards at 19mph.

I've just checked the wording again and it still applies TO THE BALL CARRIER at the moment he passes or loses posession of the ball - did it go forward, or backward from his point of view?

Of course you are all doing some pretty hot 3 dimensional geometry to determine your own opinion of the above, plus do you need a rest or a drink, have we all had enough anyway, at the last ruck I got too close and the bird pooped on my whistle so carry on until I've cleaned it off, etc.

Samll point, I estimate referees make at least one decision every second during the game, multiplied by howevermany active players involved in any particular phase equals anawfullot of thinking. Dont be surprised if the man in the middle gets some decisions wrong, he'll get a lot more right- and he might actually be up to date with the laws as well..

Fabio
07-04-06, 20:04
Calm down chaps.

The word FORWARD is applied to the ball carrier. He can be running at 20mph and pass the ball BACKWARDS at 1mph. He has complied with the law but relative to the pitch the ball is travelling forwards at 19mph.

I've just checked the wording again and it still applies TO THE BALL CARRIER at the moment he passes or loses posession of the ball

Hummm... Not sure, tim. The version I have of he law book says the following:



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


So, it clearly says it is relative to the pitch. Although I believe it should be relative to the passer.

But I think I will accept your sugestion for a rest or a drink... :D

OB..
07-04-06, 21:04
The fact that perfectly sane, intelligent, native English-speakers disagree about the meaning of the words is cast-iron proof that the wording is ambiguous.

Instead of appealing to authority by claiming a particular interpretation, let's talk about what we think is best.

Mike Whittaker
07-04-06, 23:04
It is of necessity written in words... how else?

Words however often can, and do, have different meanings. Just look in the dictionary and see how many meanings there are for most common words.

Sentences are even more difficult!

Do we really want the laws to be unambiguous?

Incidentally, as an assessor I have never told a referee that he missed a forward pass... :)

speedy
08-04-06, 09:04
I can't see a problem - intercept and gather shows the intent as positive let it run and enjoy the spectacle!!!!

Simon Thomas
09-04-06, 19:04
Just seen exactly the same thing happen in Powergen Final as Wasps #10 batted ball, caught it, ran and Voyce scored.
Feel happy, correct and at peace with the decision I made a couple of weekends ago at Level 9 and at about a third of the speed !

oxped
09-04-06, 20:04
So, it clearly says it is relative to the pitch. Although I believe it should be relative to the passer.



Because the passer is on the pitch, these are exactly the same thing.

If you say the ball has gone forward relative to the pitch, then it has also gone forward relative to the passer because the passer occupies a specific point on the pitch from which the ball originates.

OB..
10-04-06, 00:04
The passer is moving. The pitch isn't. They therefore have different frames of reference - it's called relativity.

Backwards relative to the passer means that if he continues forward at the same speed, the ball will remain behind him. However the ball may well be travelling forward relative to the pitch.

oxped
10-04-06, 00:04
By using that logic if a player passed the ball high in the air, and kept moving so he was always still infront of the ball, the ball could move several yards forward up the pitch and yet always remain behind the player.

surely the important thing is the direction of movement of the ball after the moment of release, no matter what the passer is doing?

Fabio
10-04-06, 02:04
I am done.

OB..
10-04-06, 11:04
oxped - as I pointed out earlier (see my post referring to Hickie's try), that is exactly the sort of thing that happens a lot of the time without anybody realising it. The classic interpretation is NOT the one that is in general use, whatever the referees themselves may think.

Deeps
10-04-06, 12:04
surely the important thing is the direction of movement of the ball after the moment of release, no matter what the passer is doing?

I agree, and would suggest that it is the direction of movement of the ball at the moment of release relative to the ball carrier, no matter what the ball carrier is doing?

Whether he is running forwards, sideways or backwards, the ball must not leave him travelling forwards from him.

Deeps
10-04-06, 12:04
The fact that perfectly sane, intelligent...

Now that is discriminatory, I have it on good authority that several colleagues feel excluded by that remark!

oxped
10-04-06, 13:04
Whether he is running forwards, sideways or backwards, the ball must not leave him travelling forwards from him.


So if we assume that the direction that the ball carrier is irrelevant, the only way to judge the movement of the ball is in relation to the pitch.

That would seem to be the simpliest way to judge a forward pass.

Deeps
10-04-06, 14:04
So if we assume that the direction that the ball carrier is irrelevant, the only way to judge the movement of the ball is in relation to the pitch.


That's not what I said. It is the ball carrier's action in propelling the ball; has he propelled it forward in relation to his own motion or not. If he has any forward motion of his own then, for it to be relative to the pitch he will have to propel it backwards at a speed equal to his own forward motion or, by the pitch relativity method, it will be forwards.

Put your imaginary player into the gym and onto a running machine to visualise the solution. The floor under his feet is moving, just like the pitch yet if he passes the ball laterally and perpendicular to the track then the pass will not be forward however the white lines under his feet will be long gone.

Back on the pitch, by all means use the white lines to judge whether the vector of the ball is parallel to or less than (ultimately the goal line) but to state that the pass was given on a white line and was received a metre in front of that white line and therefore forward is false.

Davet
10-04-06, 15:04
If the pass is given on the white line, and is collected forward of the white line the pass is forward.

I understand the momentum arguement, but if you use that then you must also work out how far forward of the white line is acceptable, 6 inches, a foot, a yard, 2 yards...? Of course that all depends on how fast the runner was going and the length of time the ball was inflight. I am not interested in trying to gues those and do a rough calculation to work out how far momentum would have taken the ball as compared to how far it actually went.

So if there is a clear marker I will use it - if not then as OB points out, I will take a snap judgement, and maybe on occasion when the ball carrier, the receiever and I are all moving in a rough line at the same speed, then I will allow a technically forward pass. That's where I like the bit about it having to be clearly forward before it is classed as forward.

But if it crosses an obvious marker then that seems clear, and I can avoid the tricky estimation required when none such is available.

Anyway - that's me done on this one...I have said it before, will doubtless do so again - but not for a while.

OB..
10-04-06, 19:04
If the pass is given on the white line, and is collected forward of the white line the pass is forward.… and you know that Andrew Cole does not agree. He is an IRB referee, being assessed by the IRB, so we have to believe he is following IRB guidelines.

You are right that we have now been round this spinney many times. It's a bit like Pooh's Woozles and Wizzles. Every now and then somebody else joins in. Or not, as the case may be. Where's Christopher Robin when you need him?

Davet
11-04-06, 14:04
Andrew Cole is a dentist, and probably good at being a dentist.

No further comment.

OB..
11-04-06, 14:04
Andrew Cole is also good at being a referee - otherwise he would not be on the IRB A panel.

Brian Ravenhill
11-04-06, 14:04
When the section in the law book was last rewritten the game at all levels was a lot slower than it is to day. Players now play on the gain line, passing flat passes not to give up valuable inches in the moving of the ball across the pitch. Players in the good/bad old days used to pass along way backwards not flat. I can remember being coached as a kid on the wing to stand 25m behind my fly half on the end of a 45-degree line of three-quarter so as to ensure no passes went forward. The law book states 'forward is towards the oppositions goal line' OB quoted that so it must be correct. Is it now time to find a new way of defining a forward pass, or is it time we all refereed to the letter of the law, as we do with the put in to the scrum, pre-gripping in lineouts and all the other things we let slip as not material to the game we referee today.

Simon Thomas
12-04-06, 10:04
OB - I suspect Christopher Robin has gone to Buckingham Palace for the Queen's 80th birthday !

Brian has it spot on - the Laws were written some time ago, the Game has changed with far more flat passes in this more defensive era but we referees make our decisions in the spirit of the law and not letter of the law.

All the players and coaches ask for is consistency and in my experience borderline forward pass decisions at levels 6-15 are accepted if the referee is up with play and in line to make his/her call. Of course a marked line is a reference point in some cases, and I for one will use common sense to make those decisions and blow when I can see it is obviously forward.

Academic debates regarding relative forward motion of player and ball in relation to the ground are intellectually interesting and offer a framework to aid decision making (as has been done formally in RL), but at the end of the day we make the decision on the pitch as individual referees.

OB..
12-04-06, 12:04
I can see it is time to quote Andrew Cole again:
"Spectators often misunderstand the forward pass - lines on the field should never be used to judge whether a pass is forward or not. A forward pass relates to the passing action, i.e. if the hands move forward in a pass it is forward. Quite often, due to the momentum of the player passing, the ball will travel forward before it is caught by a teammate. This is NOT a forward pass. This illusion is emphasised when the player passing has been stopped in a tackle just as he passes the ball. Look at his hands as he passes, not where the ball goes!" (The Australian Rugby Companion)
He states quite categorically that it is not necessarily a forward pass just because the ball itself moves forward across a line.

I have no doubt at all that historically the "classic" interpretation was the one intended.
I also know that most referees support that interpretation.
I agree that it is the most natural interpretation of the wording.

However…
That is not what any of you actually do in practice.
That has been the case for many years.
That is why we get so many arguments about it.

Please review this clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzW5KlXF5d8&search=leinster (http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzW5KlXF5d8&search=leinster)
Did anybody feel Hickie's inside pass to D'Arcy was forward?
That is typical of modern high speed play. It happens every week - even at lower levels.

Bryan
12-04-06, 13:04
I had watched the video the first time you referenced it, and clearly I wouldn't award a forward pass if I was the referee, as I too would be moving at the same speed as Hickie (ok, I'm an optimist, but work with me here) and relative to me the ball would've been passed backwards. Relative to the stationary bystander, it would've been passed forwards (OB made reference to all of this a long time ago).

While this talk of "let's use lines" is all good when you're standing still and you get the TV angle, being on the pitch with the players and moving continuously, then common sense prevails.


Did anybody feel Hickie's inside pass to D'Arcy was forward?

If defined as per the laws, then YES. If, however, I was Dave Pearson or any other referee with common sense, then a resounding "NO".

-Bryan

tim White
12-04-06, 13:04
The inside pass was fine, it was the return outside pass that looked dodgy.

OB..
12-04-06, 16:04
To me the pass from Hickie to D'Arcy was released from outside the Toulouse 10 metre line, and caught from beyond it, thus showing conclusively that the ball had travelled towards the opponents' dead-ball line. That seems to me do be undeniable.

My point is that nobody at the time even suggested it might be a forward pass, and I claim that this is a very common situation, even among referees who believe they are strictly enforcing the "classic" view.


If defined as per the laws, then YES.So you reject Andrew Cole's assertion? Do you deny that the wording of the law IS ambiguous?

Bryan
12-04-06, 17:04
So you reject Andrew Cole's assertion?
No I accept it.

Do you deny that the wording of the law IS ambiguous?

After reading it again for the umpteenth time, I think the Law is clearly written as it makes no reference to where the ball is caught, but only towards where it is thrown (which is what you and Andrew Cole have been making reference to all this time). So even under Laws, it was NOT a forward pass. So NO and NO.

-Bryan

ExHookah
12-04-06, 19:04
I think the key to all of this, in terms of making life simpler for 99% of us that referee without the benefit/hinderance of TV, is to be up with play as much as possible, and then whatever decision you make is much easier to sell.

Same applies if you are using official TJ's to help you out. Ivy League Championship Final, Harvard run in to score a try against Dartmouth. Myself TJ, Mr. Picard as ref. As I'm walking behind the posts the Dartmouth full back enquired if the pass was forward, I said no. He said some of his teammates also thought it was forward, and I pointed out to him that as I was in line with play, I had a much better view of play than them. He asked how I knew he wasn't up with play, so I said if he had been up with play, maybe he should have tackled the try scorer, which made him laugh. Dartmouth were up by over 40 points, so he accepted that it wasn't even close to significant.

Fabio
12-04-06, 20:04
No I accept it.

After reading it again for the umpteenth time, I think the Law is clearly written as it makes no reference to where the ball is caught, but only towards where it is thrown (which is what you and Andrew Cole have been making reference to all this time). So even under Laws, it was NOT a forward pass. So NO and NO.

-Bryan

Maybe it's because I am not a native English speaker, but I might be a bit confused here.

I believe the law is not ambiguous, and I believe it clearly says the pass Hickie made was indeed a throw-forward.



LAW 12 – KNOCK-ON OR THROW-FORWARD
DEFINITION - 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line. (my emphasis)

I think there is no discussion it WAS a forward pass IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW, as the ball went towards the opposing team's dead ball line. I just want you to understand I am not favorable to what is written in the law, though. I believe a player must not be obliged to calculate how much power he has to apply to the ball so it doesn't go forward. I believe he only needs not to throw it forward relative to himself.

I will continue applying my understanding, BUT, there is no argument here: if someone tells me it was forward because it crossed a line, all I can say is "I didn't pay attention to the line and it didn't seem forward to me". I can't say "OK, but it was not a throw forward because he threw it backwards, even though it crossed the line".

I hope I made myself clear. Well, actually, I hope I understood what we are all talking abou here. As I said before, I might be a bit confused...:D

OB..
13-04-06, 00:04
Fabio - I think you have understood the point well, and I think you take the best view as to how to proceed in practice.

However since native English speakers DO take different views, it necessarily follows that the wording IS ambiguous - to them, if not to you.

You take what I call the "classic" view. To get the "momentum" view, you need to argue that the word 'forward' in the phrase 'throws or passes the ball forward' applies to the action of passing rather the path of the ball. Personally I think that is strained, but it is feasible. It also makes more sense in practical terms. It also represents what referees actually do most of the time, even though they do not realise it

didds
14-04-06, 15:04
I stand by what I said with my over the head scenario.

If you blow a forward pass for a ball that was thrown directly backwards over a head (whilst facing the attacking direction :-) then I would moot that you will lose any credibility whatsoever with all 30 players. Even IF as a consequence of monetum indeed the ball arrived further forward than where it left. You will NEVER convince a player that such a pass was forward, lines or no lines. To do so could only bring into question almost every single pass made by a moving player whatever the direction it was passed at - and the game is too quick for that to be at all feasible.

Momentum is the ONLY acceptable and generic approach.

didds

Mike Whittaker
15-04-06, 00:04
Maybe it's because I am not a native English speaker, but I might be a bit confused here.

I hope I made myself clear. Well, actually, I hope I understood what we are all talking about here. As I said before, I might be a bit confused...:D


You may not be a native English speaker Fabio but you write it as well as anyone on this board!! I also think you understand it perfectly and agree totally with what you have said.

The ambiguity is in the eye of the reader, not in the Law.

OB..
15-04-06, 02:04
The ambiguity is in the eye of the reader, not in the Law.Does that mean you claim the wording of the law is NOT ambiguous?

Mike Whittaker
15-04-06, 11:04
Does that mean you claim the wording of the law is NOT ambiguous?

It means what I say OB. I agree with both Fabio and Bryan and others that on the specific point the Law as written is quite clear to me, if not to you, with regard to the definition of 'forward'.

OB..
15-04-06, 11:04
Mike - I notice you did not actually answer my question.

I define, and can produce evidence for, two different views:
(1) Classic. What matters is the path of the ball over the ground.
(2) Momentum. What matters is the action of passing, relative to the passer.

Which do you subscribe to?
Can you disprove the other one?

Mike Whittaker
15-04-06, 12:04
Mike - I notice you did not actually answer my question.

I define, and can produce evidence for, two different views:
(1) Classic. What matters is the path of the ball over the ground.
(2) Momentum. What matters is the action of passing, relative to the passer.

Which do you subscribe to?
Can you disprove the other one?

OB I do not doubt that you can provide evidence for different views on the application of the Law... we have seen many on here.

The issue which I was addressing is the Law as written which is not ambiguous. The interpretational ambiguity arises because the law is not applied as written.

I would agree that the law could be rewritten but I think it is only a problem for the theorists ... and possibly Stuart Barnes.:)

OB..
15-04-06, 14:04
The issue which I was addressing is the Law as written which is not ambiguous. But that is precisely the point I am disagreeing with.

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

Some people, such as you, say the word "forward" refers to the path of the ball. Others, such as Andrew Cole, claim that it refers to the action of throwing, and that this is necessarily in relation to the passer, not the ground.

I know they really do believe this because I have argued with many of them.

My view is that your interpretation is more natural, and historically sound, but that the alternative is also viable. In other words, the law is ambiguous.

didds
15-04-06, 16:04
I would agree that the law could be rewritten but I think it is only a problem for the theorists ... and possibly Stuart Barnes.:)


so is a pass directly back over your head that (lines on the ground etc) finishes closer to the oppo dead ball line than from it started a forward pass? (caveat : passer is running AT the oppo dead ball line of course! :-)

????

And if you woulod blow it as forward - how are you going to convince 30 players plus others of that ?

didds

Mike Whittaker
16-04-06, 00:04
The law is not ambiguous.

"Forwards" is defined unequivocally.

What can be ambiguous about '...towards the opposing team's dead ball line'

There is, as has been correctly pointed out, no reference to other players or the speed of the player last in contact.

The law is ignored and misinterpreted willfully because that is the way it has always been. It should be rewritten, but as written it is not amibiguous.

OB..
16-04-06, 01:04
I don't think anybody is arguing about the definition of "forward". The ambiguity lies in its application. As I said above, does "forward" apply to the ball (relative to the ground) or the passing action (relative to the player)?

Mike Whittaker
16-04-06, 09:04
I don't think anybody is arguing about the definition of "forward". The ambiguity lies in its application. As I said above, does "forward" apply to the ball (relative to the ground) or the passing action (relative to the player)?


It means what it says, "Towards the opposing team's dead ball line." There is no mention of any other players, the dead ball line is on the ground.

As referees we are all applying the law incorrectly as it is stated, in certain cases which we all understand. Technically the law should be changed if we are happy with what is being applied. But this is not an ambiguity, well not as I understand the word. It is an error.

OB..
16-04-06, 09:04
I repeat: the argument is not about the definition of the word "forward". It is about its application to the phrase "throws or passes the ball".

Different people legitimately interpret that differently, which to me proves its ambiguity.

didds
16-04-06, 11:04
A throw-forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

So, it clearly says it is relative to the pitch.

does it?

In my example the pass back over the head quite clearly is not thrown or passed _towards_ the opposing team's dead ball line.

However, the momentum on the ball could quite clearly mean the ball "arrives" closer to the opposition's dead ball line than it began.

So now you have a ball that has travelled towards the oppo DBL even though it was clearly NOT thrown or passed towards the oppo DBL and in fact was thrown or passed in totally the opposite direction.

So it clearly says it is relative to the passer.

QED. there is NO interpretation that can otherwise work. Otherwise - as I have already stated, you are going to have convince at least 30 players and 2 coaches - who WILL have collective agreement on this amonst themselves - that a pass back over the head is a forward pass. And they will NEVER believe anything other than a backwards pass is nothing but backwards I am positive.

didds

Deeps
16-04-06, 12:04
Mike,

You and I shall have to corner our Chairman for opening this can of worms. Moving on, I do not believe there is ambiguity here; let's review the basics. The definition of throw forward is given to us viz:

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

I don't think anyone will argue the second sentence and we can agree the definition of 'forward'. The critical phrase in the first sentence causing the trouble is 'a player throws or passes the ball forward.' Simply put as I see it, 'a player' is the subject of the present tense of the verbs ' to throw or to pass' [they are interchangeable alternatives in this context]; 'the ball' is the object of the phrase. The adverb 'forward' amplifies the verb which is the action word performed by the subject, not the resultant effect on the object. If there was such a verb as 'to throw forward' then it would read 'the player throws forward the ball' which, though clumsy in modern use of English, should have kept Pandora's box shut firmly!

This of course supports the didds et al view of the definition.

OB..
16-04-06, 12:04
Fascinating. Deeps and Mike argue different views, and both claim the law is unambiguous!

Do we need any greater proof that the law is, in fact, ambiguous?

The heart of the matter is that rewording is needed, and I argue that this should clearly come down on the side of the momentum view, because that is what referees at all levels use in practice, whether they realise it or not.

Mike Whittaker
16-04-06, 23:04
Deeps, I would agree with you if the word 'forward' had not been defined in the Law itself. Much as one might like to agree with your understanding of the word forward, such a luxury is not permissable where the totally inadequate, but nevertheless unambiguous, definition has already been supplied in the Law.

All I agree with you on OB is that the law would need to be rewritten to keep the theorists happy.

At the same time should we rewrite the other laws which are ignored.

For example perhaps the 'straight' in 20.6 where no doubt some consider there is another 'ambiguity' :)

OB..
17-04-06, 00:04
Mike - you keep on referring to the definition as though that is where we claim the ambiguity lies. It is not. The definition refers to a particular point on the ground simply because past that point the ball is out of play, so no definition is needed.

Please turn your attention to the question of what the word "forward" refers to. It is in some way modifying the phrase "throws or passes the ball".

The classic view is that it means the ball itself must not go forward ie it is equivalent to "throws or passes the ball in such a way that the ball travels forward."

The momentum view is that it refers to the action of passing ie it is equivalent to "throws or passes the ball with a forward action". Such a forward action must be judged relative to the passer, not the ground (and it still makes sense to use the opponents' dead-ball line as a point of reference).

IMHO the first view is the more natural reading, but the second is more in tune with reality.

(I think I'll start another thread on "straight", so as not to confuse this one - it is hard enough going as it is already ;) .)

Mike Whittaker
17-04-06, 11:04
My claim is that in the law itself, as written, there is no ambiguity. If a person who had no knowledge of the game of rugby, but a clear understanding of the use of the English language, were to read it then there would be no confusion in their mind as to the law and its meaning. There would be no ambiguity.

'passing the ball with a forward action' introduces a totally new aspect to the matter, namely the action of the person releasing the ball rather than the passage of the ball itself.

IMHO it is the introduction of that point which is unwritten, but which should be considered in practice, which introduces ambiguity in application.

However, having listened to the debate on soccer offside following the Liverpool goal yesterday, I would hope that in application our refs continue to use common sense and play what the law intends rather than what it may say in similar circumstances...:rolleyes:

Deeps
17-04-06, 11:04
Deeps, I would agree with you if the word 'forward' had not been defined in the Law itself. Much as one might like to agree with your understanding of the word forward, such a luxury is not permissable where the totally inadequate, but nevertheless unambiguous, definition has already been supplied in the Law.


Mike, are you digging the hole a little too deep perhaps? I am not disputing the definition of 'forward' on p.50 at all, quite the reverse, I have no argument with it - it is quite clear. But the use of 'forward' in the definition here is as an adverb and in English this modifies the doing word ('throws or passes') done by the subject ('a player'). So it describes the action of the individual player not the resultant true motion of the ball.

Interestingly enough, the title of the definition is 'THROW FORWARD', almost a new verb in itself.

OB..
17-04-06, 13:04
Mike - some time ago, when a similar argument was raging elsewhere, I took the trouble to enquire of many referees in my society what criteria they used for a "forward pass", as it is usually called. For most it seemed an odd question. How could it be anything but the ball travelling forward? When asked if they would call a forward pass in the ex-lucy example of a player throwing the ball back over his head, they said, "Of course not."

As I have said several times, I find the classic interpretation the most natural one, and I have historical evidence that it was what was originally intended.

Going from there to claiming that it is the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation is a step too far. I came across a number of referees, mainly Australian, but not exclusively, who argued fiercely that the momentum interpretation was the only correct one, using Deeps' argument that "forward" is an adverb modifying a verbal phrase "throw or pass".

Without going as far as Humpty Dumpty, we know that language means what people understand it to mean. In England we say, "I couldn't care less." Americans tend to say, "I could care less", but mean the same. Go figure.


Interestingly enough, the title of the definition is 'THROW FORWARD', almost a new verb in itself.A fortiori, "throw-forward" is always hyphenated in the Laws.

Mike Whittaker
17-04-06, 16:04
Deeps, until you are able to discount your own fixed views of the meaning of 'forward' and restrict your thinking to the definition as given in the law, which is all it can have as that is how it is defined, you will not be able to grasp the point I am making. .. and I do know what an adverb is. Try replacing the word 'forward' with some symbol which is subsequently defined and you will possible get the point.

OB you are totally missing the point I am making which has nothing to do with how the situation is played ... and here I always support the concensus view.

Just a pity the law can't say what it means so ref's can play it so they do mean what it says....

... and that gents is my final message on this. I will have my view and you can have yours... :)

OB..
17-04-06, 17:04
OB you are totally missing the point I am making Pot and kettle time?!

You keep coming back to the definition of the word "forward". Nobody is arguing about that definition.
NOBODY.
AT ALL.

The argument is all about the way in which it modifies the preceding verbal phrase "throws or passes the ball".

I have made this point several times, but you just keep reverting to the definition.

Your point appears to be that since the meaning of "forward" is unambiguous, therefore the meaning of the whole phrase is unambiguous. That is false logic. Context is vital. What matters is the frame of reference. You insist that must be the ground simply because the definition refers to a line on the ground. Not necessarily.

Let's up the speed a bit. You are on a train going to London, so "forward" is defined as "towards London". You have your back to the engine and toss an apple to the person opposite. For everybody in the carriage, your arm movement is backwards (ie not forwards) and the apple travels backwards.

However to a spectator on the station as you pass through, it is clear that your arm speed was nowhere near enough to cancel out the forward speed of the train. So to him, your arm and the apple both continued forwards, although at reduced speed.

The fact that "forward" is defined with reference to a fixed point on the ground does not determine whether the view of the people on the train or at the station should prevail. It is in fact a question of convention, and either view may be used for different purposes.

Cappiuk
20-04-06, 17:04
Gentlemen,

welcome to the special theory of relativity, first defined by Einstein, in 1906 I think.

OB, I think you are correct in your argument. The theory of relativity states that all movement is relative depending upon the frame of reference being used to judge it. As freqently stated, the definitions of FORWARD etc are very clear, what is not is the frame of refence being used to judge it. If we use the pitch as the frame of reference (at first sight the most logical) then a lot of passes between moving players may turn out to be, in fact, forward. If we use the player making the pass the frame of reference, then provided he passes it backwards from his body, the pass will be OK. However, TV Cameras and the audience are stationary on the ground, and are therefore using the pitch as a frame of reference. This explains why passes may apprear forward to the crowd and not to the players (or maybe they are biased!!!)

However, here's a third view. The referee is the one making the decision. He may be stationary, he may be moving and this will affect how he sees the flight of the ball. If, from the ref's perspective the pass is foward, should we not allow him to make the call?

To tighten up the law, we need to define our frame of reference. Everything else will folllow. Personally, I'd go for the refs perspective.

Incidentally, a further prediction of the special theory of relativity is that time is also dependant on the frame of reference to which you are measuring it. Time will appear to progress slow for a stationary observer. Thus, the spectators percieve the game as lasting longer than the players! But then, anyone watching their team play in a cup final already knows this :)

Davet
20-04-06, 18:04
I know I said I'd finished on this - but what the heck.

The frame of reference is defined clearly. "Forward" or as Mike suggests "x" is defined as "towards the opposition dead-ball line".

If the ball is passed "x" then it it is passed forward.

The fact that it is passed behind the body of the player making the pass is totally irrelevant.

HOWEVER - and these are the two critical bits -

"the referee is the sole arbiter of fact" and,
(as used to be made explicit, but is now merely implicit) "A pass is not forward unless it is clearly forward".

So my arbitration of the facts works as follows:-

1) if the ball goes clearly "x" then it is forward
2) a clear mark or line on the pitch can help me, and others, see what is clearly "x" then that is a useful tool
3) if I am not sure that the pass was "x", then it wasn't a forward pass

I plead common humanity for any failure to see such a forward pass, and by questioning me, the sole arbiter at the time, you probably owe me beer, or maybe 10 mins if I'm feeling arsey.

Davet
20-04-06, 18:04
So keen I posted it twice

Second occurance removed

didds
20-04-06, 19:04
all I can ask then Dave is does that mean you would be quite happy calling a forward pass to a ball that was propelled directly behind the passer's head when running towards the oppo DBL? (see above ad infinitum)

And - more importantly for your own credibility - you would expect 30 players + others to accept that that was correct in law, equity and whatever else?

I just don't see that last bit EVER happening, lines or no lines.... and THAT is the bottom line. Anything else is dancing on a head of a pin.

didds

Mike Whittaker
20-04-06, 20:04
Didds,

I am sure that Dave agrees with me that we would not be quite so stupid..
(I hope!!) as to "be quite happy calling a forward pass to a ball that was propelled directly behind the passer's head when running towards the oppo DBL? "

We have not been talking about what we would do....
We have been talking about what the law says.
..and the law itself tells us which frame of reference to use - the pitch.

So whilst the introduction of Einstein may have been of interest as a diversion it is not necessary in this case.

So... we do not apply the law as written. :)

OB..
20-04-06, 20:04
and the law itself tells us which frame of reference to use - the pitchNo, it does not.

The reference to a fixed point is equally valid for a fixed or moving frame of reference.

If a player running forward throws the ball over his head, nobody would normally describe that as a forward movement, but a backward one.

Cappiuk
20-04-06, 22:04
I love this thread, it just gets better and better!

I'm perfectly serious about the Einstein bit, but I only introduced it as a joke :p

I don't think we'll ever get everyone to agree on this one - it's just too complicated!

Mike Whittaker
20-04-06, 23:04
But should not the gravitational influence of the ball and the curvature of the surrounding space necessitate a degree of allowance for the occasions when the ball is travelling very fast? Can't always be Euclidean surely?? :p

Davet
21-04-06, 11:04
Oh no - I'm getting drawn back into this....(help, help,)

If a player is running forward very fast and lobs the ball back over his head then I would be inclined to play on, unless something very obvious happened - I can envisage a situation where the player lobs the ball high and it travels very obviously a few metres forward, and I may if it was that obvious and that extreme ping it - but not normally.

As to momentum in general being allowed - then how do you adjudicate how much of the balls direction of travel was due to momentum, and how much due to the direction of the throw? I would be happy to calculate this if I can use a stop watch and a tape measure, and if I know the players speed and directiomn of his run at the time he passed the ball. It might take me a few minutes though.

The answer is, as with all straw men that are set up, that it is ridiculous to even attempt it.

So we are left with the interpretation that OB suggests. Which is that what the Law is suggesting is that it is the direction of the pass in relation to the players body which is important.

The only problem with that is that the ONLY definition of forward involves the travel of the ball in relation to the ground. That and nothing else is what the law says, and is the most obvious and straightforward interpretation. To read the law otherwise is a very Jesuitical view, bending meanings out of true to fit the desired outcome.

To recap - the law is it stands is fine - it is clear and obvious, involves no mathematics, and gives me the latitude to use common sense and discretion when I need to in the interests of the game.

Refereeing is like playing a flute - the Laws are the keys - the subtlety of the referee, and the way he uses the Laws are what makes the music of a good game.

Cor - poetry 'n stuff before lunch - today may be a good one.

Oh - and the players help with the music as well.

Brian Ravenhill
21-04-06, 15:04
The law book does define forward in the section on knock-on but does not mention it or redefine it with in the section on forward passes, thus to my simple mind forward for a forward pass is the same as forward for a knock on ie towards the oppositions goal line and thus relative to the ground not the referee, player be he/she passing or receiving, commentator or the spectator sat in any seat in any stadium or living room.

didds
21-04-06, 19:04
We have not been talking about what we would do....
We have been talking about what the law says.
..and the law itself tells us which frame of reference to use - the pitch.

So whilst the introduction of Einstein may have been of interest as a diversion it is not necessary in this case.

So... we do not apply the law as written. :)

Right. OK.

So - given the example I have provided under what other wording of the law could anything but a momentum approach work?

In short I do not "buy" the argument that the wording of the law means the ball in relation to the pitch OTHER than a direction of a pass as it is made - because no other interpretation is sensible.

I would agree this could be enshrined in more definitive language, but as it stands there is only one sensible interpretation that can be made. Because to do anything other than that is plain stupidity - or crassness.


didds

didds
21-04-06, 19:04
I love this thread, it just gets better and better!

I'm perfectly serious about the Einstein bit, but I only introduced it as a joke :p

I don't think we'll ever get everyone to agree on this one - it's just too complicated!

But that's the point - it isn't. Or maybe more to the point, it CAN'T.

Because to even contemplate any other interpretation is just... daft.

*shrug*

didds

Mike Whittaker
21-04-06, 19:04
The law book does define forward in the section on knock-on but does not mention it or redefine it with in the section on forward passes, thus to my simple mind forward for a forward pass is the same as forward for a knock on ie towards the oppositions goal line and thus relative to the ground not the referee, player be he/she passing or receiving, commentator or the spectator sat in any seat in any stadium or living room.


Well said Brian... and I would expect no less from a level 5 ref when talking to the players, clear, succint and decisive. I will leave this debate on your posting!

didds
21-04-06, 19:04
Oh no - I'm getting drawn back into this....(help, help,)

If a player is running forward very fast and lobs the ball back over his head then I would be inclined to play on, unless something very obvious happened - I can envisage a situation where the player lobs the ball high and it travels very obviously a few metres forward, and I may if it was that obvious and that extreme ping it - but not normally.

ahh... but... the ball-over-the-head bit was to merely illustrate a very "obvious" scenario. Everything else that follows from that is just fractions of difference... slightly different speeds, differences in angle etc etc etc... until eventually you move from the "obvious" situiation to the "no longer obvious" situation. But we/you cannot run the game based on grey areas... you can;t have a "its only just forward so that's OK" approach becauze then you enter the world of subjective calls as to how much has to forward enough, and whether one person's enough is the same as another's. In other words, we/you need to be able to use exactly the same criteria on every occassion in order to keep consistency within yourself and also yourselves. Otherwise anarchy reigns.

And as such in that regard you either ping the ball-over-the-head as forward - even though lines on the pitch have been passed - or you don't ... and apply the same logic thereafter to every pass.



As to momentum in general being allowed - then how do you adjudicate how much of the balls direction of travel was due to momentum, and how much due to the direction of the throw?

well the answer to that is that you donm;t have to actually concern yourself with the momentum itself. All you are doing is looking at the direction of travel the ball is propelled. IF momentum means the ball actually finishes closer to the oppo DBL (cf: Hickkie try OB pointed to elsewhere) you jjust ignore it ... all you have to concern yourself with is whether the act of passing the ball occurred in a direction away from the oppo DBL.
Which is exactkly what you have done when you will have permitted the ball-over-the-head scenario.



I would be happy to calculate this if I can use a stop watch and a tape measure, and if I know the players speed and directiomn of his run at the time he passed the ball. It might take me a few minutes though.


See above. Noc alculatio required. You ignbore momentum if it does exist. Because you only concern yourself with the direction of the ball as it leaves the passer's hands. Did that ball go backwards from his hands when he tossed it over his head? Yes! So - speed, angle to DBL all irrelevant when making the decision. Again - cf Hickie's try.



So we are left with the interpretation that OB suggests. Which is that what the Law is suggesting is that it is the direction of the pass in relation to the players body which is important.


Exactly. Which both the Hickie video and my silly scenario demoinstrate can be the ONLY sensible interpretation to use. Because not to do so leaves you with the undefensible - at least in the eyes of the majority.



To recap - the law is it stands is fine - it is clear and obvious, involves no mathematics, and gives me the latitude to use common sense and discretion when I need to in the interests of the game.


And means you will therefore blow a forward pass to a ball that is thrown straight behind a player running towards the oppo DBL.

Which is plainly never going to happen.

So the interpretatioin thus derived cannot be used.

So there has to be another interpretation which common sense tells us has to be the real and proper one.

The only other alternative is to enter a grey area of individual's idea of what looks right maybe at some time possibly. Which can only lead to inconsistency.

didds

didds
21-04-06, 19:04
Oh no - I'm getting drawn back into this....(help, help,)

If a player is running forward very fast and lobs the ball back over his head then I would be inclined to play on, unless something very obvious happened - I can envisage a situation where the player lobs the ball high and it travels very obviously a few metres forward, and I may if it was that obvious and that extreme ping it - but not normally.

ahh... but... the ball-over-the-head bit was to merely illustrate a very "obvious" scenario. Everything else that follows from that is just fractions of difference... slightly different speeds, differences in angle etc etc etc... until eventually you move from the "obvious" situation to the "no longer obvious" situation. But we/you cannot run the game based on grey areas... you can't have a "its only just forward so that's OK" approach because then you enter the world of subjective calls as to how much has to forward enough, and whether one person's enough is the same as another's. In other words, we/you need to be able to use exactly the same criteria on every occassion in order to keep consistency within yourself and also yourselves. Otherwise anarchy reigns.

And as such in that regard you either ping the ball-over-the-head as forward - even though lines on the pitch have been passed - or you don't ... and apply the same logic thereafter to every pass.



As to momentum in general being allowed - then how do you adjudicate how much of the balls direction of travel was due to momentum, and how much due to the direction of the throw?

well the answer to that is that you don't have to actually concern yourself with the momentum itself. All you are doing is looking at the direction of travel the ball is propelled. IF momentum means the ball actually finishes closer to the oppo DBL (cf: Hickie try OB pointed to elsewhere) you just ignore it ... all you have to concern yourself with is whether the act of passing the ball occurred in a direction away from the oppo DBL.

Which is exactkly what you have done when you will have permitted the ball-over-the-head scenario.



I would be happy to calculate this if I can use a stop watch and a tape measure, and if I know the players speed and directiomn of his run at the time he passed the ball. It might take me a few minutes though.


See above. No calculation required. You ignore momentum if it does exist. Because you only concern yourself with the direction of the ball as it leaves the passer's hands. Did that ball go backwards from his hands when he tossed it over his head? Yes! So - speed/momentum is irrelevant when making the decision. Again - cf Hickie's try.



So we are left with the interpretation that OB suggests. Which is that what the Law is suggesting is that it is the direction of the pass in relation to the players body which is important.


Exactly. Which both the Hickie video and my silly scenario demonstrate can be the ONLY sensible interpretation to use. Because not to do so leaves you with the undefensible - that a ball clearly throiwn backwards is actually a "forward pass".



To recap - the law is it stands is fine - it is clear and obvious, involves no mathematics, and gives me the latitude to use common sense and discretion when I need to in the interests of the game.


If by claer and obvious you mean OB and my interpretation then yes.

Otherwise you will therefore blow a forward pass to a ball that is thrown straight behind a player running towards the oppo DBL.

Which is plainly never going to happen.

So that interpretation thus derived cannot be used.

So there has to be another interpretation which common sense tells us has to be the real and proper one.

The only other alternative is to enter a grey area of individuals' idea of what looks right maybe at some time possibly. Which can only lead to inconsistency.

didds

OB..
21-04-06, 20:04
The law book does define forward in the section on knock-on but does not mention it or redefine it with in the section on forward passes,…Actually, it does - using exactly the same words.
… thus to my simple mind forward for a forward pass is the same as forward for a knock on ie towards the oppositions goal line and thus relative to the groundA player is running forward hard to catch the ball, supported by a team-mate. He fails to take the ball cleanly, but his team-mate collects it behind him. Do you think to ask yourself if the ball actually travelled forward over the ground? If not you are using the same momentum definition for a knock-on as you do for a throw-forward*.

I have pointed out before that use of a fixed point to define forward is perfectly consistent with a moving frame of reference. Indeed, how else would you define it in this instance?

Let's put this into a different context: you are on a train going to London, so forward is defined as "in the direction of London". You are sitting with your back to the engine and toss an apple to the person opposite. Both of you will see the action and the movement of the apple as backwards ie not towards London. However somebody at a station as you rattle through will clearly see that the speed of your arm is nowhere near enough to cancel the forward speed of the train, so to them the apple and arm travel forward. Use of London as a fixed reference point is no problem in either case. If you defined forward as "towards the engine", of course, even the man at the station would have to agree the throw was backwards. With a player we do not have that option, so the dead-ball line it is, whichever interpretation we prefer.

The point of quoting the Hickie pass was that it was a perfectly normal occurrence. It is happening all the time, and has been for years. People simply do not realise it because it is what they are used to. The over the head pass is another example. It would be nice to see some proper research on this, but I have noticed over the years that I can always find examples in a game whenever there is high speed running and passing. It is too consistent to be written off as referee error.


*Nobody actually uses the classic definition, even if they think they do.

Glyndwr
23-04-06, 13:04
It would be nice to see some proper research on this, but I have noticed over the years that I can always find examples in a game whenever there is high speed running and passing. It is too consistent to be written off as referee error.

One of the sports-biased universities might get involved?

How about a pitch marked out every 5 yards, play a full game with video-cameras at multiple positions and then analyse the result?

A pass seems more likely to be called forward as of today if it takes place close to one of the cross-pitch lines, which give a static point of reference.

(Another static point of reference can be the TJ, and I see calls in most televised matches coming in from the line. When the ref is keeping up with the play, he doesn't see it. The TJ does, and his call is usually accepted.)

OB..
23-04-06, 18:04
I'm not sure a single game would prove anything, particularly if everybody was aware of what was being looked at. I would hope that modern technology would enable us to analyse past matches, giving us more data, without self-consciousness.

But I guess that is a pipe-dream, because so far nobody in authority has shown any sign of accepting that there is a problem.

Mike Whittaker
23-04-06, 23:04
"Where one man sees a problem, another will find challenge and opportunity."

Davet
24-04-06, 15:04
Didds

Consistency is phantom, it doesn't exist, and never will.

Rugby is full of grey areas and referees blow what they see.

If the ref says it was forward it was forward.

I say that the simple obvious and clearest interpretation is to look at the starting and ending points of the ball - in real time, from where I am on the pitch and looking with my eyes.

If you want me to see what the players hands are doing close in to his body with 3 players in the way then that can be quite difficult. If you wnat me to judge where the ball started from and where it finished then that is far easier.

I like easy.

OB..
24-04-06, 16:04
I say that the simple obvious and clearest interpretation is to look at the starting and ending points of the ball - in real time, from where I am on the pitch and looking with my eyes.
And I say that is not what actually happens.

Mike Whittaker
24-04-06, 17:04
And I say that is not what actually happens.

But it is what the law says, unambiguously, should happen...

Bryan
24-04-06, 19:04
(Another static point of reference can be the TJ, and I see calls in most televised matches coming in from the line. When the ref is keeping up with the play, he doesn't see it. The TJ does, and his call is usually accepted.)

And this is the main reason I ask appointed TJs to specifically NOT radio-in forward passes if it is clear that I have seen the pass without an obstructed view. TJs are normally static with play, and as a result they will judge passes to have gone forward when I, running with players and thus taking relativity into account, will normally judge otherwise.

I've always gone with taking relativity into account, even if the Laws do not account for it (which therefore makes me incorrect under Law). Then again, do we want referees who referee by the book, or referees who use common sense and empathize when the Law book is insufficient due to the changing nature of the game?

Fine, rewrite the laws to reflect the change that is now accepted by MOST referees, but will it make any difference other than tidying up the Lawbook? This is not some new revolutionary concept (I am in agreement with OB when he says this is what most referees do anyways) so it won't change the game, but it may put an end to this discussion once and for all.

-Bryan

OB..
24-04-06, 21:04
But it is what the law says, unambiguously, should happen...I think the needle is stuck ;)

"The fact that other people genuinely interpret it differently proves conclusively that the law is indeed ambiguous."
(second stuck needle :rolleyes: )

Mike Whittaker
24-04-06, 23:04
Indeed, the ambiguity is in the interpretation, and not in the law.:D

Deeps
25-04-06, 09:04
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

zzzzzzzzzzzz .... zzz.....zz

Brian Ravenhill
25-04-06, 16:04
My running lines tend to keep me parallel to the ball if a little further away than ideal, and I seem to call more forward passes in games I referee in, than the referee in the few games I watch or TJ for.
Because generally I don't have a fixed reference as I am running with play a forward pass is a pass to a player in front of the passer, unless that is I have a pitch marking for me to gauge things by.
If a pass starts one side of a line and ends in front of that same line, I blow it as a forward pass.
Now that may mean I have double standards, but when at the incident I explain to the players 'It started one side one side of the line and ended the other' I have never had a player contest the decision either in the heat of the moment or in the bar afterwards. The players seem to except that the definition of forward as "towards the opposition goal line".

Mike Whittaker
25-04-06, 16:04
As an assessor Brian, I would certainly be quite happy with your knowledge, interpretation and application of the law.

Your explanation to players is clear, decisive and no doubt effective.
There are no doubt more interesting debating points for post match discussions!!

OB..
25-04-06, 17:04
Brian - you have encapsulated the dilemma very well.

As I have said many times, most people take the classic view, and are unaware of the alternative. However even those people would surely baulk if you ruled that a pass back over the head was forward.

The inevitable consequence is dual standards, depending on whether there is a convenient line etc.

At the top level it would appear that the momentum version is tacitly accepted.

I don't think I have ever raised the question of forward passes with a referee in the post-match debrief - management issues and positioning tend to be more important than legal wrangles. Sites like this are where we should be having the discussions.

And we do ;)

OB..
01-05-06, 11:05
On cue, Stuart Barnes delivers!

Those of you watching yesterday's extraordinary match between Wasps and London Irish will have seen him draw a computerised line across the 22 to "prove" that a pass from Leguizamon was forward. He hadn't sounded too sure before, but thereafter he felt free to criticise Tony Spreadbury for not spotting it.

I don't know if Spreadbury is a disciple of the Andrew Cole creed, but I suspect he, like most people, saw the pass as OK because the passer remained clearly in front of the ball.

This does not answer the "right or wrong" question. It just illustrates yet again my contention that referees do in fact apply some sort of momentum rule. If I can find the time I might review the tape to see if there are further such incidents, as yet unspotted even by Stuart Barnes.

BTW there was indeed a blunder by Spreadbury - awarding a Mark too quickly and then realising that the player had not caught the ball. He apologised to the players, but stuck with the call.

Bryan
29-08-06, 13:08
Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s)a video from the ARU that encapsulates everything very well. Mind the cheesy music.

Simon Thomas
29-08-06, 15:08
Excellent Bryan - what a good explanation.

Far better than my 'in my judgement it wasn't a forward pass and I am the sole determinant of the facts'

Davet
29-08-06, 15:08
I watched the video with interest. It demonstartes quite clearly that what is a forward pass is what the ref calls a forward pass. In some of the clips I would have let play go on, in others I would have brought it back.

The problem with momentum is that it is impossible to determine, without radar guns and a stop watch, just how much forward momentum is imparted by the running player, and how much by the direction in which the ball is passed.

The law tells us that the only reference points availbel to us are the opposition dead ball line (i.e. the ground) and the ball. If the ball goes towards the opposition DBL then its going forward.

Clearly there are times when it is a tight call, and others where it is clear that the ball has travelled forward.

If players are travelling forward at high speed then they need to ensure that they impart a greater backwards component to the ball when making a pass, and teammates need to adjust the depth of their run accordingly.

Its a basic skill that I was taught 40 years ago, and passes were slower then - the spin pass being unknown (at least to me, anyway)

Deeps
29-08-06, 15:08
A very good explanation and a wake up call that you are hardly ever going to see a genuine forward pass.

OB..
29-08-06, 15:08
Its a basic skill that I was taught 40 years ago, and passes were slower then - the spin pass being unknown (at least to me, anyway)
I started playing in 1949. I certainly do not remember at any time being told that the faster I ran the harder I should pass (or the greater the angle I should give the ball). I did know that the faster we were moving, the deeper the receiver had to lie, but that is not the same thing at all.

Films of old games show passes that would be forward under the classic view, but were not thought to be forward by the referee (or players). The optical illusion has long been relied on.


The problem with momentum is that it is impossible to determine, without radar guns and a stop watch, just how much forward momentum is imparted by the running player, and how much by the direction in which the ball is passed.I maintain that referees have been applying a version of the momentum rule for years, without even realising it. If the passer remained in front of the ball, it "looked right" so they allowed it.

This gave rise to inconsistencies. For example, if the passer was tackled immediately after releasing the ball, it could be clear that the ball ended up in front of him, and a forward pass would be called. The tackle itself did not affect the flight of the ball, just the perception. The ARU is calling for that perception to be realised and applied more consistently.

Players do not use radar guns and a stop watch to judge the flight of a garryowen. They use instinct and experience. The ARU video is intended to give referees (and players, and coaches)
the appropriate experience to judge passes.

didds
29-08-06, 17:08
and rolling out my soap box yet again (regular viewers may look away now) if you do not accept a momentum interpretation then one day you are going have to justify blowing for a pass that was directed straight back over a players head whilst running forward - and then maintain your credibility.

Resistance is useless ;-)

didds

Simon Thomas
29-08-06, 17:08
I must arrange an exchange for me to come and do a Devizes game Didds - and hope one of your guys does just that - could be a long session afterwards !

Mike Whittaker
29-08-06, 19:08
Am reminded, Simon, of the pitch at Reading last week where the groundsman had helpfully mown the pitch so that the striations were across the pitch at an angle of about 10 degrees to the pitch markings thereby making the referees job just that little bit more exciting!!! :rolleyes:

(Touch judge help also more interesting for pedantic assessor...)

Davet
29-08-06, 22:08
So when the player makes the pass, and the ball is released on the 22 and received 5m beyond the 22 is it a forward pass or not?

If the answer depends on how fast the player was running then it is impossible to adjudicate.

If the answer depends on the direction of travel of the ball in relation to the player who passed it then this is not a definition given anywhere in Law.

I still maintain that the decision is the referees, taking account of what he sees, what the circumstances are and his feel for the game.

Which will give rise to inconsistency on occasion.

Which is life.

In case of any doubt then the assumption should be play on; even though no longer explicit in law that principle is still worth following.

Mike Whittaker
29-08-06, 23:08
Could even be some ambiguity in interpretation here...:D

OB..
30-08-06, 02:08
If the answer depends on how fast the player was running then it is impossible to adjudicate.
You keep saying that, and I keep replying that referees have been doing it for years. Unwittingly, most of the time.


If the answer depends on the direction of travel of the ball in relation to the player who passed it then this is not a definition given anywhere in Law.
It depends on the alternative interpretation, which you resolutely refuse to accept exists.

We have been round this many times. If the classic interpretation were to be rigidly enforced, it would dramatically change the game. (Ironically, it would also be very difficult for referees to judge, since it is not what they have learned to do!)

ex-lucy
31-08-06, 13:08
From a B3 ref in Herts Soc:
"Look at the angle of the passer's wrists on release of the ball. Are the wrists facing backwards or forwards?"

Mike Whittaker
31-08-06, 18:08
From a B3 ref in Herts Soc:
"Look at the angle of the passer's wrists on release of the ball. Are the wrists facing backwards or forwards?"


Thought that was a guide to sexuality... :o

Davet
01-09-06, 18:09
Spotting wrists would be a good spot. Not as easy as it might sound, but hey that;s what refereeing is about.

However, all that does is indicate the direction of the pass in relation to the passer. Not the opponents dead ball line.

I know I keep banging on - and I actually do understand the momentum arguement, and I even have a sympathy with it. In practise I would be the last ref to be overly fussy and pedantic. However If we dfefine it as suggested then we create difficulties for ourselves. if we leave it as the stricter definition which we have and rely on the referee to judge then we have a more flexible situation

Davet
01-09-06, 18:09
Spotting wrists would be a good spot. Not as easy as it might sound, but hey that;s what refereeing is about.

However, all that does is indicate the direction of the pass in relation to the passer. Not the opponents dead ball line.

I know I keep banging on - and I actually do understand the momentum arguement, and I even have a sympathy with it. In practise I would be the last ref to be overly fussy and pedantic. However If we dfefine it as suggested then we create difficulties for ourselves. if we leave it as the stricter definition which we have and rely on the referee to judge then we have a more flexible situation

Deeps
01-09-06, 18:09
Practically I never have nor will have any problem in spotting a throw forward although I did find the ARU's video a fascinating insight and well done to them for making it.

I maintain that we get hung up on the resultant movement of the ball when, for me, the definition clearly relates to the action of the ball carrier not the resultant effect on the ball. The ball carrier has not passed forward if his throw is from red 90 through South to green 90 assuming he is running perfectly North up. Of course the ball is momentum charged and always was at the time this law was written and I am sure the law writers were perfectly aware of this when they crafted their words to fit.

It's all down to the use and one's understanding of English, not momentum.

OB..
01-09-06, 20:09
Do we all agree that the official ARU video is teaching Australian referees to use the momentum interpretation, and not the classic one?

If so then we have a significant difference of opinion.

Whichever side you support, that must be bad for the game. It needs sorting.

Mike Whittaker
01-09-06, 21:09
Do we all agree that the official ARU video is teaching Australian referees to use the momentum interpretation, and not the classic one?

If so then we have a significant difference of opinion.

Whichever side you support, that must be bad for the game. It needs sorting.

If we all agree, then where is the 'significant difference of opinion'?

And if we don't agree, therefore, we are presumably of one accord?

Deeps
01-09-06, 21:09
However, all that does is indicate the direction of the pass in relation to the passer. Not the opponents dead ball line.

Well, actually it does. Remember it is not where the ball goes at all, it is the direction of the ball carrier's throw that matters and that is the distinction. We assume that the ball's resultant directional movement indicates the ball carriers throwing direction. There are other forces out there and I am not refering to Maradonna.

If the ball carrier propelled the ball in the direction of the opponents goal line but a Hurricane took charge and whipped it out of his hands towards his own goal line then it would still be forward. As stated often here, an over the head throw backwards at 10 mph by the ball carrier running at 15 mph is still going to travel towards the opponents goal line because it has 5 mph momentum in that direction. The definition in law only indicates the direction, it does not discuss motion or distinguish between relative and true motion.

This kills the non momentum argument stone dead as no one would countenance calling an over the head backward throw as forward, or would he?

OB..
01-09-06, 22:09
:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused:

I claim we all agree that there is an difference in interpretation.