An open letter to World Rugby.

[YoungScud]

Every try from an interception is offside. Tries interception should be banned from Rugby union.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There is no offside line in open play. If a team advances towards you passing the ball and you step between the passer and receiver, are you actually claiming that would make you offside? If so, you don't really understand what 'offside' means.

 

[Xapi]

So according to the laws of physics, it is not possible, while running, to pass backwards without the ball traveling forward. If the receiver is parallel with, (or even very slightly behind) the thrower, is he in front of thethrower when he catches the ball? Presumably yes, as the ball has inevitably gone forward with the passer's momentum. Is this then a forward pass?

First, it is not "inevitable". The player who throws the pass is expected to throw the ball paralell to himself, or towards the back. So depending on relative speeds, the ball may or may not be traveling forward in relation to the ground.

Second, the position of the receiving player in relation to the thrower when the receiver gets the ball makes no difference, this is not what is considered when a pass must be judged. You must consider the position of the receiver when the ball is launched, and the trajectory of the ball in relation to the theoretical trayectory of the passer should he remain at constant speed.

 

[gamine]

That makes no sense whatsoever. There is no offside line in open play. If a team advances towards you passing the ball and you step between the passer and receiver, are you actually claiming that would make you offside? If so, you don't really understand what 'offside' means.

Like so many laws in rugby union 'offside' is a bit of a mystery to most people, even players. There is one particularl gentleman who plays in a black jersey who has never really worked it out!

 

[ncurd]

I understand your point, but still no resolution of the parallel runner question. It is possible to throw with a backward motion of the hands, but the ball will still go forward, and be caught in front of the thrower. Thus, a forward pass that doesn't look like one if you are relying on the motion of the hands. I don't think I am the only one to have worked this one out!

I don't think you do understand otherwise we wouldn't have to walk this through in baby steps. Numbers done for ease. Lets assume we are working vacum as well.

1) Player A has the ball he is traveling at 10 m/s
2) Player B is parallel with Player A and also travelling at 10 m/s
3) If Player A passes it on the parallel the ball travels at 10m/s. It can't travel faster as no other force is speeding it up.
4) The ball is in flight for 1 second.
5) Player B catches the ball 10m further from where Player A let go of the ball.

It is not a forward pass as Player A passed it on the parallel and has not given it additional forward momentum. It's really not difficult.

 

[PAC]

@Superalexmarket, thanks for the video. That demonstrates that the last Australian's try against Argentina was valid.
The Irish TV3 commentators should have a look at it as they were looking at ground 's marks and called it slightly forward.
In the end not a so bad refereeing ...
@gamine, I guess this gentleman dressed in black knows the rule so well he is clever enough to get away without being caught

 

[psychic duck]

Every try from an interception is offside. Tries interception should be banned from Rugby union.

I assume you were not complaining that this try should have been banned?

 

[YoungScud]

@Superalexmarket, thanks for the video. That demonstrates that the last Australian's try against Argentina was valid.
The Irish TV3 commentators should have a look at it as they were looking at ground 's marks and called it slightly forward.
In the end not a so bad refereeing ...
@gamine, I guess this gentleman dressed in black knows the rule so well he is clever enough to get away without being caught

I'm not so sure. The passer was moving laterally at the time he passed the ball, and the ball ended up, by my estimation, around 3 metres in front of the point of release. Had the passer been moving forward at the point at which he passed, I'd buy that, but he wasn't.

 

[PAC]

Mitchell seems to be passing the ball behind him ( not obvious on the picture but see his arms ) and for what I understood this is what matters.
Now I could be wrong , but if we call this a forward pass, then you call a lot of them off.

 

[Tony Manx]

Gents, it is a try as the record books now show!!

 

[gamine]

I don't think you do understand otherwise we wouldn't have to walk this through in baby steps. Numbers done for ease. Lets assume we are working vacum as well.

1) Player A has the ball he is traveling at 10 m/s
2) Player B is parallel with Player A and also travelling at 10 m/s
3) If Player A passes it on the parallel the ball travels at 10m/s. It can't travel faster as no other force is speeding it up.
4) The ball is in flight for 1 second.
5) Player B catches the ball 10m further from where Player A let go of the ball.

It is not a forward pass as Player A passed it on the parallel and has not given it additional forward momentum. It's really not difficult.

So a parallel pass is not a forward pass? What about this business on the video of the ball going forward when it is passed because of the player's forward momentum? I don't think any games are played in a vacuum! ( I take it 'vacum' means vacuum, not some esoteric latin term to show how clever you are!)

 

[OverGore]

Just freezing rules for 5 years would be very good, and would allow people who dont know rugby to understand it.

 

[ncurd]

So a parallel pass is not a forward pass? What about this business on the video of the ball going forward when it is passed because of the player's forward momentum? I don't think any games are played in a vacuum! ( I take it 'vacum' means vacuum, not some esoteric latin term to show how clever you are!)

Nope forward pass is where the ball is passed in a forward motion (ie it gives the ball momentum) so if you passing level it's not forward.

I just literally explained that (ball going forward because of a players forward momentum) I don't know how much more simple I can make that! I can explain this stuff to my wife and she's terrible at maths/physics and I'm hardly a savant at it myself.

Yeah vacuum my spelling is atrocious if spell check doesn't pick it up. I said vacuum as it's simple to explain without outside forces enacting on the ball (ie wind).

 

[ncurd]

Sorry getting some of geometry terms mixed up (it's what happenes when you don't do this stuff for over 10 years).

You can't throw the ball parallel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)

What were talking about is throwing the ball Perpendicular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpendicular

 

[smartcooky]

So according to the laws of physics, it is not possible, while running, to pass backwards without the ball traveling forward.

No, it is possibe, it just gets harder the faster you run forwards. If you are stationary, or running directly across the field not making any forward progress, there is no forward momentum to cancel. However a player sprinting straight down the field at, say, a 13 second 100m pace, is travelling forwards at about 7½ metres per second, so in order to throw a pass that does not travel forwards, he has to throw the ball backwards at 7½ metres per second, and that is directly behind him, As soon as you start adding angle to the pass, he has to throw it even faster.

If the receiver is parallel with, (or even very slightly behind) the thrower, is he in front of thethrower when he catches the ball? Presumably yes, as the ball has inevitably gone forward with the passer's momentum. Is this then a forward pass?

No.

... still no resolution of the parallel runner question. It is possible to throw with a backward motion of the hands, but the ball will still go forward, and be caught in front of the thrower. Thus, a forward pass that doesn't look like one if you are relying on the motion of the hands. I don't think I am the only one to have worked this one out!

No, but you're probably the only one who is getting the theory right, and then coming to the wrong conclusion

My question is about where the ball is caught. Presumably it is a forward pass if the ball is caught in front of the thrower. If the receiver is only very slightly behind, or even parallel, to the thrower, then surely, however the ball is thrown, it will go forward, (laws of momentum) and the receiver will catch the ball in front of the thrower. The examples on the video don't deal with this, as the receiver is always quite a way behind the thrower.

No, and this is where you are making the mistake. It doesn't matter where the receiver is; there doesn't even have to be a recever. The ONLY thing that matters is the direction the player throws the ball. Remember the Law talks about a forward throw not a forward pass... a throw needs no receiver.

TIP: Forget about

1. where the ball was thrown from
2. what the ball did in the air
3. where the ball was caught or landed

NONE of the three things above have any relevance to judging a forward throw. The ONLY thing that matters is the direction that the player throws the ball relative to his own frame of reference.

 

[gamine]

No, it is possibe, it just gets harder the faster you run forwards. If you are stationary, or running directly across the field not making any forward progress, there is no forward momentum to cancel. However a player sprinting straight down the field at, say, a 13 second 100m pace, is travelling forwards at about 7½ metres per second, so in order to throw a pass that does not travel forwards, he has to throw the ball backwards at 7½ metres per second, and that is directly behind him, As soon as you start adding angle to the pass, he has to throw it even faster.



No.



No, but you're probably the only one who is getting the theory right, and then coming to the wrong conclusion



No, and this is where you are making the mistake. It doesn't matter where the receiver is; there doesn't even have to be a recever. The ONLY thing that matters is the direction the player throws the ball. Remember the Law talks about a forward throw not a forward pass... a throw needs no receiver.

TIP: Forget about

1. where the ball was thrown from
2. what the ball did in the air
3. where the ball was caught or landed

NONE of the three things above have any relevance to judging a forward throw. The ONLY thing that matters is the direction that the player throws the ball relative to his own frame of reference.

OK, let's leave this one, it must be confusing for anyone not in the inner circle. What the hell does, 'relative to his own frame of reference ', mean? I think that the ABs have got this one sorted!

How about the break down.? Are players allowed to flop on top of the ruck, and if not, why do refs mostly ignore this?

 

[RoosTah]

^And that's just trying to explain one part of the game, a very basic part. No wonder the majority of the planet prefer football.

I wonder about that... People talk about the influence of the referee in rugby, but to my mind in soccer it's far worse and things like the offside line are much less clear.

For all the bleating about unfair results in rugby, in soccer one refereeing decision really can decide the entire match in the most unfair ways. I've seen soccer matches where one side has dominated play but just been unable to find the back of the net, and then the other side will fluke a bit of decent field position, stage a Hollywood dive in the box and get a penalty kick to effectively win the game...

For all its faults at least in rugby penalty goals are worth less than the primary method of scoring. But with soccer's incredibly low scoring and intrinsically negative low contact nature, goals can be hard to come by and so getting a dud call that gifts you one is a much bigger deal in the context of the match and leads to a much higher number of obviously unfair results

 

[first5eight]

The problem imo is that the rules are to open to interpretation. One refs tackler release is slower than another, ones going off the feet & rucked formed is different from another and basically most forward/ruck decisions are one individuals personal call on the game. A lot of matches are completely ruined by over zealous definition of the rules by the ref and they end up controlling the real flow & thrust & punch of the game which is the players job, not theirs. It's worse when the ref interprets one thing for one side and its completely different for another. It happens in Super Rugby all the time, one team will get all the penalties at the crucial times to get ahead and then the ref will even up the count at the end when the game is gone. It's happened a few times as well at international level as well..

 

[Kiwi_]

I wonder about that... People talk about the influence of the referee in rugby, but to my mind in soccer it's far worse and things like the offside line are much less clear.

For all the bleating about unfair results in rugby, in soccer one refereeing decision really can decide the entire match in the most unfair ways. I've seen soccer matches where one side has dominated play but just been unable to find the back of the net, and then the other side will fluke a bit of decent field position, stage a Hollywood dive in the box and get a penalty kick to effectively win the game...

For all its faults at least in rugby penalty goals are worth less than the primary method of scoring. But with soccer's incredibly low scoring and intrinsically negative low contact nature, goals can be hard to come by and so getting a dud call that gifts you one is a much bigger deal in the context of the match and leads to a much higher number of obviously unfair results

Both sports need to adopt referral systems, how much less controversy have we seen in cricket and tennis since.. it has by far increased the quality and peoples happiness within the sport and watching it. It needs to happen, a lot of hate, dissatisfaction and controversy comes from poor officiating and bad big calls that could easily be reversed with a referral system.. 1 or 2 referrals a game at least and they replenish if they're right. I think 1 is enough.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

OK, let's leave this one, it must be confusing for anyone not in the inner circle. What the hell does, 'relative to his own frame of reference ', mean? ?

When you consider movement you must have a frame of reference and specify what that frame is, always.
"Forward" is a relative term, so you need to specify forwards in relation to what.

Simple example to ilustrate: Lets say you stand still in from of me. From my point of view (my reference) you look still. But from someone standing 3 galaxies away you are moving, and quite fast (earth is moving, galaxies exapanding, etc.etc.). So the frame of reference is the benchmark used against which the movement is measured.

Whether a pass is forward or not is to be judged from the player's point of view at the time the pass is executed. If, for whatever reason, that leads to the pass being forward from other points of view (frames of reference, say, where you are standing, or the tv angle shown on TV), that is (or should be) irrelevant.

 

[Cliffyboy]

I wonder about that... People talk about the influence of the referee in rugby, but to my mind in soccer it's far worse and things like the offside line are much less clear.

For all the bleating about unfair results in rugby, in soccer one refereeing decision really can decide the entire match in the most unfair ways. I've seen soccer matches where one side has dominated play but just been unable to find the back of the net, and then the other side will fluke a bit of decent field position, stage a Hollywood dive in the box and get a penalty kick to effectively win the game...

For all its faults at least in rugby penalty goals are worth less than the primary method of scoring. But with soccer's incredibly low scoring and intrinsically negative low contact nature, goals can be hard to come by and so getting a dud call that gifts you one is a much bigger deal in the context of the match and leads to a much higher number of obviously unfair results

A very good post, Sanzar, and I also agree with Smartcooky's analysis. I'd part company with you on the 'intrinsically negative' issue, but you are bang on the money in relation to the referee's potential influence on a soccer game's result. One game I will always remember is when my team, Spurs, were away at Manchester United and one of our players, Mendes, tried a long and somewhat hopeful shot at goal but it actually went into the net - the ball must have been at least one metre over the line so it was clearly a 'goal', and the cheating goalkeeper scooped it back into play. The referee 'missed it' and the assistant linesman also did not flag for a goal. The game ended in a draw, with both teams awarded one point, although Spurs clearly scored a winning goal.

I can't think of any remotely comparable refereeing mistake I've ever seen in rugby.