Clearly the bitter old man QRL argument that resents 1987 is inferring the QRL want them to fail.
I’m pointing out do you really think these guys are going to do something to harm Redcliffe?
NRL General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Unbreakable
- Start date
- Status
Clearly the bitter old man QRL argument that resents 1987 is inferring the QRL want them to fail.
I’m pointing out do you really think these guys are going to do something to harm Redcliffe?
Substitute in anyone you like. Has Jones or Murphy complained?
- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,504
- 17,937
I think you've got me confused with another poster here...
Big Del
State of Origin Rep
- Apr 22, 2017
- 5,934
- 6,795
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,700
- 30,042
- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,504
- 17,937
I bleed Maroon
International Rep
- Apr 17, 2013
- 15,948
- 20,874
Check this one out brothers:
Tigers head to head @ 5.50
Dolphins head to head @ 2.00
Panthers 1-12 @ 3.50
Tigpies somehow beat us, **** this shit but at least I could win some money. Broncos win, **** yeah we broke the hoodoo.
10 bucks on the above could net you 300+
Tigers head to head @ 5.50
Dolphins head to head @ 2.00
Panthers 1-12 @ 3.50
Tigpies somehow beat us, **** this shit but at least I could win some money. Broncos win, **** yeah we broke the hoodoo.
10 bucks on the above could net you 300+
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
But will most likely lose ya 10 bucks. Not that I gamble, but I would want 50-1 odds for that.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,020
- 41,863
the Manly CEO is whinging about the forward pass call he says cost his side victory against Souths.
He's calling for the use of technology to help get these calls right.
which I'm personally all for ... but I have no doubt he'll be one of the first whinging when all of a sudden dozens of passes every game are pulled up by the technology.
He's calling for the use of technology to help get these calls right.
which I'm personally all for ... but I have no doubt he'll be one of the first whinging when all of a sudden dozens of passes every game are pulled up by the technology.
- Jun 13, 2019
- 10,276
- 14,791
The call though was a shocking one, you can live with the flat passes but obvious back passes are hard to swallow.
The rule is based on how it comes out of the hands too, players are going to need to wear gloves or something to track that unless they change the rule to any forward travel which will kill the long pass at speed.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,020
- 41,863
I absolutely agree it was a shocking call.
I also absolutely remember Manly being on the right end of similar calls (one in particular against us a few years ago).
P.s. they don't need technology to detect these calls. they just need to go back to the future with the forward pass rule ... combined with getting the touchies to go back to the future. take everything back to like it was when we were kids and the controversy ends.
e.g. stuff this out of the hands BS. it's too hard and subjective for refs to adjudicate. simplify. if a ball travels towards your opponents try line it is a forward pass.
go back to having the touchies run in line with the ball ... not marking the 10m (it's not their job). all of a sudden, the touch judges are in a position to detect a forward pass (especially, as they only need to judge the direction the ball travels, not the position of the hands)
- Jun 13, 2019
- 10,276
- 14,791
I think the best alternative is just keep it as it is and just make sure the refs get it right, I don't want to go back to the shit of no forward travel, it will make the game worse and less expansive, the moment your running if you pass basically everything will be forward outside of a direct backwards pass.
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
Any forward pass tech is going to account for forward momentum of the ball before the pass. In theory it would be great, in practice, we'll find out but if they're going to adjudicate games on it, the data should always be public. You can't have a hidden algorithm deciding games. If they go that way. Expect some legal challenges.
Xzei
State of Origin Rep
- Mar 13, 2017
- 7,013
- 10,744
As long as the math is correct it should be good
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,700
- 30,042
It would need extensive testing. If anyone has messed with the laser guns the police use to detect speed, it is very easy to fudge the results. All you have to do is be moving the gun in the direction of the vehicle when pulling the trigger and you can add 5-10km/h to it. Bear in mind, the last time I fucked with this was 20 years ago, the guns these days probably have gyros that account for this, BUT in the case of passing the ball at speed, the same rule would apply. If someone is running with the ball, if they worked out a smooth way of initially moving the hands forward (with the ball) to give the sensors an inflated "running" speed, then the pass would be allowed to travel a lot further forward (and still be detected as "backwards out of the hands") than their actual running speed should allow.
I have made my opinion on this known in the past. I don't like the "backwards out of the hands" rule. The same is not applied to knock-ons, you can't be running for the ball, accidentally brush it with your fingers in a way that makes it travel forwards, but not as far forward as the player running (which is actually more common as you think, think of a glancing brush of the ball as players compete for a bouncing ball). The marker they use on the video ref with these is if it travels in a forward direction in relation to the field (not the player), it is a knock-on.
By the "out of the hands backwards" rule, if a player is running at a decent speed (let's say 25mk/h, which is 7 metres/second), if they throw a pass that takes 1 second to hot the mark, it can travel up to 7 metres forward (on the filed) and still be considered flat or backwards. To see that happen would not pass the sniff test to viewers, so I don't think the "out of the hands" is going to be an acceptable marker to viewers. It should be "forward in relation to the field" only IMO.
I have made my opinion on this known in the past. I don't like the "backwards out of the hands" rule. The same is not applied to knock-ons, you can't be running for the ball, accidentally brush it with your fingers in a way that makes it travel forwards, but not as far forward as the player running (which is actually more common as you think, think of a glancing brush of the ball as players compete for a bouncing ball). The marker they use on the video ref with these is if it travels in a forward direction in relation to the field (not the player), it is a knock-on.
By the "out of the hands backwards" rule, if a player is running at a decent speed (let's say 25mk/h, which is 7 metres/second), if they throw a pass that takes 1 second to hot the mark, it can travel up to 7 metres forward (on the filed) and still be considered flat or backwards. To see that happen would not pass the sniff test to viewers, so I don't think the "out of the hands" is going to be an acceptable marker to viewers. It should be "forward in relation to the field" only IMO.
- Status
