Round 11 - Roosters vs Broncos

[Culhwch]

Actual rule:

Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.

Rugby-League.com

Rugby League in the UK

www.rugby-league.com

Cheers, poor choice of words on my part to say 'interpretation'. I guess I meant the idea of the rule more broadly, as the rule and interpretation as it stands is pretty straightforward. I still think it often relies too heavily on a split-second judgement of an official with no recourse for review.

Also the ball to Palasia was absolutely forward.

 

[Morkel]

Actual rule:

Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.

Rugby-League.com

Rugby League in the UK

www.rugby-league.com

My preference would be for it to be relative to the ground, but if this is how they've written the rule, then I can't argue.

It does mean that, if a player is running at full pelt (around 8-9m/sec), they can throw a lofted pass out wide, and if it takes 2 seconds to reach the target it can go 16 - 18 metres "forward" (in relation to the ground) and still be passed "backwards/flat" according to the rules. Imagine being in the middle of field, 15m out from the line, and lofting a bridge pass out to your winger who catches it right on the line and puts it down.

 

[McHunt]

My preference would be for it to be relative to the ground, but if this is how they've written the rule, then I can't argue.

It does mean that, if a player is running at full pelt (around 8-9m/sec), they can throw a lofted pass out wide, and if it takes 2 seconds to reach the target it can go 16 - 18 metres "forward" (in relation to the ground) and still be passed "backwards/flat" according to the rules. Imagine being in the middle of field, 15m out from the line, and lofting a bridge pass out to your winger who catches it right on the line and puts it down.

Relation to the ground just won't work at all. It's not scalable.

In your example, the ball carrier is still passing it backwards in relation to his own relative momentum. It's also why the bunker really can't adjudicate on forward passes by eye. It's better left to the touchies. That's their job.

Some passes are obviously forward, like when the ball carrier is stationary and the receiver is close, as is the often the case with forwards running off a dummy half. That's really the only case where relative to the ground works.

The biggest victims of momentum are support runners snookered by the forward momentum of a bomb.

@Strop 's post explains it perfectly:

Round 11 - Roosters vs Broncos

Pretty sure Kev acknowledged outright that this was a game plan to run TPJ at Walker. Pretty sure he said he was thinking of Palasia when he made the decision.

broncoshq.com

 

[McHunt]

Cheers, poor choice of words on my part to say 'interpretation'. I guess I meant the idea of the rule more broadly, as the rule and interpretation as it stands is pretty straightforward. I still think it often relies too heavily on a split-second judgement of an official with no recourse for review.

Also the ball to Palasia was absolutely forward.

It looked forward because of the line, but I'm not certain it was. Certain being the key word.

 

[Dash]

My preference would be for it to be relative to the ground, but if this is how they've written the rule, then I can't argue.

It does mean that, if a player is running at full pelt (around 8-9m/sec), they can throw a lofted pass out wide, and if it takes 2 seconds to reach the target it can go 16 - 18 metres "forward" (in relation to the ground) and still be passed "backwards/flat" according to the rules. Imagine being in the middle of field, 15m out from the line, and lofting a bridge pass out to your winger who catches it right on the line and puts it down.

It wouldn't be quite that dramatic, they aren't playing in outer space.

 

[Morkel]

Relation to the ground just won't work at all. It's not scalable.

In your example, the ball carrier is still passing it backwards in relation to his own relative momentum. It's also why the bunker really can't adjudicate on forward passes by eye. It's better left to the touchies. That's their job.

Some passes are obviously forward, like when the ball carrier is stationary and the receiver is close, as is the often the case with forwards running off a dummy half. That's really the only case where relative to the ground works.

The biggest victims of momentum are support runners snookered by the forward momentum of a bomb.

@Strop 's post explains it perfectly:

Round 11 - Roosters vs Broncos

Pretty sure Kev acknowledged outright that this was a game plan to run TPJ at Walker. Pretty sure he said he was thinking of Palasia when he made the decision.

broncoshq.com

I get all that. I just like rules to be black-and-white. Passing it backwards should be backwards. Momentum etc isn't allowed for with knock-ons etc. Passing backwards would make it harder at speed, they'd just need to turn their body more and have the runners deeper.

 

[Dexter]

No, I'm not taking a stance on either. Just pointing out there is a difference in their "careless" attacks to the heads and Lodge's looks marginally worse in slow motion because his hand appears to grip his throat. There's another conversation about whether the ball carriers contributed to the arms sliding up but that's not for me to judge. I'm just presenting evidence.

I think Lodges hand bounces up off Pangais arm.
He did all he could to lower tha contact.
Regardless, if Lodges is the standard how the **** does Man get no charge
His arm came from around hip height and travelled upwards hitting clean on the chin.
Whoever looked at that is a joke.

 

[McHunt]

I get all that. I just like rules to be black-and-white. Passing it backwards should be backwards. Momentum etc isn't allowed for with knock-ons etc. Passing backwards would make it harder at speed, they'd just need to turn their body more and have the runners deeper.

 

[Skathen]

I get all that. I just like rules to be black-and-white. Passing it backwards should be backwards. Momentum etc isn't allowed for with knock-ons etc. Passing backwards would make it harder at speed, they'd just need to turn their body more and have the runners deeper.

Depending on the alignment of the moon and stars, the bunker has given tries for balls batted "in a backward direction" that have travelled forward. Wildly inconsistent though.

 

[Scorchie]

Actual rule:

Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.

Rugby-League.com

Rugby League in the UK

www.rugby-league.com

You can keep linking physics lessons (I suggest you go watch the Union one someone posted that was pretty good) all you like, but even by that definition the ball was thrown forward - both in motion and relative to the ground.

The physics you talk about only takes place once air, movement and other factors takes hold. The motion of the ball - as thrown - as in the direction of the second T in the Telstra advertising on the side of the field, to the right of the screenshot. Physics cannot take hold in less than 1 metre of space to the severity of the hill you are dying on.

There was no ball floating forward, there was no physics - it was blind luck it wasnt called forward and it's a shame because the line was superb and it was the correct play.

And if you're still unsure, go back and watch that Union video again where they draw the triangles and angles on the field - the scenario here is about midway through where the ball is thrown forward.

Annesley also called it forward in his presser today

 

[McHunt]

The physics you talk about only takes place once air, movement and other factors takes hold. Physics cannot take hold in less than 1 metre of space

Isaac Newton disagrees.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Isaac Newton disagrees.

What would that old prick know?

 

[Stix]

There were worse passes than Asiata’s on Friday night! I am ok with it .The amount of times Thurston put Cooper over with the same ball or Pearce and Cordner it only seems fair that we get this one

 

[Culhwch]

You can keep linking physics lessons (I suggest you go watch the Union one someone posted that was pretty good) all you like, but even by that definition the ball was thrown forward - both in motion and relative to the ground.

The physics you talk about only takes place once air, movement and other factors takes hold. The motion of the ball - as thrown - as in the direction of the second T in the Telstra advertising on the side of the field, to the right of the screenshot. Physics cannot take hold in less than 1 metre of space to the severity of the hill you are dying on.

There was no ball floating forward, there was no physics - it was blind luck it wasnt called forward and it's a shame because the line was superb and it was the correct play.

And if you're still unsure, go back and watch that Union video again where they draw the triangles and angles on the field - the scenario here is about midway through where the ball is thrown forward.

Annesley also called it forward in his presser today

Those screenshots do a good job of showing that it was actually pretty marginal in the end, and I can see why in the moment it wasn't called. In the first it looks like Asiata releases it right over the ten metre line, and in the second Palasia has had to turn his body back a bit to take it just in front of the line. His body position makes it look worse than it was, even though it was still forward.

 

[McHunt]

it was still forward.

Respectfully, I'm not going to argue with the expert touch judges nor the laws of physics. I'm not Cooper Cronk.

 

[McHunt]

The old bait and switcheroo.

Fox Sports executive director Steve Crawley:

“The underdog Broncos taking down a champion side in the Roosters and so much drama, it was impossible to look away. It’s a great endorsement for the NRL and Fox League’s coverage.”

McHunt

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Gould absolutely exploded about how Radley was treated by the refs on 100% Footy lol He is livid with the rule changes. He reckons none of the incidents Radley was cited for were valid, and even tried to suggest TPJ getting hit with ball in hand was basically a reverse shoulder charge. He couldn't escape making a great argument without throwing a bit of shade our way because of course he couldn't.

Regardless of his typical anti-Broncos pro-Rorters bullshit, it's fair to say his opinion is a reflection of the growing outrage throughout the game at what is happening.

 

[Galah]

Gould absolutely exploded about how Radley was treated by the refs on 100% Footy lol He is livid with the rule changes. He reckons none of the incidents Radley was cited for were valid, and even tried to suggest TPJ getting hit with ball in hand was basically a reverse shoulder charge. He couldn't escape making a great argument without throwing a bit of shade our way because of course he couldn't.

Regardless of his typical anti-Broncos pro-Rorters bullshit, it's fair to say his opinion is a reflection of the growing outrage throughout the game at what is happening.

So the shoulder to the head of a kicker in mid air wasn’t a sin bin? **** off you old **** that’s a binning before the new rules you fucking pleb, I hope brown ruins the warriors. Dickhole

victor lives on the edge, I don’t like these rules at all but he loves a sneaky headshot that glances off the ball first....