NO on forward pasess

[crossref]

It's no longer the direction of the hands that matters, it's ... ..

Well listen for yourself from 43mins

[Brian Moore's Full Contact Rugby] Martyn Williams: I can't imagine Wales not winning
http://podplayer.net/?id=65278596 via @PodcastAddict

 

[The Fat]

It's no longer the direction of the hands that matters, it's ... ..

Well listen for yourself from 43mins

[Brian Moore's Full Contact Rugby] Martyn Williams: I can't imagine Wales not winning
http://podplayer.net/?id=65278596 via @PodcastAddict

Nigel says it very simple. He then went on to make it clear as mud:shrug:

 

[crossref]

Nigel Owens has a lot of qualities, but succinctly explaining the Laws is not one of them. I would say he is a more instinctive type of ref..

But did anyone else get the impression this was another planned announcement of a change of policy / emphasis ?
Brian Moore's question was clearly a set up "it always used to be about direction of hands , is that still the case ?'
Funny you should say that, Brian

World Rugby tinkering madly in the run up to the RWC

 

[Treadmore]

It's no longer the direction of the hands that matters, it's ... ..

Well listen for yourself from 43mins

[Brian Moore's Full Contact Rugby] Martyn Williams: I can't imagine Wales not winning
http://podplayer.net/?id=65278596 via @PodcastAddict

Well, the law update incorporated reference to arms not hands, anyway, but “goal line”? What is he talking about? A missed opportunity to educate :bday:

 

[Flish]

Not sure, I heard that as not just about the hands (which is true, the fingers can be pointing backwards but if the rear most hand pushes the ball it will still go forward), but it's still a great indicator, so don'r think there's any great change coming on this front. What I did find interesting was the chat about clear and obvious, so it it's not a clear and obvious forward pass then play on.

 

[Phil E]

Nigel Owens has a lot of qualities, but succinctly explaining the Laws is not one of them. I would say he is a more instinctive type of ref..

But did anyone else get the impression this was another planned announcement of a change of policy / emphasis ?
Brian Moore's question was clearly a set up "it always used to be about direction of hands , is that still the case ?'
Funny you should say that, Brian

World Rugby tinkering madly in the run up to the RWC

I didn't realise Brian and Nigel are now spokesmen for World Rugby.
When did that appointment happen?

 

[DocY]

but “goal line”? What is he talking about?

At least he didn't say "try line"!

Personally I never liked the hands thing. It's a useful thing to look at, but shouldn't be the basis for the law.

I remember one game (though can't remember who was playing) where they went to the TMO for a clear forward pass (the receiver having overrun the passer) but because no camera angles could see his hands they awarded the try.

And I've awarded numerous C&O forward passes where I haven't been able to see the players hands, but have still been able to see it was a forward pass!

 

[didds]

Nigel says it very simple. He then went on to make it clear as mud:shrug:

I thought exactly the same.

didds

 

[OB..]

The basic idea is very simple: the ball initially has the same forward speed as the ball carrier. In passing it he must not increase the forward speed of the ball.

 

[crossref]

I didn't realise Brian and Nigel are now spokesmen for World Rugby.
When did that appointment happen?

I imagine it works more like this

1 something happens to do with x
2 WR issue a memo to elite refs
3 Brian and Nigel discuss . What shall we talk about this week ? What's topical ?
4 Nigel says : I know, ask me about x

 

[Phil E]

I imagine it works more like this

1 something happens to do with x
2 WR issue a memo to elite refs
3 Brian and Nigel discuss . What shall we talk about this week ? What's topical ?
4 Nigel says : I know, ask me about x

I imagine it goes like that but without steps 1 and 2.

 

[crossref]

Let's wait and see !
The last odd one was about having control when scoring a try and a few days later people posted that there had indeed been a memo ...

I predict the topic of forward passes will be the same

 

[crossref]

The basic idea is very simple: the ball initially has the same forward speed as the ball carrier. In passing it he must not increase the forward speed of the ball.

If the passer was running toward his own goal line, it's different..in that case he can increase the forward speed (ie reduce the backward speed ) of the ball . Because the ball is still travelling backward over the ground

 

[OB..]

If the passer was running toward his own goal line, it's different..in that case he can increase the forward speed (ie reduce the backward speed ) of the ball .

"Forward speed" is speed towards the opponents' dead ball line.

Because the ball is still travelling backward over the ground

Relative to the ground is irrelevant.

 

[crossref]

"Forward speed" is speed towards the opponents' dead ball line.

Relative to the ground is irrelevant.

In which case you could call it a forward pass even if it went towards the players own DBL. If you did that it would certainly be a legalistic interpretation of the laws

 

[didds]

In which case you could call it a forward pass even if it went towards the players own DBL. If you did that it would certainly be a legalistic interpretation of the laws

but that is what happens...

run forward at 20 mph
pass backwards over head at 10 mph
ball is moving at +20-10=+10mph

ball thus moving towards oppo DBL.

Is that a forward pass?

didds

 

[crossref]

I am taking about
Player runs toward own goal line at 10mph
Passes to his team mate, ball is now travelling toward own goal line at 5mph

So he has increased the forward velocity of the ball
From -10 to -5
No one would call that a forward pass

 

[didds]

I'm still not seeing it?

run towards own DBL at 10 mph
pass towards own DBL at 5mph
ball is moving at -10-5=-15 mph

Thus ball moving towards own DBL.


??

 

[crossref]

The scenario is
Player (-10) + throw (+ 4) = ball (-6)

This breaks OB rule in #9 (because it +4 ) but it's not a forward pass .. because the result is still negative (-6)

Does that make sense

 

[Wedgie]

If a train leaves Cardiff for Twickenham at 3pm travelling at 50mph and another leaves Twickenham at 4:30pm travelling at 75mph....