NO on forward pasess

[crossref]

I am trying to get crossref to accept that the passes are forward even if many refs would (mistakenly) not blow for them. He is ducking.

His attempt to "prove" my statement wrong fails.

I completely accept that the passer increases the forward velocity of the ball .. so by your defeniitoon it's a forward pass

My point is ... In the real world , nobody EVER blows for a forward pass when the ball travels backward over the ground (and nor should they .. a ball that goes backward over the ground is not a forward pass, despite your legalistic, vector based, interpretation that says it is )

 

[Treadmore]

I completely accept that the passer increases the forward velocity of the ball .. so by your defeniitoon it's a forward pass

by law its forwards, as you know ;-)

My point is ... In the real world , nobody EVER blows for a forward pass when the ball travels backward over the ground (and nor should they .. a ball that goes backward over the ground is not a forward pass, despite your legalistic, vector based, interpretation that says it is )

well they should blow for it.

Have you a video example? I'm thinking the scenario will look odd any way because in absence of lines it will look like the receiver is offside when she gets it (assuming the passer can't stop still in a nano-second)

 

[crossref]

Like everyone else I will be watching keenly tomorrow for instance where players run towards their own DBL and make a pass !

 

[DocY]

Like everyone else I will be watching keenly tomorrow for instance where players run towards their own DBL and make a pass !

And I fully expect that if there are any such instances the BC will throw the ball in the direction he’s running - in a way that would be an obvious forward pass if he were running in the opposite direction

 

[Pinky]

A player is running toward his own goal line.
Velocity -10

As he crosses the 22m line he passes the ball along the 22m line to a team mate.

Forward velocity of the ball =0

It's not a forward pass , even though he has changed the velocity of the ball from -10 to zero

But CR to do so he would actually have to throw the ball forwards, so if it was c&o that his hands moved forwards, then I would blow for a forward pass. it is in effect the corollary of momentum.

 

[OB..]

I completely accept that the passer increases the forward velocity of the ball .. so by your defeniitoon it's a forward pass

Good - except that it is standard usage rather than "my" definition.

My point is ... In the real world , nobody EVER blows for a forward pass when the ball travels backward over the ground (and nor should they

The situation rarely arises and I do not accept your assertion.

Why do you insist on judging relative to the ground? Since at least the RFU decision in 1948 it has been accepted that what counts is "the direction of the propulsion of the ball".

.. a ball that goes backward over the ground is not a forward pass, despite your legalistic, vector based, interpretation that says it is )

You are wrong. My vector based description fits exactly the RFU's propulsion - it is just a different way of expressing it. The laws do not provide for using different criteria if a player is running towards his own DBL.

 

[crossref]

And I fully expect that if there are any such instances the BC will throw the ball in the direction he’s running - in a way that would be an obvious forward pass if he were running in the opposite direction

Normally it's in the direction he's running , but with considerably less backward velocity ..
You can see that because by the time team mate catches it the thrower is behind him

 

[crossref]

".


You are wrong. My vector based description fits exactly the RFU's propulsion - it is just a different way of expressing it

Well exactly. It's your definition.

I don't think it's helpful because

1 hardly anyone understands vectors, your definition makes everything harder to understand , not easier .

You wouldn't go on TV, say, as a pundit, and explain the forward pass law in terms of vectors. Everyone would be instantly lost.

2 when someone is running towards own DBL your definition yields a result that is at odds with the way the game is reffed.

We just DONT give a forward pass when the ball travels towards the players own DBL line,. Even when the throw reduced the backward velocity of the ball

 

[Rich_NL]

I think I'd have to see it. I don't think they're usually behind the catcher on catching, but very soon after (As the catcher is running the opposite way).

I remember a premiership match (I think Gloucester last season) where a player running backwards passed C&O forwards and was pulled up on it - it looked unusual enough.

 

[OB..]

Well exactly. It's your definition.

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.

That was my definition.

I don't think it's helpful because

1 hardly anyone understands vectors, your definition makes everything harder to understand , not easier .

You wouldn't go on TV, say, as a pundit, and explain the forward pass law in terms of vectors.

No, and I didn't do so here.

2 when someone is running towards own DBL your definition yields a result that is at odds with the way the game is reffed.

We just DONT give a forward pass when the ball travels towards the players own DBL line,. Even when the throw reduced the backward velocity of the ball

It is such a rare situation (normally the player simply passes to a teammate who is facing upfield), that I have no data bank of examples to refer back to. If I saw a referee allow it in a game I would note it as a law error.

I think we have said all that needs to be said by now (too much for some others i suspect). I'm off to watch some rugby.

 

[crossref]

View attachment 3869

hopefully this diagram will help explain.

diagrams are good to explain vectors.

In this scenario
- the pass is in direction of own DBL
- the hands/arms move in direction of OWN DBL
- it's not a forward pass.


BUT - by your flawed definition, OB, it is a forward pass, because the throw increased the forward velocity of the ball. Your 'vector' definition is both confusing and - in fact - wrong

 

[The Fat]

View attachment 3869

hopefully this diagram will help explain.

diagrams are good to explain vectors.

In this scenario
- the pass is in direction of own DBL
- the hands/arms move in direction of OWN DBL
- it's not a forward pass.


BUT - by your flawed definition, OB, it is a forward pass, because the throw increased the forward velocity of the ball. Your 'vector' definition is both confusing and - in fact - wrong

Now I might be just a simple lad but my assessment of your explanation is that the forward velocity of the ball did in fact not increase at all. The backwards velocity of the ball decreased. The ball never travelled in a forward direction and therefore it was impossible for its forward velocity to be increased.
If I run in a southerly direction and then slow to half my speed, I haven’t run in a northerly direction, I’m still heading south.

In your picture, the ball is always heading towards No.11’s DBL

 

[Treadmore]

diagrams are good to explain vectors.

they are if you label them accurately!

In this scenario
- the pass is in direction of own DBL
- the hands/arms move in direction of OWN DBL
- it's not a forward pass.


BUT - by your flawed definition, OB, it is a forward pass, because the throw increased the forward velocity of the ball. Your 'vector' definition is both confusing and - in fact - wrong

Just asserting inaccuracies/errors with the aid of a diagram does not make you correct!