Quote tvoc="tvoc"The forward pass explained (it's Union but the principal is the same) and why using pitch markings would rule out the majority of tries scored on a 'running' play. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s'" it also highlights why most fans massively overestimate the amount of forward passes there is in the game. It really isnt a big issue and when there are forward passes they are massively obvious because of the awkward motion of the hands.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"The forward pass explained (it's Union but the principal is the same) and why using pitch markings would rule out the majority of tries scored on a 'running' play. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s'" it also highlights why most fans massively overestimate the amount of forward passes there is in the game. It really isnt a big issue and when there are forward passes they are massively obvious because of the awkward motion of the hands.

From what most people on here have said, the VR should look at Forward Passes but probably can only reasonably judge on the 'delibrate' rather than the 'accidental' ones with the technology available.



The American Football analogy is a good one in that, American Football was an obsure version of Rugby until it sold out to TV & changed its rules to suit allowing it to became a massive success at least in America.

I think you need to look into it's history a bit further.

Is that last line a deliberate attempt at irony, given in your suggested solution you have completely misunderstood the forward pass rule yourself?



The momentum/direction/velocity of the passer after the ball leaves his hands has sod all to do with whether a pass is forward or not.



Repeat after me - there is no momentum rule...

There's no practical reason why forward passes cannot be referred to video official, as already stated, if they believe the camera angle is inconclusive or misleading then they give benefit of doubt, if as is very often the case it's quite clear from the video the ball went forward (relative to the players) then they rule it out. Yes it would be better if touch judges actually intervened for forward passes more often, and that probably includes stamping out the behaviour of those referees who don't like the touch judges doing this or overrule even though the touch judge has the better view (and such referees do exist).



I think the real reason is to do with organisational politics, the widespread usage of flat passing and related attacking patterns means that forward passes are a more regular occurence these days. Note this doesn't mean I think every flat pass is forward, but that the flat pass logically increases the incidence of forward passes simply because of the technique and the timing needed. Using the available technology properly and within its capabilities would see far more of them pulled up, far more tries disallowed, far more whining from coaches, players and fans of teams (particularly those who rely on this most) and possibly may not even be welcomed by Sky if they thought that it negatively impacted the view experience of the game.

Why is a forward pass not offside when the player receiving the ball is in front of the player passing the ball?

?

because they were behind or level when the ball was passed

Think for a moment about putting together a computer simulation to adjudge forward passes. It would be advantageous to project the path and velocity of the passer taken from his path and velocity at the time of making the pass - seeing as a forward pass is only judged entirely RELATIVE TO THE PLAYER MAKING IT. Therefore, for the purposes of using computers to adjudge a forward pass (and crucially, making it visually simple for the viewer - a little like the YouTube forward pass video) could be relevant to project their path in order to rule whether the ball moves forward of the passer at any point. I simply suggest it as one method of using the VR to rule of forward passes.



Another method is to simply measure velocity. If it is seen that the player is moving towards the opposition's goal-line at 25kph at the time of passing, yet the ball moves towards the goal-line at 28kph relative to the ground, the pass is forward.



No, there is no momentum rule (I never said there was!), but momentum is the crucial factor when the ball can travel forwards but still be a legal pass, as the Laws state: "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 [size=130momentum [/sizethe ball travels forward relative to the ground." As in, it is the MOMENTUM of the man passing the ball that means a legal pass actually travels forward relative to the ground. If you don't think momentum is involved, I would suggest it's you who doesn't quite understand.

Just a minor point: Irrelevant. As long as it's traveling backwards when the passing player releases it, the ball's subsequent flight is not a factor (again see the weekend's play-off game)

But for the purposes of visualising for a VR replay - and making it simple for the viewer, it could be a useful tool. It's simply a suggestion - I'm not saying for a second the pass should be judged from creating a projection and visualising this in a graphic. Factors such as this are another reason passing forward passes to the VR is a dangerous step.



Of course, by "travelling backwards", you mean relevant to the player and not the ground? And to be pedantic, the Laws only mention the ball can travel forwards after being passed backwards if they are "blown by the wind" or bounce. If the ball is spun and consequently curves forward through the air, should this be adjudged foward? After all, the player making the pass has caused it to move forward.

That unusual but exact type of pass (from Graham Holroyd) occurred in the Halifax V Sheffield play-off game last Thursday. Robert Hicks was unsure what he'd witnessed and handed it on to the video official (Stuart Cummings) looking for a potential 'knock on' and the try correctly (IMO) was awarded.