Clarity on Passing

[Scarfman]

I'll sort this out calmy and fairly.

Schadenfreude is right, Inside Shoulder is wrong.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Apart from Schadenfreude mis-quoting the law and overlooking the mention of hands and arms there's actually no difference between what we are saying the law is or how it operates: neither he nor you understand what a frame of reference is and you have got distracted by that ignorance.
Which means that Scarfman is the only one who doesn't understand what the law means: that's nothing new for him.

 

[Scarfman]

 

[Inside Shoulder]

 

[spooony]

Just to add if the if the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the ground and bounces forward, this is not a forward pass.

 

[Scarfman]

When you say "forward" ...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

When you say "forward" ...

and when you say player.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What part of which player......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[spooony]

What part of which player......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
'Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.

EXCEPTION:
Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-down though the ball may travel forward.


A throw-forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.
'Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.

EXCEPTION:
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw-forward.

We are talking about the fwd pass not knock ons

 

[Scarfman]

I know, spooony. The law says one thing and the refs play another. There's quite a few of those in rugby.

P.S. Steel yourself for some more nonsense from a certain quarter.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
'Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.

EXCEPTION:
Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-down though the ball may travel forward.


A throw-forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.
'Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.

EXCEPTION:
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw-forward.

We are talking about the fwd pass not knock ons

Look it was a joke......but you have no sense of humour: Scarfman either doesn't read (including his forum rule 6!) or doesn't understand.
By the way if you look at my first post you will see I made this point...which means we are now going round in circles. going around in circles creates real issues in relation to making judgments about relative motion.
The refs in my experience have very little problem with this law - it is the uninformed bystanders who have a problem: much like you 2.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That answer lies in what you are not allowed to do: propelling the ball towards one's opponent's dead ball line with ones hands/arms is either a throw forward or a knock on.
Thus the test is the direction in which the ball travels from the hands, in the case of a throw forward. If the first movement of the ball is toward the opponent's dead ball line it is a throw forward/knock on. Thus, if a ball is first propelled directly across field or backwards but is blown or rolls forward it is not a forward pass.

FIRST POST IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION

 

[Inside Shoulder]

in physics you can have many frames of reference. The question is which is the correct frame, by reference to the words of the law. The answer is the hands because it is the direction of ball movement relative to them that determines whether it is a throw forward.
Another available frame of reference is the lines on the field. But, since they are not moving all movement relative to them is toward the dead ball line.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Schadenfreude]

IS - I wonder if you could contribute to the "clarity" part of this topic.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You still dont understand?
You never will.

 

[suckerforred]

Tried searching with limited luck on a concrete answer.

I'm looking for the actual rules relating to passing and when the pass is considered forward.

Now, the IRB 'for dummies' rules state that the ball must be passed backwards in the sense that it will travel to your own touch line.

However, one can pass the ball backwards at speed, and relative to the ground, the ball will actually move forward. However, in terms of player positioning, the pass is backwards. This is also illustrated in several clips on Youtube (and it's fairly logical).

Furthermore, in the prior Super season, a lot of the commentary mentioned the passes were legal as long as they left the passing players hands backwards.

Anyway, any official stance on this from the IRB/refs?

Now, Ryphon, after 3 pages for discussion and circles, have we answered your question or just confused you even more?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

No need to read beyond posts 2 and 3


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Schadenfreude]

No need to read beyond posts 2 and 3

It's a shame those two posts contradict each other.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Its not "guidance": the law is specific.
Unlike league (originally) the law makers in union understood Einsteinian relativity.
The relevant frame of reference is not the stationary spectator or the slower ref or even the supporting player: it is the passing player. Provided he does not propel the ball toward the opponent's goal line it is not a throw forward as a matter of physics.

I'm just going to quote this here, just for the seven layers of misinformation rolled up into one nice package.

A Couple of Gems:

• Rugby Union was a sport before Einstein was born.
• Einstein's relativity was about the curvature of spacetime.
• The whole (side) discussion is about Classical Mechanics.
• "Frame of reference" isn't mentioned anywhere in the laws, which isn't surprising because you only need Positions and Velocities to work out the equations. Accelerations are interesting for the purposes of how the laws are currently interpreted, but they're easy enough to calculate from the velocities - and they're not relevant to how the law is written.

I'm personally loving the complete misunderstanding of something, which you're claiming to understand better than everyone else, as the basis for this whole argument - please do carry on - give us a bit of Schrödinger's Cat!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Tried searching with limited luck on a concrete answer.........


However, one can pass the ball backwards at speed, and relative to the ground, the ball will actually move forward.

Rule 1: read the question - emphasis on "relative to the ground"
Rule 2: read the law - emphasis on hands and arms


"The theory of relativity overturned the concept of motion from Newton's day, by positing that all motion is relative.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_stationary.htm
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm#GRER
Particularly: "Einstein's principle of relativity is just a generalisation of that of Galileo and Newton"
"The part of relativistic mechanics which is related to accelerated motion,
is called 'General Theory of Relativity': http://www.citycollegiate.com/physicsXII_17e.htm

As for the game existing before publication of the theory, a minor point in the debate:
A) if the theory is right it has always been right - even if not articulated as a general theory;
B) the law may not have been written as it now is;
C) see quote immediately above - and B: if people had not accepted, albeit without labeling it, the fact of relativity the world could not have functioned as it did. For instance no one would have been game to pour a drink in the dining car of a train. Thus, lack of articulation of the theory does not negate an innate comprehension of the working of the world.

I agree the expression "frame of reference" is not in the law (it would be odd if it were). However, the law provides the frame of reference by which the concept of "forward" is to be assessed (just as the laws provide the frame of reference by which a kick off is to be judged legal or otherwise). That frame is the hands: the issue posed by the words of the law is: what was the motion of the ball relative to the hands at the time of release?

The question posed by ryphon used the ground as the frame of reference. Thus different frames of reference were involved: one (apparently) stationary and one moving.

Note: not a single personal remark!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk