• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Clarity on Passing

Status
Not open for further replies.

suckerforred

Chilla Wilson (44)
Can I please repeat my self......
Can we agree to disagree boys. Lets face it the the only intreptation the matters is one of the refs follow, and we hope that that is the same as the IRB.

If the IRB, and therefore the refs, say that the motion of the ball needs to be viewed in relation to the passing players hands, or the moon for that matter, then that is what should happen. How many refs are physists or people watcing for that matter. What ever the IRB says goes, just ask Sam Warburton.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
What sort of bear? Koala? 'cos that's not really a bear.....

The process engaged in is construction not deconstruction. The process is relevant whether a word is a noun or not.

Throw forward: That is not what the law means - it is not what it says. "release" is passive whereas, IMO, "throw" is active.

This thread is about a throw forward. But what is "natural momentum" and where did the ball get this natural momentum from?

bear
[bair]
- verb (used with object)borebornebearing 1. to support 2. to carry 3. to undergo; endure 4. to give birth to

I blame the teachers.
 

Dam0

Dave Cowper (27)
Oh dear.

This thread is going exactly the same way all the threads on this issue on the rugby refs forum go.
 
P

philsale

Guest
...okay, so if I am on the right track here:
If our player is running inside an opaque box, the ball must be simultaneously dead and alive. Can I make a permanent replacement of an injured player at this time?
 

James Buchanan

Trevor Allan (34)
...okay, so if I am on the right track here:
If our player is running inside an opaque box, the ball must be simultaneously dead and alive. Can I make a permanent replacement of an injured player at this time?

Well sure, but you'd better hope your hypothetical player does not exit the opaque box until a stop in play occurs (should he be alive).

If he exits while the ball is live, then your team would have 16 players on the field which is quite the no-no.

No such problem exists if he is in fact dead.

Also, if I remember correctly, there was something to do with Shroedinger's work about a poison release mechanism on a randomised timer or something. Which, since we didn't know when the mechanism would go off and couldn't see inside was what made the cat both alive and dead. It wasn't merely just the box. Apologies for the pedantry.
 
P

philsale

Guest
Aha - I hadn't actually considered the player inside the box to be the injured player. Not recognising the both dead and alive status of the boxed player is probably a large failure on my part, but at least we wouldn't have 16 players on the field.

The ball inside the box, with no indication of life/otherwise is, however, going to make for a fairly dull game. Maybe I should abandon this idea and do some work...
 

James Buchanan

Trevor Allan (34)
Aha - I hadn't actually considered the player inside the box to be the injured player. Not recognising the both dead and alive status of the boxed player is probably a large failure on my part, but at least we wouldn't have 16 players on the field.

The ball inside the box, with no indication of life/otherwise is, however, going to make for a fairly dull game. Maybe I should abandon this idea and do some work...

Hm, I completely misread your first question. To answer it would be theoretically no, as the ref should not call a stoppage of play. But practically yes, as he probably would.
 
P

philsale

Guest
I've never envied the ref, but even less so with this added layer of complexity.

If we let another player open the box and have a look, will the world in which he is observing a dead player and the world in which he is observing an alive player mean doubling of his match fees? Do salary caps transcend worlds?
 

BPC

Phil Hardcastle (33)
It's actually quite simple. We build a box around the entire field. The referee is outside the box. A player running in the box throws a pass. Until the referee looks inside the box, he doesn't know whether the pass is forward or not. Therefore the pass is in an indeterminate state of being both a forward pass and a legal pass, or strictly speaking, the waveform describing the pass is indeterminate. This is known as a "Schrodinger pass".

The philosophical implications are more difficult. If you adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, then the pass does not exist until it is observed by the referee. If you are more of a "hidden variables" man then the pass was always either forward or legal but you didn't know which until it was observed by the referee. Thos poor fools who favour the many-worlds interpretation think that there were an infinity of universes with an infinite variety of pass and the observation by the referee determines whether we are in a universe in which the pass was forward, a universe in which the pass was legal or a indeed a universe in which the ball transforms into a seagull who befouls the referee beforing flying into a mauve sunset. The most rational of us subscribe to a minimalist interpretation in which the philosophical implications are so much horseshit and the waveform is a statistical process that doesn't apply well to a single particle, or a single football in this case. Strangely enough, there are weider interpretations.

If you wish to know more, and who wouldn't, I recommend reading both the IRB Laws and a suitable quantum mechanics book simultaneously (such as In Search of Schrodinger's Cat and Schrodinger's Kittens by John Gribbin). Remember that it will only work if you read the books while in an inertial frame of reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top