NZ's amazing try v France

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:27 am

yellow_balaclava_hunter wrote:I will quote the law again as you obviously didn't read it properly last time:

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

It is the ball going forward not the hands.

I am stating that it is wrong to re-interpret any law when they are quite clear. The re-interpretation of the laws by referees is the reason we get such inconsistent performances.

Making up a new law (that if the players hands go forward in a pass then it is a forward pass) is completely wrong. It is not in the current laws, there has been no official introduction of it and would be incorrect if introduced as a players hands can move backwards but the ball go forward and vice-versa.

Yes I am talking about the demonstration video in the link and the players hands clearly move backwards not forwards as he passes the ball.
I did read the law; the operative word that jumped out at me was throw. The last time I checked, you needed to use your hands to throw an object. If you throw something backwards and it travels forwards because of the wind, you've still thrown it backwards.

Also, how do you re-interpret a law? A law is up for interpretation and that is exactly what, as Bill W puts, the arbiters of fact do.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

yellow_balaclava_hunter
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by yellow_balaclava_hunter » Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:09 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
yellow_balaclava_hunter wrote:I will quote the law again as you obviously didn't read it properly last time:

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

It is the ball going forward not the hands.

I am stating that it is wrong to re-interpret any law when they are quite clear. The re-interpretation of the laws by referees is the reason we get such inconsistent performances.

Making up a new law (that if the players hands go forward in a pass then it is a forward pass) is completely wrong. It is not in the current laws, there has been no official introduction of it and would be incorrect if introduced as a players hands can move backwards but the ball go forward and vice-versa.

Yes I am talking about the demonstration video in the link and the players hands clearly move backwards not forwards as he passes the ball.
I did read the law; the operative word that jumped out at me was throw. The last time I checked, you needed to use your hands to throw an object. If you throw something backwards and it travels forwards because of the wind, you've still thrown it backwards.

Also, how do you re-interpret a law? A law is up for interpretation and that is exactly what, as Bill W puts, the arbiters of fact do.
You clearly have comprehension problems if you think that it's the direction of the arms and not the ball.

They are laws and are therefore not up for interpretation. The law clearly refers to the ball going forward, the arm direction is irrelevant otherwise it would be mentioned in the law. The laws should be applied as they are written. This has nothing to do with the wind. The ball can move forwards out of a players hand even if his hands are moving backwards.

Using a hands moving backwards re-interpretation is incorrect and can allow players to deliberately pass the ball forwards whilst moving their hands backwards and therefore gain an advantage. New Zealand get away with this a lot due to the incorrect application of the law by southern hemisphere referees.

The referees are the sole arbiters of fact but have to apply the laws as written. It is the manner in which the referees are arbitrating the laws which I am questioning as they are not applying the laws as written and are making up new ones to apply.

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:30 pm

yellow_balaclava_hunter wrote:They are laws and are therefore not up for interpretation.
They are up for interpretation by virtue of being laws!

Several different interpretations of laws can exist and any ambiguity or texture in the law is to be interpreted by the adjudicators.

We may disagree with the applications from time to time but referees interpret the laws as they feel necessary; currently, they feel the application of a 'momentum rule' is a positive development.

Whether you agree or not is moot with regards to the appreciation of the try in question; it was scored within the laws of the game.

As for deliberate cheating; pushing ball forward but pulling hands through would be almost impossible to master at speed and implement deliberately. The player would, most likely, knock the ball on.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

yellow_balaclava_hunter
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by yellow_balaclava_hunter » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:56 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
yellow_balaclava_hunter wrote:They are laws and are therefore not up for interpretation.
They are up for interpretation by virtue of being laws!

Several different interpretations of laws can exist and any ambiguity or texture in the law is to be interpreted by the adjudicators.

We may disagree with the applications from time to time but referees interpret the laws as they feel necessary; currently, they feel the application of a 'momentum rule' is a positive development.

Whether you agree or not is moot with regards to the appreciation of the try in question; it was scored within the laws of the game.

As for deliberate cheating; pushing ball forward but pulling hands through would be almost impossible to master at speed and implement deliberately. The player would, most likely, knock the ball on.
Sounds like you've never played the game if you think it's impossible to pass the ball forward whilst moving the hands backwards.

As I said, I disagree with the current re-interpretation of the forward pass law. It is a re-interpretation as there is clearly no ambiguity it the law at all.

No referee should apply the laws differently to another as it creates inconsistency and is completely wrong to do so, as is making up a completely new law as the referees have done with this 'hands moved backwards' adjudication.

The try was not legal as the ball moved towards the opposing team's dead ball line which the law clearly states is a forward pass.

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:13 pm

I do play the game and appreciate that it's possible to do but disagree with the assertion that players will do it deliberately in the limited time that they have got on the ball.

As I have said, there's no such thing as a re-interpretation. In basic terms, law is written and then interpreted by judges. This interpretation effectively supersedes the written law until it is rewritten (crudely put but broadly accurate).

The referees are not making up a completely new law but mediating the written law and addressing what they see as an ambiguity up for interpretation. Until the law is rewritten to explicitly preclude this, such tries are perfectly legal and such interpretations are reasonable.

It is incumbent on referees to uphold the law consistently and, whilst they don't always manage it, the momentum/hand backwards interpretation is an example of such consistency.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

yellow_balaclava_hunter
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by yellow_balaclava_hunter » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:35 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:I do play the game and appreciate that it's possible to do but disagree with the assertion that players will do it deliberately in the limited time that they have got on the ball.

As I have said, there's no such thing as a re-interpretation. In basic terms, law is written and then interpreted by judges. This interpretation effectively supersedes the written law until it is rewritten (crudely put but broadly accurate).

The referees are not making up a completely new law but mediating the written law and addressing what they see as an ambiguity up for interpretation. Until the law is rewritten to explicitly preclude this, such tries are perfectly legal and such interpretations are reasonable.

It is incumbent on referees to uphold the law consistently and, whilst they don't always manage it, the momentum/hand backwards interpretation is an example of such consistency.
Players can do this deliberately as it is quite easy to do and can be coached (New Zealand).

The law can only be interpreted if there is ambiguity. There is no ambiguity in this law whatsoever as it clearly states that the ball cannot move towards the opponents dead ball line. Therefore if the ball moves towards the opponents dead ball line it is a forward pass irrespective of the direction the hands move in.

These referees have completely made up a new law and are contravening the IRB regulations by applying it.

Furthermore the hand movement adjudication is not being applied by all referees, in fact the majority apply the law correctly by adjudicating on the movement of the ball. Therefore by using a 'hands moving backwards' adjudication the (mostly southern hemisphere) referees are both being inconsistent but also refereeing incorrectly. For this to happen at the highest level and to be tolerated is nothing short of a disgrace.

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:48 pm

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

For me, there's enough scope in the laws to warrant such an interpretation of the forward pass law; it seems referees (Premiership, Heineken Cup, internationals) and commentators (Sky, BBC, ESPN) share this view.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

Snorbins
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: St. Albans

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Snorbins » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:03 pm

If the ball when leaving the hands goes forward its forward toward its intended receiver? What part of forward cant people understand, and more importantly what part of forward cant the officials see?

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Bill W (2) » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:07 pm

Snorbins wrote:If the ball when leaving the hands goes forward its forward toward its intended receiver? What part of forward cant people understand, and more importantly what part of forward cant the officials see?
Alas the two learned posters have not studied the dynamics of the players and ball.

If the player with the ball is travelling at a velocity v, then he will have to pass the ball with a velocity of greater than v if it is not to travel towards the dead ball line. So even a "pop pass" will teachnically be forward under the definition of the laws. If he can throw the pass with a velocity of 2v (twuce his own running speed) he will have to throw it 30 degrees backwards for it not to be "forwards".



None of this has anything to do with the direction of the hands.


:smt003
Still keeping the faith!

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:14 pm

Bill W (2) wrote:Alas the two learned posters have not studied the dynamics of the players and ball.

If the player with the ball is travelling at a velocity v, then he will have to pass the ball with a velocity of greater than v if it is not to travel towards the dead ball line. So even a "pop pass" will teachnically be forward under the definition of the laws. If he can throw the pass with a velocity of 2v (twuce his own running speed) he will have to throw it 30 degrees backwards for it not to be "forwards".



None of this has anything to do with the direction of the hands.


:smt003
An even more cogent argument for the mediation of the referee - pragmatism and physics!
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by Bill W (2) » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:25 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
Bill W (2) wrote:Alas the two learned posters have not studied the dynamics of the players and ball.

If the player with the ball is travelling at a velocity v, then he will have to pass the ball with a velocity of greater than v if it is not to travel towards the dead ball line. So even a "pop pass" will teachnically be forward under the definition of the laws. If he can throw the pass with a velocity of 2v (twuce his own running speed) he will have to throw it 30 degrees backwards for it not to be "forwards".



None of this has anything to do with the direction of the hands.


:smt003
An even more cogent argument for the mediation of the referee - pragmatism and physics!

Just so! Maybe the laws of the game should be amended to state that a forward pass is one where the ball travels towards the dead ball line relative to the momentum of the player delivering it.

Note that this is not determined by the direction of the hands
Still keeping the faith!

parkerd68
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:36 pm

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by parkerd68 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:06 pm

Back to the try. Whilst the last offload was top notch, and I respect the fact that it is an international, I don't see how that try is better than Bowden's vs Sarries this/last season. Quite similar in its content, but I felt the speed of Bowden's from start to finish was incredible.

dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Re: NZ's amazing try v France

Post by dailywaffle » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:39 pm

yellow_balaclava_hunter wrote: There are numerous occasions when the TMO gets it wrong including in the Lions game today where the TMO by his reasoning for not giving a forward pass (The players hands didn't move forward) showed that he did not know the laws of the game.
A very brief guest appearance, but I noticed this error in understanding ...

Case law confirmed, in 1948, that (and I quote) "the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the payer passing the ball, which must be at the discretion of the referee".

Those who insist that a forward pass is determined by reference to the ground or dead ball line have been incorrect for over 60 years. I cannot say whether or not y_b_c qualifies for the full 65 years, but despite his certainty he is incorrect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests