Tigers vs Quins

[yellow_balaclava_hunter]

I will reiterate for those who lack basic English comprehension. "‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line'"

And I will say, for the first time (because I didn't think it'd need saying), that no(-)thing (including language) means outside of it's relations. You cannot isolate 'forward' from the rest of the phrase to castigate others for engaging with the entire phrase.

The definition of throw is: to project through the air with a rapid motion of the arm.

So a throw-forward can be defined as projecting something forwards from the arm. That is, if the arm goes backwards and is taken forward by something else other than the arm, it is thrown backwards.

Unless you want to take rapid, of, the, and arm out of the definition of throw for your own purposes?

That is complete nonsense. If you throw a ball forward then it is the ball going forward that is in question, not the direction of the arms. you can move your arms backwards and the ball still go forward. The law is quite clear.

[yellow_balaclava_hunter]

YBH we are going to have to disagree.

If all the professional players, coaches and refs I've dealt with can understand the situation that is fine with me. If you feel that insulting people with an opposing view enhances your argument that is your prerogative. I certainly don't find the majority of refs incompetent.

I am not giving 'an opposing view'. You are the one giving the opposing view and one that is incorrect. There is nothing 'insulting' in what I have said as I have stated facts. The majority of referees at the moment are extremely incompetent.

[northerntiger]

I don't think many people, including YBH, understand this. Forget talking about momentum, talk about speed. If a player running at 20mph drops the ball directly downwards, it is moving at 20mph forwards and will hit the ground ahead of the point at which it was dropped. If the player was not moving, it would hit the ground directly under the point it was dropped. So the ball can be passed back, but end up ahead of the point at which it was passed

[Bill W (2)]

I don't think many people, including YBH, understand this. Forget talking about momentum, talk about speed. If a player running at 20mph drops the ball directly downwards, it is moving at 20mph forwards and will hit the ground ahead of the point at which it was dropped. If the player was not moving, it would hit the ground directly under the point it was dropped. So the ball can be passed back, but end up ahead of the point at which it was passed

Insofar as momentum = mass x velocity and speed and velocity are the same (in a partiular direction) I totally agree.

Surrely the key question is where was the receiver relative to the passer. In front or behind?

[loretta]

I don't think many people, including YBH, understand this. Forget talking about momentum, talk about speed. If a player running at 20mph drops the ball directly downwards, it is moving at 20mph forwards and will hit the ground ahead of the point at which it was dropped. If the player was not moving, it would hit the ground directly under the point it was dropped. So the ball can be passed back, but end up ahead of the point at which it was passed

This is pretty easy to understand, and was demonstrated nicely when the knock-on was given on Friday night (which I mentioned earlier). Professional rugby players should, and generally are, perfectly capable of overcoming this., by throwing or passing backwards to overcome it. Simples.

[tb1]

YBH we are going to have to disagree.

If all the professional players, coaches and refs I've dealt with can understand the situation that is fine with me. If you feel that insulting people with an opposing view enhances your argument that is your prerogative. I certainly don't find the majority of refs incompetent.

I am not giving 'an opposing view'. You are the one giving the opposing view and one that is incorrect. There is nothing 'insulting' in what I have said as I have stated facts. The majority of referees at the moment are extremely incompetent.

You failed GCSE/O-level physics didn't you? Certainly if you didn't you should have.

[BJ.]

I will reiterate for those who lack basic English comprehension. "‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line'"

Just to clarify another point of basic English comprehension, the word 'reiterate' means to repeat a second time or more, i.e. to say something at least three times. This word is often misused by people who incorrectly think it just means to repeat once. The correct term for this would be 'iterate'.

[G.K]

Can we refer this to the FMO to check many times it was actually repeated.

[BJ.]

Can we refer this to the FMO to check many times it was actually repeated.

The FMO? I hope you're not trying to use a naughty word instead of 'television'?

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

The fact that the law mentions 'the ball forward' makes it completely unambiguous.

No it doesn't.

The crux is the word throw, and in the law it is not defined how a throw is measured. Is the throw the action or the end result?

The next line of the law is "‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line'". It is extremely clear. If people including referees aren't intelligent enough to understand that or have been coerced by southern hemisphere cheats to think it means something different then that is their fault and it doesn't mean that their point is valid.

Again what does "throw" mean? The definition of forward isn't in question.

You can keep repeating yourself but it doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't endear people to your argument.

[G.K]

Can we refer this to the FMO to check many times it was actually repeated.

The FMO? I hope you're not trying to use a naughty word instead of 'television'?

The F being Forum. Being pure of heart and mind I have no idea as to what 'naughty word' those of a more depraved manner could possibly think it was?

[yellow_balaclava_hunter]

I will reiterate for those who lack basic English comprehension. "‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line'"

Just to clarify another point of basic English comprehension, the word 'reiterate' means to repeat a second time or more, i.e. to say something at least three times. This word is often misused by people who incorrectly think it just means to repeat once. The correct term for this would be 'iterate'.

By the time I had written that post, I'd lost count of how many times I'd had to explain what is a very simple law to those who are incapable of understanding it. So yes technically I was reiterating.

[yellow_balaclava_hunter]

The fact that the law mentions 'the ball forward' makes it completely unambiguous.

No it doesn't.

The crux is the word throw, and in the law it is not defined how a throw is measured. Is the throw the action or the end result?

The next line of the law is "‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line'". It is extremely clear. If people including referees aren't intelligent enough to understand that or have been coerced by southern hemisphere cheats to think it means something different then that is their fault and it doesn't mean that their point is valid.

Again what does "throw" mean? The definition of forward isn't in question.

You can keep repeating yourself but it doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't endear people to your argument.

You are the one who is repeatedly denying fact.

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

The word 'ball' preceding the word 'forward' indicates quite clearly that it is the ball going forward.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

You are the one who is repeatedly denying fact.

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

The word 'ball' preceding the word 'forward' indicates quite clearly that it is the ball going forward.

None so blind as those who will not see

[mol2]

The fact that the law mentions 'the ball forward' makes it completely unambiguous.

No it doesn't.

The crux is the word throw, and in the law it is not defined how a throw is measured. Is the throw the action or the end result?

The next line of the law is "‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line'". It is extremely clear. If people including referees aren't intelligent enough to understand that or have been coerced by southern hemisphere cheats to think it means something different then that is their fault and it doesn't mean that their point is valid.

Again what does "throw" mean? The definition of forward isn't in question.

You can keep repeating yourself but it doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't endear people to your argument.

Given the only fixed elements are the pitch, lines and flags - forwards and backwards have to be related to that. It the interpretation becomes relative to the player making the pass too many variables come into play - how fast was he going when he passed it and in what direction was he running at the time. If he speeds up on passing it can make the ball appear behind him yet be passed 5 or 10 metres forwards!
If he's running back towards his own line when passing is it a forward pass if his hands are pointing forward even if the momentum of the ball means it doesn't travel forwards to the opposition side?