[Bulliac]

: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:44 pm  

declaration wrote:

But surely if we can trust video refs to judge whether a 'slap' has gone forward, we can also trust them to judge whether a pass has gone forward.

In the build up to a try that is.

It seems weird to suggest that a video ref is capable and allowed to say whether a slap went forward but is incapable of doing the same for a pass.

I certainly think you`re right to suggest that the VR could have some involvement in forwarded passes ( he could probably see which way a player`s hands are facing) but at the same time I feel you`re still trying to say that there is no difference in the knock on and forward pass decision.

To repeat what has already been said; a knock on is relative to the ground (except after a completed tackle) whilst a forward pass is relative to the passer and the ball subsequently going forward relative to the ground doesn`t make a properly made pass forward.

: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:51 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

both you and fa seem to be working on the assumption that an action not defined as a pass is defined as knock on! That isn't the case there is a definition of a knock on itself and there are actions and situations which fall fall under neither definition, there is no point denying that.

There is no link between two at all. An action can be one, both or neither. Hence why any discussion of a forward pass is totally irrelevant to a knock on decision.

SmokeyTA wrote:

It is unarguable in my opinion that the jjb incident was one of those situations and the incident fell into a grey area within our rules, similar to the Webb incident the game loses nothing by tightening up these rules and making them clearer, the only way the game will lose is if people pretend that there is no problem

No grey area at all. He played at the ball. In playing at the ball he knocked it forward. It was a knock on. The VR was right not to award the try because of it.

[Kosh]

: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:13 pm  

declaration wrote:

But surely if we can trust video refs to judge whether a 'slap' has gone forward, we can also trust them to judge whether a pass has gone forward.

In the build up to a try that is.

It seems weird to suggest that a video ref is capable and allowed to say whether a slap went forward but is incapable of doing the same for a pass.

A knock on is judged forward relative to the ground. A forward pass isn't. Hence the restriction on the VR.

It's really all quite straightforward.

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:46 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

both you and fa seem to be working on the assumption that an action not defined as a pass is defined as knock on! That isn't the case there is a definition of a knock on itself and there are actions and situations which fall fall under neither definition, there is no point denying that.

Well knocking the ball backwards is neither a pass nor a knock-on, so obviously we are not. Maybe you would you like to offer some examples of what you are on about.

Michael.

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:17 am  

Surely we have the technology now to be able to determine the momentum of the ball before and after it is passed, and the technology to be able to determine the players' and the ball's position in relation to the pitch? I've seen some pretty decent stuff in my time in lectures at Carnegie being used for match analysis. Surely this can be implimented into officiating?

Forward passes are a blight on our game and it's a disgrace that so many get missed, especially in the build up to tries, and especially if they get called to the VR and are so incredibly obvious yet cannot be chalked off.

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:53 am  

declaration wrote:

Obviously you didn't watch Leeds Bradford last Friday.

Apparently a knock on doesn't need to touch the ground or an opposition player to be a knock on.

im sorry . but the rules outlawed this 90 years ago . its what dally messenger use to do all the time . throw the ball forward over the defence .catch on the full . play on . just like a chip kick . thats why they outlawed it

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:14 am  

mav wrote:

Well knocking the ball backwards is neither a pass nor a knock-on, so obviously we are not. Maybe you would you like to offer some examples of what you are on about.

Michael.

if I were to attempt to punch the ball backwards to a team mate, or to in fact make any action which is neither a throw nor a knock under these rules cannot be judged as to whether it is either a forward pass because it hadn't been passed nor a knock on because it hadn't been knocked!

The rules assume every action is one or the other when that isn't the case

[Kosh]

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:13 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

if I were to attempt to punch the ball backwards to a team mate, or to in fact make any action which is neither a throw nor a knock under these rules cannot be judged as to whether it is either a forward pass because it hadn't been passed nor a knock on because it hadn't been knocked!

The rules assume every action is one or the other when that isn't the case

If you were to attempt to punch the ball, you would be 'playing at the ball'. The rules clearly state that if the ball goes forward after being played at, it's a knock on. This is also easily distinguished from a pass, which involves throwing the ball rather than striking at it.

The rules are just fine as they are, as long as one takes the trouble to read them properly.

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:35 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

...

And don't fall back on fas red herring of judgment changing because the same as the rule states a forward pass needs to be passed forward it also states a knock on needs to be knocked forward!

Why don't you understand that the definition of "forward" is not the same for a pass as it is for a knock-on? What's hard about that? I mean, it may be you really don't get it, but I'm struggling to believe that you can't understand the simple difference.

SmokeyTA wrote:

...It is one hundred percent clear jjb knocked the ball backwards yet it went forward

WTF? Are you saying there was a miracle, or the laws of physics ceased to apply? How did this phenomenon happen? I'm truly baffled by that.

Let me see if I can make any sense at all of that. I doubt it, but I'll try.

It is one hundred percent clear jjb knocked the ball backwards

Well, what is 100% clear is that he knocked it forwards. How do we know? Well, the camera is positioned at the halfway line. It was pointed to the right to film this play. The ball when it is struck by the player does not have any apparent 'right to left' motion on leaving his arm. Whilst it would be difficult to judge HOW MUCH apparent right to left motion it would need, in order to be truly going backwards realtive to the pitch, what we can see with certainty is that because it had no such apparent motion, it must have been going substantially forward.

Indeed, as it didn't seem to have any apparent left to right motion either, the conclusion is that it's true line, relative to the pitch, was the straight line in which the camera was pointing. Which would be somewhere between 20-30 degrees forward.

exactly the same as if he'd passed the ball backwards it would have likely gone forward

I don't understand what you're trying to say, but at least
(a) you accept he did NOT "pass" it and
(b) you understand that you can pass a ball backwards, within the rules, yet it can still travel forward, relative to the pitch.

Now all you need to get is that (b) ONLY applies to passes. And not to knock-ons.

SmokeyTA wrote:

...And if cummins wants the game to be reffed as fa states then why not put it in the rules

These ARE the rules. The officials correctly applied these rules in the way I have stated.

: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:49 am  

Wasnt there a similar type of situation with Semi Tadulala last year? I seem to remember many Bradford fans insisting it wasnt a knock on even though the ball after being touched by Semi ended up nearer to the oppositions line than when he hit the ball, a clear knock on!

It would be interesting to see how many bulls fans thought hat one wasn't and knock on and JJB's was a knock on.