Forward pass problem solved

[Enzedder]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/30 ... ontroversy

The age-old issue of definitively ruling on forward passes appears a step closer to being solved after a trial of revolutionary technology during the NRLW season was hailed a success.

London-based firm Sportable, which inserts a microchip into the Steeden to determine whether the ball leaves a player’s hands forwards or backwards, teamed up with the NRL to road test its solution during six games of the recently completed NRLW season.

During those matches, the referees called four forward passes. The Sun-Herald can reveal that Sportable, which ran a test in the background that had no effect on the games, detected those four passes and also two others it believes were thrown forward.

The company has forwarded the data it collected to NRL head office for examination, but feels the results are proof its system works. If Rugby League Central agrees, it could be an important first step towards the technology being introduced into the NRL in a bid to finally end the most contentious issue since the game came into being in 1908.

“The findings are really interesting,” Pete Husemeyer, a former NASA nuclear engineer who formed Sportable with Dugald Macdonald and Dan Davson, told The Sun-Herald from London.

“We detected all of the forward passes the refs detected and we even detected a couple more. As it currently stands, the refs will go over those ones with a fine-tooth comb and then we will put our heads together and see where we are.

Sportable will be really happy if the NRL is happy with the technology. If they are happy to put it to games, that’s brilliant. If they feel they need a bit more time to gather data, that’s also fine.

The age-old issue of definitively ruling on forward passes appears a step closer to being solved.

“The underlying algorithm itself is a sound algorithm; it’s doing what we expected it to do, it’s doing what we trained it to do.”

Asked if he felt the technology provided an accurate assessment on forward passes, he said: “We do think it’s definitive.

“Forward pass is the easiest rule to say – it’s two words. But there’s so much emotion and it’s so loaded when you talk to people and understand the caveats to that – it can travel forward but only because of momentum. That’s what needs to be clarified, it’s the angle of the hands as the ball leaves ... we believe we have a tool that does that.”

To track the flight of the ball, the Steeden is implanted with a microchip that features an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor, many of the technologies found in a normal mobile phone. Then there’s also additional technology that tracks the ball like a radar. There’s also a second method the company uses to track ball flight that the company wants to keep confidential for now.

“We look at the ball data just before the pass and just after the pass has been made, when the ball is flying through the air,” Husemeyer explained. “By comparing those two sets of data, you can then back-calculate the players’ hand angle. You can see if the hands were flat, aimed forwards or backwards. When the person makes the pass, within 300 milliseconds we’ll know if it’s a forward pass.”

NRL head of football Graham Annesley was reluctant to comment until the trial data had been evaluated and he had a chance to pass on any recommendations to the ARL Commission.

“We’re in the process of trying to evaluate the results of the trial so that we can report to the Commission before we say anything else publicly,” Annesley said.

Husemeyer said Sportable technologies could be used in a number of other different ways to assist match officials, broadcasters and coaches. For instance, the microchip in the ball could determine whether the Steeden has been kicked through the posts or provide a definitive call on a 40-20.

“I don’t think there’s a single rugby player in the world who at some point hasn’t felt robbed by the touch judge,” Husemeyer quipped, adding that the “Holy Grail” was trying to develop a technology that conclusively determined if the ball was grounded for a try.

Asked if the technology works and can be implemented in a cost-effective way, he said: “One hundred per cent, absolutely. I don’t think there will be any economic issues, it’s about us figuring out how to make the sport better for everyone. We are a bunch of sports fanatics trying to make the games we love better. We don’t want fans or anyone else to think we’re trying to unnecessarily change the sports they love.

“We’re grateful for the opportunity we’ve been given by the NRL and we’ve loved every minute of the data-gathering process and working with the teams. We’re looking forward to seeing the next chapters in this exciting adventure we’re taking.”

Sydney Morning Herald

Now to work out if it's the same on a treadmill.

[Niegs]

Great, even less for those useless ARs to focus on!

[Chilli]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

[Ymx]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

That’s the first time I’ve used this emoji.

[Guy Smiley]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

Same here and it felt good, man. It felt RIGHT

[RichieRich89]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

[Chilli]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

[RichieRich89]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Oh, it matters a lot. If you are talking about forward relative to the ground you wouldn't be allowed to pass it to a player 5 or more metres behind you if you were both running fast enough.

[Guy Smiley]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Saffa in not understanding the Laws shock.

[average joe]

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Saffa in not understanding the Laws shock.

I think what Chilli is eluding to is when you pass a ball to a player that's clearly in front of you.

[Margin__Walker]

I think what Chilli is eluding to is when you pass a ball to a player that's clearly in front of you.

That doesn't sound like it's what he's eluding to.

[average joe]

I have to add that not all passes are as cut and dried. There is one that I have a particular gripe with though and it's those overhead passes that Cooper use to do. Some of them (not all) you can clearly see him throwing the ball up ahead of him and then running past it for a player behind to catch it. Also a lot of those "flat passes" (as you kiwis and Aussies like to call them) can be considered forward in my opinion.

[MungoMan]

Or, if the ball is passed and it goes forward: IT IS A FORWARD PASS.

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

Uhm, this is what the LOTG say on that topic.

Definitions - Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player
passing the ball move forward.

Law 11.7: A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction: Penalty.

What the LOTG say and what you say = two materially different things.

[Tichtheid]

This video is good, but I'll cut to the chase with the time stamp.

The ball carrier chucked the ball back over his head. There is no way that can be a forward pass under any circumstances, can it?

The ball is caught by the receiving player roughly 3m in front of where it was released

It's worth rewinding and watching the whole thing, it clears up any misunderstanding of what a forward pass is

[average joe]

I think what Chilli is eluding to is when you pass a ball to a player that's clearly in front of you.

That doesn't sound like it's what he's eluding to.

He's a Saffa. Words are not our forte.

[average joe]

This video is good, but I'll cut to the chase with the time stamp.

The ball carrier chucked the ball back over his head. There is no way that can be a forward pass under any circumstances, can it?

The ball is caught by the receiving player roughly 3m in front of where it was released

It's worth rewinding and watching the whole thing, it clears up any misunderstanding of what a forward pass is

Your gif does not exactly depict what I have in mind. I can throw a ball high enough up into the air a meter or two in front of me and still run through under it.

[Chilli]

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Oh, it matters a lot. If you are talking about forward relative to the ground you wouldn't be allowed to pass it to a player 5 or more metres behind you if you were both running fast enough.

Rugby should be an uncomplicated game. The laws and pundits like yourself make it so complicated.

[Chilli]

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Saffa in not understanding the Laws shock.

Kiwi is being a cunt shock.

[Chilli]

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

Uhm, this is what the LOTG say on that topic.

Definitions - Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player
passing the ball move forward.

Law 11.7: A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction: Penalty.

What the LOTG say and what you say = two materially different things.

Again, you and the laws make the game way to complicated. I am quite clearly referring to a ball that is passed forward resulting in scrum.

[average joe]

Forward relative to the ground?

That would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to legally pass the ball to someone behind you if you were running fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

Uhm, this is what the LOTG say on that topic.

Definitions - Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player
passing the ball move forward.

Law 11.7: A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction: Penalty.

What the LOTG say and what you say = two materially different things.

You're over complicate it. You need to think simple when conversing with a Saffa. He's basically saying the same thing you are just in Saffa vernacular.

[Tichtheid]

This video is good, but I'll cut to the chase with the time stamp.

The ball carrier chucked the ball back over his head. There is no way that can be a forward pass under any circumstances, can it?

The ball is caught by the receiving player roughly 3m in front of where it was released

It's worth rewinding and watching the whole thing, it clears up any misunderstanding of what a forward pass is

Your gif does not exactly depict what I have in mind. I can throw a ball high enough up into the air a meter or two in front of me and still run through under it.

It's not about running underneath it, it's about the forward motion the ball has due to the ball carrier before they pass.

If you are running at full speed and drop the ball straight down it will land in front of where you released it because the ball's forward motion is still there, it doesn't stop moving forward just because you released it.

Likewise if you pass the ball backwards it still has forward motion due to you carrying it

[RichieRich89]

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Oh, it matters a lot. If you are talking about forward relative to the ground you wouldn't be allowed to pass it to a player 5 or more metres behind you if you were both running fast enough.

Rugby should be an uncomplicated game. The laws and pundits like yourself make it so complicated.

I don't know about other people. I just know about myself. I don't think judging forwardness relative to the passer rather than relative to the ground is making things complicated.

I suspect you don't truly grasp the physics at play. You are forcing an over-simplistic solution on a dynamic problem. The ball is already travelling forward relative to the ground before the pass is even thrown if the player carrying the ball is in motion.

[MungoMan]

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Oh, it matters a lot. If you are talking about forward relative to the ground you wouldn't be allowed to pass it to a player 5 or more metres behind you if you were both running fast enough.

Rugby should be an uncomplicated game. The laws and pundits like yourself make it so complicated.

Which bit of this is complicated?

"Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward."

It's more about what the ball-carrier does, not what the ball does.

[Tichtheid]

It's more about what the ball-carrier does, not what the ball does.

Bingo!

That's the best one line explanation I've seen on this.

[average joe]

It's not about running underneath it, it's about the forward motion the ball has due to the ball carrier before they pass.

If you are running at full speed and drop the ball straight down it will land in front of where you released it because the ball's forward motion is still there, it doesn't stop moving forward just because you released it.

Likewise if you pass the ball backwards it still has forward motion due to you carrying it

If you throw a ball straight up it will travel forward because you were traveling forward. Although my comprehension of physics are limited, basic momentum is not rocket science. Although throwing a ball forward is quite different than throwing a ball straight up wont you say?

[FalseBayFC]

Uhm, if the ball goes forward it is a forward pass.

It wouldn't matter about being relative to the ground, or the angle of the hands, or the effect of the moon on the ocean tide.

Saffa in not understanding the Laws shock.

Kiwi is being a cunt shock.

He's one of those tools from the PR forum. And he can't spell Saffer.

[Mahoney]

I've got a simpler solution - just get rid of the forward pass law entirely. Keep the offensive offside line. So the law is just the same as for kicks - at the moment you let go of the ball the receiver must not be in front of you. No need to worry about momentum or direction of the hands, can be judged with stills, and you can pass flat at pace.

(not entirely serious...)

[Tichtheid]

It's not about running underneath it, it's about the forward motion the ball has due to the ball carrier before they pass.

If you are running at full speed and drop the ball straight down it will land in front of where you released it because the ball's forward motion is still there, it doesn't stop moving forward just because you released it.

Likewise if you pass the ball backwards it still has forward motion due to you carrying it

If you throw a ball straight up it will travel forward because you were traveling forward. Although my comprehension of physics are limited, basic momentum is not rocket science. Although throwing a ball forward is quite different than throwing a ball straight up wont you say?

Put it this way, if you are standing still and throw the ball straight up, it will come straight back down again to where you are.
Now stand on a moving trailer and throw the ball straight up. It will come down and land in your arms again, but you are further forward than you were when you released it.

The ball is further forward but you threw it straight up and down.

Likewise, as MungoMan says, it's all down to what the ball carrier does, as long as they pass in a backwards motion it is a legitimate pass.

If Usain Bolt released an absolutely flat pass when he is going full speed, the ball is travelling forward at quicker than ten metres per second at the point where it leaves his hands. If the ball is in flight for one second before being caught it will be approximately 10 metres in front of where Bolt passed it.

[Mahoney]

Put it this way, if you are standing still and throw the ball straight up, it will come straight back down again to where you are.
Now stand on a moving trailer and throw the ball straight up. It will come down and land in your arms again, but you are further forward than you were when you released it.

It won't you know. Not unless there's a massive tailwind.

Or you're in a vacuum, in which case you have other problems to deal with.

[Tichtheid]

Put it this way, if you are standing still and throw the ball straight up, it will come straight back down again to where you are.
Now stand on a moving trailer and throw the ball straight up. It will come down and land in your arms again, but you are further forward than you were when you released it.

It won't you know. Not unless there's a massive tailwind.

Or you're in a vacuum, in which case you have other problems to deal with.

It would if it was a large cannon ball.

[average joe]

Put it this way, if you are standing still and throw the ball straight up, it will come straight back down again to where you are.
Now stand on a moving trailer and throw the ball straight up. It will come down and land in your arms again, but you are further forward than you were when you released it.

It won't you know. Not unless there's a massive tailwind.

Or you're in a vacuum, in which case you have other problems to deal with.

What about if the trailer was on a treadmill?

[Guy Smiley]

Saffa in not understanding the Laws shock.

Kiwi is being a cunt shock.

He's one of those tools from the PR forum. And he can't spell Saffer.

Saffa in not understanding the origins of NPR shock

[average joe]

Saffa in not understanding the Laws shock.

Kiwi is being a cunt shock.

He's one of those tools from the PR forum. And he can't spell Saffer.

Safer has one F you fool.

[Guy Smiley]

Kiwi is being a cunt shock.

He's one of those tools from the PR forum. And he can't spell Saffer.

Safer has one F you fool.

Is this about safety? Should have said…

[ASMO]

If the passer is themselves moving forwards, the ball will always have forward momentum. It can only be forward for me if the ball goes in a forward direction out of the passers hands as the current rule states.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

NFL doesn't allow the ball to move forward on laterals, the result is that players only throw them when stationary.

That's going to make rugby exciting!

[Torquemada 1420]

Look fwd to seeing it in action on my local park.

[Guy Smiley]

If the passer is themselves moving forwards, the ball will always have forward momentum. It can only be forward for me if the ball goes in a forward direction out of the passers hands as the current rule states.

I find the clarification from WR (IRB at the time) with the clever graphic showing the ball passed back at a line on the field but travelling forwards with momentum just simplified and clarified the issue. It's reasonably easy to spot the hand direction at the moment of passing in real time provided the camera is above and definition is clear enough.

I think a lot of short passes in traffic would struggle to pass the test and they are both too quick and sometimes obstructed from view enough for refs and observers to let them go.... but a lock rumbling up on the shoulder of a prop in heavy traffic is unl;ikely to get a ball travelling backwards to him as he stumbles another metre or so into contact.

[ASMO]

If the passer is themselves moving forwards, the ball will always have forward momentum. It can only be forward for me if the ball goes in a forward direction out of the passers hands as the current rule states.

I find the clarification from WR (IRB at the time) with the clever graphic showing the ball passed back at a line on the field but travelling forwards with momentum just simplified and clarified the issue. It's reasonably easy to spot the hand direction at the moment of passing in real time provided the camera is above and definition is clear enough.

I think a lot of short passes in traffic would struggle to pass the test and they are both too quick and sometimes obstructed from view enough for refs and observers to let them go.... but a lock rumbling up on the shoulder of a prop in heavy traffic is unl;ikely to get a ball travelling backwards to him as he stumbles another metre or so into contact.

The thing is that no matter what you do it will never be perfect, keep changing th rules is not the answer, more technology is not the answer, just common sense by both the officials and the players is what is needed. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is likely to be a duck.

[Chilli]

If the passer is themselves moving forwards, the ball will always have forward momentum. It can only be forward for me if the ball goes in a forward direction out of the passers hands as the current rule states.

I find the clarification from WR (IRB at the time) with the clever graphic showing the ball passed back at a line on the field but travelling forwards with momentum just simplified and clarified the issue. It's reasonably easy to spot the hand direction at the moment of passing in real time provided the camera is above and definition is clear enough.

I think a lot of short passes in traffic would struggle to pass the test and they are both too quick and sometimes obstructed from view enough for refs and observers to let them go.... but a lock rumbling up on the shoulder of a prop in heavy traffic is unl;ikely to get a ball travelling backwards to him as he stumbles another metre or so into contact.

The thing is that no matter what you do it will never be perfect, keep changing th rules is not the answer, more technology is not the answer, just common sense by both the officials and the players is what is needed. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is likely to be a duck.

This.