Forward Passes - no longer an infringement?

[emuarse]

Am I the only one noticing time & again tries awarded when the ball is passed metres in front of the passer, yet the referee & assistant referees are wearing double-eye patches? Not even the TMO is consulted by the referee when he asks "is there any reason why I cannot award the try?" The TMO should at least have a look at the probable forward pass which gave n unfair advantage to the attacking receiver of the pass.
I know that if the hand is passed over the ball at speed, the trajectory of the ball will travel forward without it adjudged forward. But what is happening today at all levels of professional rugby is a joke , with the ball often seen to be passed deliberately in front.
I see it as a form of cheating. more or less.
Thoughts?.

 

[Tex]

The refs missed a couple from both teams in the Rebels/Jaguares game last night. 1st Rebels try looked to benefit from a forward pass, and there were a few others that were flat at best.

Maybe it's one of those things, like a straight scrum feed, where only the most obvious infringements are picked up? The difference for me is that forward passes are almost always a mistake of timing or technique, rather than some intentional dodginess.

 

[Slim 293]

I'm going to say no, I haven't seen this happening.........

 

[wamberal]

There is another aspect to all this. Why do television viewers believe that the televised view is necessarily accurate? The only way to know for sure is to have a line marking nearby as a reference point. Otherwise the camera has to be exactly in line with the incident, and unless there are a lot of cameras, most of the time the camera is not in line.

Just because it looks like a forward pass on the box (or not, as the case may be), is not conclusive proof.

 

[zer0]

Forward passes are so 2007.

 

[mst]

The reality is we the spectators are way out of depth with this one. Its unlikely we as untrained inexperience practitioners of the laws of rugby will ever get close to understanding the complexity of a forward pass.

IRB laws are inherently complex. The Law (law 12) is clear. Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

After reading it many times and even googling I still can decipher the relevance of hand direction as I only have a basic grasp on plain English and don't have degree in physics.

 

[TOCC]

One area which gives me the shits, is the interpretation of when a player is held in a tackle and when the tackler is required to release. Players are making a few extra meters on the ground by rolling or some sort of crawl post tackle if the tackler has released. It's a fine line, tacklers are trying to release early so they aren't trapped in the ruck, but if they release too early some teams will use this to take a few extra meters. Kiwi teams have employed this tactic an awful lot in 2017

 

[wamberal]

Keewees do a lot of stuff that is against the rules. The bit that always irks me is the "clearing out" well behind the advantage line, taking out oppostion players and stopping them participating either in the ruck or in the next phase. If I were a ref, I would give a YC for that. That would sort it out pretty quickly


And if what they do is allowed under the rules, change the bloody rules.

 

[mst]

Most of this simply comes back to tightening up the refereeing. It pisses me off that its all so hard when its really not. All of the above are in the law book and it all occurs because referees wont / cant blow the whistle at the right time.

IMHO is stems from the "let the game run" mantra that has now ended up with a situations where rules are applied occasionally and optionally.

 

[Brumby Runner]

One area which gives me the shits, is the interpretation of when a player is held in a tackle and when the tackler is required to release. Players are making a few extra meters on the ground by rolling or some sort of crawl post tackle if the tackler has released. It's a fine line, tacklers are trying to release early so they aren't trapped in the ruck, but if they release too early some teams will use this to take a few extra meters. Kiwi teams have employed this tactic an awful lot in 2017

My pet hate atm TOCC, but honestly it isn't just the NZ sides doing it - the Lions were pretty adept also, and just saw Hooper do it against the Force.

 

[Jon]

Union needs to take the league approach and have 2 refs on the pitch.

(dont need a bunker though)

 

[Twoilms]

One area which gives me the shits, is the interpretation of when a player is held in a tackle and when the tackler is required to release. Players are making a few extra meters on the ground by rolling or some sort of crawl post tackle if the tackler has released. It's a fine line, tacklers are trying to release early so they aren't trapped in the ruck, but if they release too early some teams will use this to take a few extra meters. Kiwi teams have employed this tactic an awful lot in 2017

If we are turning this into a gripe session, why the hell do refs insist on calling a maul 0.2 seconds after a player has been tackled, and then call the ball unplayable 0.1 seconds after everyone hits the deck. So detrimental to attacking rugby.

Having said that, why do mauls exist? and why do the defending team get the ball when one goes down? How the hell do they determine who actually 'collapses' a maul anyway? Why do i exist?

 

[Strewthcobber]

If we are turning this into a gripe session, why the hell do refs insist on calling a maul 0.2 seconds after a player has been tackled, and then call the ball unplayable 0.1 seconds after everyone hits the deck. So detrimental to attacking rugby.

Most of this simply comes back to tightening up the refereeing. It pisses me off that its all so hard when its really not. All of the above are in the law book and it all occurs because referees wont / cant blow the whistle at the right time.


IMHO is stems from the "let the game run" mantra that has now ended up with a situations where rules are applied occasionally and optionally.

Who'd be a ref



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[emuarse]

Most of this simply comes back to tightening up the refereeing. It pisses me off that its all so hard when its really not. All of the above are in the law book and it all occurs because referees wont / cant blow the whistle at the right time.

IMHO is stems from the "let the game run" mantra that has now ended up with a situations where rules are applied occasionally and optionally.

But if the refs penalised/yellow carded early, especially for the take outs around the ruck area, that would stop the infringement from occurring for the remainder of the game, as would the other infringements discussed above.

 

[Pusser]

Most of this simply comes back to tightening up the refereeing. It pisses me off that its all so hard when its really not. All of the above are in the law book and it all occurs because referees wont / cant blow the whistle at the right time.

IMHO is stems from the "let the game run" mantra that has now ended up with a situations where rules are applied occasionally and optionally.

It is like throwing in sort of straight at the front of the line out. Last weekend the Hurricanes threw to no 1 in the line out who took the ball directly on the chest. Scored from both. There was never an opportunity to contest the ball. It often happens more often than not with the short throw ins.