Err... you might want to read to rules on what a backward pass is! (In Rugby) the direction of a pass has nothing to do with the it's path over the ground. It's relative to the players, not the ground.

couldn't agree more.

Without refs we'd have no game. I've refereed schoolboys for 35 years so I'm not getting at the refs but merely disagreeing about the 5 points I've mentioned.
One perspn still thinks bad decisions even themselves out. My grumble is not at the bad decisions (but one can never be happy about them), it's thinking that they even themselves out.
It's like saying that over the years Saints victories over Blackpool will end up pretty even. If people's ability is involved, chances are not even.
On one of the other points, if someone is running sideways across the field from left to right, even if his hands are pointing backwards, the pass will be forward so refs should not just look at the hands.

and there was me thinking the ball can be passed in any manner and in any direction as long as it isn't in a direction that takes it closer to the oppositions goal line

You'd be completely wrong, then. It is forward [ionly[/i if it moves forward (ie towards the oppositions goal line) in an inertial frame of reference to the passer, as it leaves the passer's hands.

can you tell us another way it could possibly move towards the oppositions goal line then

Benefit of the doubt should always go to the defending team. To score a try, a referee must be 100% certain that it is one. Benefit of the doubt implies he's not 100% certain, therefore the attacking team didn't warrant enough merit for the try to be awarded.

If the ball goes forward relative to the moving player, that is forward.
If the ball goes forward relative to the pitch, [iit doesn't matter[/i.

Think - if you're running forward at 15 mph, and you pass it completely flat, the ball will still be travelling forward at 15 mph, yet won't be forward.

If forward passes were decided how the ball starts/finishes relative to the pitch, then if you were running forward at 15 mph, you would physically have the throw the ball backwards at 15mph just so that it remains stationary (and isn't forward) relative to the pitch.

Equally the referee could ask the question "is there any physical reason why I can't give the try?".

You are Mike "momentum rule" Stephenson and I claim my £5

Because he's not 100% certain.

he can't be.... because he's right.
Stevo has no idea what momentum is...

What decision should he give when he hasn't seen any reason to disallow the try but isn't 100% a try was scored?

It could bounce forward towards the opposition line.
It could be blown forward towards the opposition line by the wind.

These (along with momentum) are explicitly mentioned in the laws if the game as situations in which the ball can move towards the opposition goal line and not be a forward pass.

At what point did I mention momentum? The fact the ball has mass is pretty irrelevant.

My question stands - "because he's not 100% certain" is not a physical reason. A physical reason in this case being an act or suspicion of an act.

...ie new question the referee could well ask the video ref "is there is act which took place, or do you suspect of any act that took place that could have stopped the the try being scored".

Depends on the circumstance. He could allow the tackle count to continue, or award the defending team a 20-metre restart.



Doubt implies that one is not sure about what occured. I think the burden of proof should be on the attacking team to score, and not whether they 'might' have scored. Of course, when there are no physical reasons to disallow a try, then 'doubt' becomes less of a factor in lieu of certainty? It's all semantics, i suppose, but i don't think 'doubt' should be apart of a referee's vocabulary.

He should just choose a random option? He hasn't seen any reason to give a 20-metre restart, or to deny the try and allow the tackle count to continue.

you didn't explicity say momentum however your explanation of a forward pass was on the momentum rules. as players are traveling. when i stated the ball could be passed in any manner and directions as it is not in a direction closer to the opposing goal line you said i was completely wrong. and went on to give the senario of a player traveling at 15mph. however in my statement i don't recall actually mentioning the players moving so i stand by my definition

Not all. It depends on the circumstance in regards to why he's not certain it's a try. That could be dependent on numerous factors such as being held-up, knock-on, or short of the line, etc...

Conversely, I don't think a try should be awarded because it will lead to a dead-end in regards to how the game should be restarted.

All this talk of 'momentum' v forward passing reminds me of Bradfords disallowed try against Wigan in the play offs last year.

Went forward but clearly was hit backwards by the bulls player ..

That caused all kinds of arguments with me and my mates.

I see, so you think a try shouldn't be awarded if there referee thinks there is the possibility (however small) that there was something wrong. Instead he should make a decision that something incredibly unlikely happened that none of the officials actually saw?

That's hardly a benefit of the doubt scenario then. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, when benefit of the doubt, played out realistically means 'quite certain'?

You are completely wrong - the absolute statement that "when the ball travels towards the opposition's line it is a forward pass", is plain wrong. It [ican[/i travel towards the opposition's line [iif[/i it goes backwards relative to the passing player.

Nooooooooooooo, not the momentum "rule" again... wasn't there a record-breaking thread on that a couple of years ago, where one of Keith Senior's relatives was absolutely certain that the laws of physics didn't apply within a rugby pitch?