There are instances where we go to the video ref to check for offside and it's impossible to tell if a players if offside. For example, when the player chasing the ball is off screen. It's not clear cut in all cases either. Look at the controversy in last year's grand final over Lee Smith's try for another example.

Surely we could somehow implement the use of the VR when it's blatant that the hands have moved in a forward motion to pass the ball and just give benefit of the doubt to the player passing the ball when there's ambiguity?

For me its all about whether the forward pass is delibrate as this is were the offending team is gaining an unfair advantage. If a delibrate forward pass was classed as where the receiver of the pass is stood in front of the passing player (as in kicks) then all match officials including the VR could rule.

If the player is off screen and the VR can't see, he's supposed to give BOD. I suspect he actually refers it back to the onfield ref and touch judges.

Not sure how a VR looking at a players hands helps. Looking at a players hands is a guide on-field refs use, but the rules make no reference to hand movement.

It's possible to throw a legal backwards pass to a player who is in front of the passer at the time the ball is thrown.

Given the nature of technology these days, surely the video ref could negate the issue misleading camera angles by just viewing the passage of play virtually, as they do in cricket and tennis to judge on difficult decisions.

They already utilise such technology in football to analyse offside decisions, but as a sport they haven't ventured into the realm of video technology to assist officials.

No, he's talking about the final Warrington try when the ball clearly travels forward from the moment it is passed, probably because the Wire player had his arm clamped just at the moment the ball was released.

Some of the greatest legal tries ever seen, usually long passes out wide to flying wingers, involve passes that go forward many metres relative to the ground. There is absolutely no need to change the forward pass rule, only those few who don't get it have a problem with it.

Officials failing to call forward passes is a bit of an issue though, IMHO too many are missed, but I don't really see the reason why the VR can't be asked to look. Surely, if it isn't clear, he gives BOD to attacking team, and if it is a clear forward pass then justice can be done which is an improvement on where we are now?

Having said which as many will know I am no fan of our current crop of VRs, many of whom often show themselves inexplicably myopic and unfit for purpose. But if you could get the right video officials, I would be happy to add forward passes to the list of things they can look at. Whilst i take the point made by some that camera angles can be deceptive, nevertheless I have to say it is a rare TV try where I am in doubt as to whether the pass was forward or not. Anybody else sit there wracking their brains trying to decide? No? Didn't think so. The alleged difficulty wouldn't really be much of a problem at all, I'd say.

I think the VR should be allowed to judge on forward passes, with the suggested BOD to attacking side if it's not clear. We see the pictures every week on SKY and some camera angles are decieving, but there are some instances where the pass looks forward on EVERY angle they have. You can also often judge the direction the players hands move in (which is the criteria referees are told to use when judging a forward pass) from the replay. I think the blanket ban on putting forward passes to the VR is wrong and leads to some obviously wrong decisions being made.

No rule changes are required, but it would be nice if all RL commentators where obliged to go on a course and prove they know the laws before being unleashed on the general public.

Isn't the OP advocating American Football-type passes, ie, can launch it forward providing that the receiver is behind the thrower when it is thrown. If so, the answer is no. It's called rugby "football" league, hence the emphasis on kicking.

Firstly, linesmen need to grow some balls and actually flag forward passes.

Secondly, it's perfectly possible for technology to assess for forward passes. Sky's wonderful technology could easily look at the momentum of the passer and the manner of travel of the ball relative to him. It could even look at the angle of the player's hands and the angle at which the ball left the player. On the replays, place a mark on the passer, the ball and receiver and draw a little line following the progression of all three. Of course the problem lies in if the passer halts having made the pass - in which case the computer could simply map his velocity and direction immediately before stopping and predict his path had he continued, comparing this to the actual progression of the ball and judging whether it moved forward of the passing player (or his predicted path) at any point.

Do I want it? No. Though perhaps it could be used ONLY in instances where resulting tries are in question.

Will too many RL fans still not understand the forward pass rule? Yes.

The forward pass explained (it's Union but the principal is the same) and why using pitch markings would rule out the majority of tries scored on a 'running' play. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

The forward pass explained (it's Union but the principal is the same) and why using pitch markings would rule out the majority of tries scored on a 'running' play. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

Quote ="tvoc"The forward pass explained (it's Union but the principal is the same) and why using pitch markings would rule out the majority of tries scored on a 'running' play. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s'" it also highlights why most fans massively overestimate the amount of forward passes there is in the game. It really isnt a big issue and when there are forward passes they are massively obvious because of the awkward motion of the hands.

Quote ="tvoc"The forward pass explained (it's Union but the principal is the same) and why using pitch markings would rule out the majority of tries scored on a 'running' play. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s'" it also highlights why most fans massively overestimate the amount of forward passes there is in the game. It really isnt a big issue and when there are forward passes they are massively obvious because of the awkward motion of the hands.

From what most people on here have said, the VR should look at Forward Passes but probably can only reasonably judge on the 'delibrate' rather than the 'accidental' ones with the technology available.

The American Football analogy is a good one in that, American Football was an obsure version of Rugby until it sold out to TV & changed its rules to suit allowing it to became a massive success at least in America.

I think you need to look into it's history a bit further.

Is that last line a deliberate attempt at irony, given in your suggested solution you have completely misunderstood the forward pass rule yourself?

The momentum/direction/velocity of the passer after the ball leaves his hands has sod all to do with whether a pass is forward or not.

Repeat after me - there is no momentum rule...

There's no practical reason why forward passes cannot be referred to video official, as already stated, if they believe the camera angle is inconclusive or misleading then they give benefit of doubt, if as is very often the case it's quite clear from the video the ball went forward (relative to the players) then they rule it out. Yes it would be better if touch judges actually intervened for forward passes more often, and that probably includes stamping out the behaviour of those referees who don't like the touch judges doing this or overrule even though the touch judge has the better view (and such referees do exist).

I think the real reason is to do with organisational politics, the widespread usage of flat passing and related attacking patterns means that forward passes are a more regular occurence these days. Note this doesn't mean I think every flat pass is forward, but that the flat pass logically increases the incidence of forward passes simply because of the technique and the timing needed. Using the available technology properly and within its capabilities would see far more of them pulled up, far more tries disallowed, far more whining from coaches, players and fans of teams (particularly those who rely on this most) and possibly may not even be welcomed by Sky if they thought that it negatively impacted the view experience of the game.

Why is a forward pass not offside when the player receiving the ball is in front of the player passing the ball?

?

because they were behind or level when the ball was passed

Think for a moment about putting together a computer simulation to adjudge forward passes. It would be advantageous to project the path and velocity of the passer taken from his path and velocity at the time of making the pass - seeing as a forward pass is only judged entirely RELATIVE TO THE PLAYER MAKING IT. Therefore, for the purposes of using computers to adjudge a forward pass (and crucially, making it visually simple for the viewer - a little like the YouTube forward pass video) could be relevant to project their path in order to rule whether the ball moves forward of the passer at any point. I simply suggest it as one method of using the VR to rule of forward passes.

Another method is to simply measure velocity. If it is seen that the player is moving towards the opposition's goal-line at 25kph at the time of passing, yet the ball moves towards the goal-line at 28kph relative to the ground, the pass is forward.

No, there is no momentum rule (I never said there was!), but momentum is the crucial factor when the ball can travel forwards but still be a legal pass, as the Laws state: "A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own [size=130momentum [/sizethe ball travels forward relative to the ground." As in, it is the MOMENTUM of the man passing the ball that means a legal pass actually travels forward relative to the ground. If you don't think momentum is involved, I would suggest it's you who doesn't quite understand.

Just a minor point: Irrelevant. As long as it's traveling backwards when the passing player releases it, the ball's subsequent flight is not a factor (again see the weekend's play-off game)

But for the purposes of visualising for a VR replay - and making it simple for the viewer, it could be a useful tool. It's simply a suggestion - I'm not saying for a second the pass should be judged from creating a projection and visualising this in a graphic. Factors such as this are another reason passing forward passes to the VR is a dangerous step.

Of course, by "travelling backwards", you mean relevant to the player and not the ground? And to be pedantic, the Laws only mention the ball can travel forwards after being passed backwards if they are "blown by the wind" or bounce. If the ball is spun and consequently curves forward through the air, should this be adjudged foward? After all, the player making the pass has caused it to move forward.

That unusual but exact type of pass (from Graham Holroyd) occurred in the Halifax V Sheffield play-off game last Thursday. Robert Hicks was unsure what he'd witnessed and handed it on to the video official (Stuart Cummings) looking for a potential 'knock on' and the try correctly (IMO) was awarded.