You'd make a great video ref.

Yes, and the position of the passing player is determined in relation to fixed ground markings, if this wasn't the case, like in the real world, direction would have little meaning.

and?

btw – that about a 9s 100m – he'd be coining it on the athletics circuit, not playing rugby league, if he could run at that pace

That's only reaslistic if the player is Usain Bolt crossed with Wally Lewis and he's running in a vacuum.

Apart from the speed of the player being totally unrealistic (even Usain couldn't pass a ball at that speed), we'll just go with this a second...

How far backwards and at what velocity would this player have to pass the ball in order for the laws of physics NOT to take the ball over the relative mark on the pitch which you would declare forward? I'm guessing pretty far and pretty fast!

The point is that passing is the only part of the game I can think of where the actual direction of movement is not necessarily calculated as relative to fixed points on the ground, although the position of the players involved relative to those fixed positions is used to make a judgement about the direction the pass may travel in.

Lets try forgetting about biomechanics and counterfactuals for a second.

If you chuck a rugby ball backwards from the window of a moving train, the momentum of the train will cause it to land a good distance ahead of where you chucked it from. Relative to the ground, the ball has travelled a good distance forward, yet you chucked - shall we say [ipropelled[/i - the ball backwards.

The same thing happens when a moving rugby player passes a ball backwards to a supporting player. He throws it backwards to a guy behind him, but in relation to the ground it has gone forward. So according to your system, we should be blowing up for forward passes when somebody passes the ball backwards to somebody who is behind them.

Judgements for offside have nothing to do with it, as the momentum of two players has no bearing on their relative position at a given point in time.

Many many years ago when I started watching the game, 63 years to be exact, the attacking line out covered nearly half the length of the field. If play was on the right handside halfway line the opposite winger in the line would be virtually on his own try line. Players were coached and taught to turn their bodies and pass not half a metre or even a metre backwards but 3 and 4 metres backwards.

This modern day game of flat lines and "flat" passes has brought about what is perceived to be unlimited forward passes but I still don't think that a referee watches the players hands every time a ball is passed. There is absolutely no way that he does that and therefore many blatant forward passes are missed by him.

What I find fascinating watching the SL on TV is how it is always the home fans who shout "forward" when it's the opposition in possession but never when their own team are in possession.

Usain Bolt runs faster than that.
Surely you can appreciate the simple physics here.

Bolt starts from 0m/s, allows for a minimum response time of circa 0.15 secs, allows for the time it takes to accelerate from 0m/s/ upto his flat out speed and bingo

That's because it's the ball that 's moving. Most everything else is related to the player moving.

You've done well to keep going this far.

Let's put it this way for those who don't think the laws of physics should be applied to a game of RL...

Say a RL player can run at 100m in about 12.5s (so a nice round 8m/s).

Now, stand on the back of a pick-up truck going at 45km/h (or about 28mph) with a rugby ball and throw it directly backwards as it crosses a mark on a track. See how hard you have to throw it in order for it to stay behind that line.

Now bare in mind that this is a pretty fast speed with the ball being thrown DIRECTLY in the backwards direction. The rules the anti-physics lot are implying is that someone running directly forward with the ball basically cannot pass it without having to turn directly around (thus stopping their momentum) or stopping all together.

Basically, you want to slow the game down.

Also, work out how deep players would have to stand in order to be able to receive these non-physics backwards passes.

You forget that he's not running on a track in a vest. He's running on a rugby pitch with boots and a ball in hand. I remember being told by my sprint coach that he can run 100m on a football pitch in about 9.9 or something. Now imagine him with a ball in hand and looking for the pass as well as having to turn his body to the side!

Apart from offside, what else needs to be?

Passing is the only rule where the direction the ball travels in matters, so why would their need to be similar rules for other parts of the game?

*Knock on?

Yes, and look at the difference in the speed of the game now. Much faster stuff.


You don't even necessarily have to look at the direction of the hands. If the ball travels in front of the person passing it, it will 9/10 be a forward pass. It's only the change in velocity of the passer after the pass has been made that makes it particularly difficult to see.


Why would the home fans want to help the other team!?

Good shout.
Although, that's sort of an inadvertent pass to the floor (or opposing player!)



(Yes I know, deperate!)

But you'd never see a player running forwards at full speed and passing the ball to his side then, which is why the game would be slower. The passing moves would be almost static.


Not really. The ref should be looking at the direction of the ball in relation to the player in order to determine whether it is forward or not, so will be able to see any obvious changes in velocity that would/wouldn't affect the forward propulsion of the ball.


I know, I was just trying to see if anyone would make a smart-allick comment on that one!

Alternatively, it would encourage a deep attack, just as he said.

Which I'm kinda partial to, to be honest!

But still slower, as players would have to stop or slow down in order to turn around.

And with the speed of the game as it is at the moment, these players would be wiped out by the defence before they could even pass the ball, resulting in no passing anyway!

... and the person moving onto the ball may well be moving faster, having run from deep as opposed to having to constantly check the run to prevent overrunning the guy with the ball.

Drives me nuts when wingers do that; why not just hang back another metre or two and make a full blooded run in support when the centre (or whoever) gets the ball? I know there's situations where you can't always do this, but I'd like to see more of it than we get at the mo.

So it's not quite as clear cut as you may think at first glance; you frequently have a guy passing having stopped or checked his speed anyway, it's not always passed at full tilt.



Not sure I follow you here; if the defence is advancing, running full tilt into them gives you [iless[/i time to pass than you would have if you were running more slowly with the ball.

Because by dropping back 3-4m more than before, you have to make up 3-4m more on the run, and that 3-4m gives the defence time to come and get you.
Elite sport is all about reducing things to the absolute minimum in order to get even the smallest advantages. This is one of them.

So it's not quite as clear cut as you may think at first glance; you frequently have a guy passing having stopped or checked his speed anyway, it's not always passed at full tilt.



No. Stopping or slowing your momentum to turn and pass the ball gives the defence more time to pick up on where they are passing the ball and who to, as well as more time to cover the ground.

The slower you advance forward, the more time the defence has to come and get you. The attack my have more time to make decisions as well, but they won't be making any ground.

And that couple of extra metres can be made up by the fact that you're running almost full tilt when you receive the ball, as opposed to having to accelerate due to hanging level to the guy with the ball, and trying not to overrun him.

Not to mention that you have additional momentum to help carry you further in (or even through) tackles.

You're running the risk of interceptions, of course, and it takes better timing in some cases, but I think it's a very valuable tactic that seems to be quite often neglected.



But there are situations where it doesn't give you an advantage, as I've hopefully outlined.



That's not what you said. You were talking about the passer:

[ithese players would be wiped out by the defence before they could even pass the ball[/i



And the more time you have to put in a better pass, and time it better.

It's swings and roundabouts.

A better pass can do you much more good than making an extra 1m in a tackle. It's all about whether you want to play percentages, and whether you have the right players for a certain approach.

Like I've said, I think a deep attack can be very handy but it seems to be a little neglected., Probably for good reason in many cases, but certainly not in all.

Why can't a player run full tilt (or near enough full tilt) alongside the player with the ball? They'd be further up the field, the player with the ball would know they are there, and the player of the ball wouldn't have to slow down and turn around to pass the ball? Why hang back 3-4m where you would no doubt give the defence every single bit of feedback they need to know you are going to get the ball?

It's neglected for a reason.


The only advantage hanging deeper gives is it allows the player with the ball more decision making time. In a sport where speed is very important, we should be training our players to think quicker, which is probably what is and has been happening and why your said tactic has found its way out of the game in favour of closer flatter lines.


That is in relation to if both players are running at full speed with the ball, not (as you put it) one was running full tilt and the other more slowly.

If a player was running full tilt up the field, in your situation they would have to stop or slow down in order to turn when they wanted to make a pass (which takes time) in order to pass the ball. Before, they just had to turn their head and pass.
Which one takes less time? Which one gives the defence more time to make a decision on who to tackle and where to run? And this is all assuming that the player knows that there is another player behind him.


And the more time the defence has to make a decision.
In elite sport, every second counts. Coaches know this. This is their philosophy. Every second extra you spend making a decision is a second extra the defence has. Do you really need that much more time and space to pass a ball? Most, if not all, modern day coaches think not. And I agree.


A better pass in what way though? You are talking about a player being deeper so he has more time to catch the ball and run with more momentum. If a player is closer to the passer, he already has momentum and also has already made the yards. He has less time to catch the ball, but pro rugby players shouldn't need so much time to catch a ball. This is why they are where they are. At kids age groups, maybe this would be a good tactic, but not at elite level.


It has probably being neglected because players can now probably do what deep players could do then but without needing the extra time from being so deep. It's just not necessary anymore.