I've argued this point for a couple of years now. It should be the constant velocity rule.

The rules for all SL games are exactly the same. Games with the VR just mean the rules will be under more scrutiny.
It's like saying that unless we have the same referee at each game, the rules will be different.


It gives the attacking team the exact same amount of time.


As will any human referee. However, the VR makes FAR FEWER cock-ups than a regular ref.


I'd rather the RFL work towards getting more to be honest, and stopping this moaning culture.


Have to agree with you there. I honestly can't see a difference other than maybe they're fitter.


No you wouldn't. You'd only need the ball to be recognised. The velocity of the ball in possession could be calculated without a player being tagged. The time of the pass would be identifiable with a change in velocity.
To calculate velocity, you'd only need to know the location of the try line. That's the direction of speed the rule applies to. Why would the players' locations matter?

Because if a player passes at full speed then the ball will always finish further forward than where he passed it from. However this is not a forward pass therefore the players location is vital or most passes at speed could be deemed forward.

[url=http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_schleswig-holstein_question_is_so_complicated/340148.htmlPALMERSTON![/url

The players location isn't vital if you're measuring the velocity of the ball.

Example, Player A is running with the ball at 5m/s. He passes the ball, and the ball's velocity changes to 4m/s. We know then that the ball has been passed backwards in relation to the player (although it is still travelling forwards).

Player B runs with the ball at the same speed, passes and the velocity changes to 6m/s. It's 1m/s faster, therefore it's been propelled forwards.

At no point do you need to know the velocity and location of the player. You only need to know when he passed it, and that will usually be obvious when the ball suddenly changes velocity. If not, just cross reference with a video.

It's not as difficult as some people are trying to make it. Velocity of the ball is all that needs to be measured. It's just a case of finding the most accurate way to measure it.

How do you identify when the player and the ball part company?

Momentum, velocity, blah, blah.

Surely if player A passes the ball out of his hands at an angle that is passed 90 deg to his side, then its forward.

That would literally be 'forward', i.e. towards the opposition.

Simple experiment for you. (On a dry day) ...

[listget hold of a bucket of water, a piece of chalk, and a sponge.
go to a suitable, quiet, piece of tarmac or concrete
use the bucket to mark the start point
stand and find a landmark to run towards
walk a few paces towards the land mark (enough so you can get up a good run) and use the chalk to clearly mark the spot
go back to the start point
dip the sponge in the water
run like hell towards the landmark (if you are a snail, find a suitably fast friend/child that can pass)
at the chalk mark make a reasonably shallow, backward, pass
stop and examine where the splogde of water (made by the sponge hitting the ground) is with respect to the chalk mark
[/list:u

Repeat experiment varying speed running and speed & angle of pass, etc, until you are satisfied that you understand what's going on.

I have no need to go through this experiment, I am capable of understanding forward, level and backwards

The only time you'll need to know is when the ball goes forward, and you'll be able to tell this if the ball increases in velocity.

The time of the video and the time of the velocity change will be measured, so if it's not clear then you can easily cross-reference the incident.

And how easy is that to look at?! If anything, that's more difficult than guessing the velocity! It will look completely different from different view points.

But surely if a player is running with the ball at say 5m/s and he moves the ball forward ready to pass then the velocity of the ball will increase also.

IMO this is already too complicated to work out. You need maybe them hawkeye guys to come up with something concrete before we even attempt to pass it to a VR

That is correct. It would come down to how you'd interpret "the players velocity" (not momentum, as it pointlessly says in the rules). The player moving the ball from his body to in front of him and then releasing the ball would increase the ball's velocity. Is this because of his own velocity? Or because he's propelling the ball? Personally, I'd go with the latter, but ultimately you'd be looking at the velocity at its release and comparing it to the player's velocity with the ball before he starts the passing motion.


I reckon HawkEye could definitely come up with something (if they haven't already). Whether it'd be cheap, or the game sees a value for money is another issue. However, I still think the VR could rule on it with various camera angles more effectively than the on field ref with just one view. It should be trialled.

Who is all? We have no idea how much effort it would take and how much it would cost. For all we know, they're already looking into it.


I do know what you're getting at, but I completely disagree. The rules of play are exactly the same. Teams aren't getting an advantage if the video ref is there. They just get a fairer result. A team will likely be on the back end of just as many disadvantageous decisions as advantageous. This is why it does my head in when people think that it's an advantage to have the VR on more occasions.


Breaks happen in the game. If a defending team would really want a sustained break, just fake a head injury in the tackle.


I think it would be ideally quicker, but not essential. Definitely not as essential as trying to get the correct decision.

With micro electronics its quite easy have a built into the ball a very small Gyroscope/GPS device that will determine flight of ball with respect to initial and final velocity.
With an XYZ coordinate configuration, X would be length of the pitch, Y would be across the pitch, Z would be rise and fall. Basically if someone releases the ball running at 5 metres per sec, if the release velocity from hand means the time to receiver is 1 second then, then forward momentum would be just less than 5 metres due to air resistance.
If the ball GPS records 7 metres to an off field transceiver then it is obviously a forward pass. The GPS in the ball would be subject to impact and shock forces of approximately 80 g, so the device would have to be tested 40% beyond that figure.

Am I the only person who thinks this whole debate is WAAAAY OTT? 99% of passes are not contentious. You get the odd forward pass which is missed, a reasonable percentage of which have no impact on the scoreboard (and which as a result hardly anyone remembers). You also probably get a few flat passes mistakenly called forward. As far as I'm concerned the refs etc tend to get it right most of the time when players are in motion, and when wrong its only marginal at best.

The only circumstances where I find it annoying are nothing to do with players in motion, but static players clearly sending the ball a bit forward and not being pinged.

Attempting to use technology to solve all these problems would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Its simply not needed. There will always be contentious decisions, and the ref and VR will continue to make mistakes, regardless of how well-trained or highly paid they are. That's one of the peculiarities which makes sport what it is.

I disagree. I don't think we should accept mediocrity in sport, whether that be in coaching, playing or reffing. Coaches use all sorts of technology these days to assess players. Why shouldn't the refs use all sorts of technology to assess the game?

If referees are getting black and white decisions wrong, they need something that can help them make it.

Dear me ,it's not hard for FFS,refer to a video ref,if he thinks it's a forward pass after looking at it slow motion,the try scoring pass is ruled out,if he can't decide the attacking side gets the advantage,the try is allowed,just use common sense for FFs sake.

The one thing I would not miss in our game is all the techno babble and constant replays and slow motion analysis at every Sky game, let the man in the middle make the decision and live with the errors. I am the first to whinge about refereeing cockups, but would accept them in a heartbeat if we got rid of all the garbage we have to listen to from Wells, Clarke and co.

Really? You'd accept errors on the field just so you didn't have to listen to some presenters talking? Seems an odd logic to me.

Personally I like the reviews from Jon Wells. They're very inciteful and he isn't annoying or controversial like the others. Clarke, I like his stats, but he's just an awful presenter. But still, even if I didn't like them, I don't see what they have to do with what goes on on the pitch!

Its called personal preference, you like it, I don't.

If you went to the VR for a forward pass you would still get all the fans complaining. If there is a forward pass on the 30 meter line and it results in a break down field but the attacker is tackled 1 meter short of the line then the VR can't go back to that forward pass if a try is subsequently scored even though that pass setup the position for the try.

Which ever way you do this then people will still moan about the man in the middle.

A lot of the uproar about forward passes could be dealt with by giving touch judges a more active role in flagging them up. That, and a brief to the ref not to ignore them when they do.

There's a lot of talk about having two ref's on the field as per the NRL; in my view there are already two additional officials available who currently serve little or no discernible purpose - it would seem to be sensible to make better use of the existing resources before adding more.