Oh I'd say a whole lot of people had a problem with it at the time, but mostly we accept we could have been mistaken so we quietly watch the replays. After the second replay there could have been no doubt at all, so astounded uproar followed.

I know you do mate. Just taking a disagreement to it being "plain and simple" that it was forward due to the lines on the pitch. Webb was going forward as he passed it, so it does come into play.

Ironically, I've had a Leeds fan trying to tell me that Tom Briscoe's forward pass at the beginning of the second half should have been allowed due to momentum. If you watch the replay, he's got a point!

That was forward.....as as one later in the game but evens itself out.

I agree. I think the momentum kept it going forward, but it was definitely accelerated further.

So which is it, momentum or constant velocity, make your mind up?


Surely given that momentum= mass x velocity (P = mv) how is the ball NOT carrying momentum, please explain how you conclude that it is 'constant velocity'?

The ball does not have any constant velocity at all, the ball is passed through a fluid or air if you like, thus the effect of the pass made by the player increases the balls momentum (by increasing its velocity). Dependant on varying factors (how hard passed, distance of pass, trajectory, axial rotation etc) the ball will slow down as it moves through the air. there is nothing 'constant' about the velocity or the amount of momentum, just the mass remains the same.

So, if momentum is not applied to the ball (as per your up statement) relative to outside of the centre point of the ball, what forces ARE being applied that allow the ball to travel on its journey, just so we know for sure when assessing if the Leeds pass was forward or not?

The pass has to be deemed forwards or backwards by measure of the angle of trajectory from the ball carrier. Its as simple as that.
Its really nothing to do with movement or angles of the ball relative to the pitch and its markings.

For most passes the pitch does give an obvious guide, especially when the carrier is travelling forward at a slower pace and passes at a "backwards angle" at pace. The angle is then very obvious and clearly backwards versus the player and the pitch markings.
However, the line markings are of no relevance when the ball carrier is moving forwards at high pace and the ball leaves his possession travelling backwards at a very narrow angle with little pace. In this circumstance the ball will appear to travel forward versus the pitch, which is not the measure of a forward pass. So the pass should be allowed.
If the angle can be measured as "not forward" from the carrier at the point of it leaving the carrier then it is not forward. However to prove this in our high speed game is becoming increasingly difficult and there will always be mistakes until the RFL decide to use available technology to to help with decison making.

Just think, if your on a train traveling forwards at 80mph and you throw the ball backwards off the end of the train at 5mph, you have intended to throw the projectile backwards but this is only versus yourself. But the ball will be effectively moving forwards at 75mph (ignoring external forces, wind speed etc) But you genuinely tried to pass the ball backwards and the ball would be deemed as travelling backwards versus you the ball carrier, as the angle of trajectory was backwards versus the ball carrier.