I thought that, I know we had knocked on but that tackle was really high and would have been a penalty normally so why not on that occasion?

seeing as our ball retention is so bad, once we've knocked on we should attempt to muller the opposition, they'll get the scrum but quickly run out of replacements

It's a blight on the game in general. Gone are the days when we used to laugh at Onion for their blatant disregard for this particular law. It's a joke frankly.

I know it's the 'forward pass' rule, clearly the rule states (using differing words) that a players own momentum may make it look like the ball goes forward. It is this forward momentum of the player which is also imparted onto the ball, if it was not the case then either the player is passing it forward standing still (i.e. no forward momentum) or the pass has gone backwards in any case(as in the ball does not travel toward the goal line of the defence beyond the point of release even with a player running forward)
How you cannot see that this cearly describes how momentum has an effect on the physical dynamics of the balls motion I don't know. Thus by definition the passage from the RFLs own 'rules of the game' described a momentum rule which is borne in Physics which are undeniable whichever way you want to interpret it.
So although the RFL do not call it a momentum rule, it clearly is. FACT

Nope. The rule clearly states that the ball can travel forwards relative to the ground as long as it leaves the hands of the passing player in a backwards direction.


It's actually the velocity of the player which is transferred to the ball and the ball's momentum which will make it continue to travel in the direction the player was running even though he threw it backwards. The player's momentum is irrelevant.

The flat pass is a lazy way of saying it was forward so the refs and linesmen take no notice ..
To say a forward pass cannot be seen or pick up by the video refs is lazy they just have to see the way the ball
leave the hands of the player passing the ball ..ps I can spot a forward pass when the game I am listening to on radio
(fact )

Er, you kinda described exactly what I said, "forward momentum of the player which is also imparted onto the ball". However the term velocity is incorrect in this instance as that does not solely define momentum (velocity is a measure of change of direction & speed). to obtain momentum you need mass as well hence why momentum is the correct term in this case.
It is the forward momentum of the player (his velocity AND mass) that acts on the ball, imparting the literal forward motion of such, without this forward momentum (A player standing still) the ball will travel in the direction imparted by the player in direct relation to the ground with zero momentum.
Either way it is a momentum rule just not labelled as such.

Have a read of [url=http://viewtopic.php?t=431158&start=0this old thread[/url, especially this post:

Anyway, irrespective of the laws of physics, brough was running sideways and his hands were facing forward when he passed both times

Got to agree with the OP on both the pass and the apparent uselessness of the touch judges

Anyone wanting a detailed explaination of the so called 'momentum rule' should go to youtube and search for 'Rugby Union "Forward Pass" video. It gives you a referees training video and trys to explain the physics involved in passing the ball.

That's when it annoys me - or when they're running across the field. It's beginning to spoil the game imo.

Wrong. Go away and read some Physics textbooks.

This is all a bit too sciency for the average supporter.

However it is related to the forward Speed/momentum of the player this is without doubt.

Things are much more difficult to measure these days versus the loopy slower passes of the pre 90s.

Remember Vectors at School ??? putting it simply if you're moving forward at 50m/s on a fast vehicle or your Martin Offiah lol, and you throw the projectile (ball) directly backwards at 20m/s it still effectively goes forward at 30m/s.

So when a body is moving forward at a fast human speed, say Sam Tomkins at 10m/s and his sideways (flat) pass is moving backwards at 0.5m/s then yes, it will be clearly seen as going significantly forward but he may well have passed it at an exit angle which was "backwards" relative to his own position spacially. In such cases the angle of exit is the deciding factor. In these days of fast running attacking AND flat/slightly backwards passes we are becoming very used to seeing the ball from a spectators perspective as being seen as travelling forward, and to the older supporter like myself its difficult to accept, however it is the nature our fast game these days and the different passing style. Short of TV replays, and I don't think that should or will happen, I'm not sure what the answer is.

The problem on the pitch lies in the great difficulty that officials have in actually seeing these days when a ball was actually a marginal forward pass from the the moment it left the passers hand, as it appears at the speed of the game to be very similar to the marginally backward pass or a flat pass. Indeed both the legal and illegal passes travel forward. So it is difficult, and I'm not sure what the answer is. But it is definitely starting to change our game.

However, having said all that there is no reason at all for officials not clearly seeing a forward pass when there is little or no forward momentum from the ball carrier, and indeed the ball is then clearly passed forward with a velocity at least equal to that of the passing player himself. ie, (if we talk in miles per hour), if Danny Brough is running across the field but making forward progress at 2mph and then he passes the ball with a forward trajectory and a forward speed at again 2mph, the ball will be travelling forward (towards the try line) at 4mph. And in fact any receiving player , lets say for instance David Hodgson, would receive the ball 2m forward of where the pass was executed. In such a situation there is no doubt, forward momentum can be effectively ignored, and such a pass should be deemed forward, when seen by either a scientist or just a simple fan sat in the east stand at the KC.
For me forward passes are now one of the big frustrations of our great game. But what can we do ?????

So your explanation is what exactly? I know what imparts the forward motion of the ball, do you?

Yes. The velocity of the player. Or, more accurately, the difference between the forward velocity of the player at the time he releases the ball and the velocity at which he propels it backwards. The player does NOT transfer momentum to the ball.

The ball has momentum by virtue of the player carrying it. If I drop an apple core out of my car window when travelling at 60mph it has momentum because it's in the car

It has momentum because the car is moving. The amount of momentum it has is dependent only on it's own mass and the velocity of the car. The mass of the car plays no part and therefore neither does the momentum of the car.

My pass measurement system is in final testing.

Excellent news. Should put a stop to threads like this.

Thanks for confirming what I put, don't bother next time though, I knew I was right without your ringing endorsement

Kosh is 100% correct, the "forwardness" or "backwardsness" of the ball is a result of the vector sum (I.e. Includes direction) of the velocity of the player and the velocity with which he passes the ball. The ball does indeed have momentum because it has mass, but the momentum of the player does not transfer to the ball (although since the players mass will change only negligibly and can be taken as constant during the pass timeframe then player momentum/velocity are both proportional to ball velocity which is where some people are confused with the terminology).
Also, Jake never said the cars momentum is given to the apple, only that the apples momentum is due to it being in the car, which is true.

Indeed but kosh was too busy responding to read what I posted

Actually I had half an eye on our new signing making a number of mistakes. My apologies - I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

Eh the main thing is the three of us are right