Good point about the lines, the commentary don't comment enough on how easy it is to tell if a pass is forward or not by using them. Webb's pass to BJB was made on our 10 metre line and received after it, so plain and simply a forward pass.

Dont think there was too much wrong with Leeds first try from this angle www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bAIc5D ... re=related

Dont think there was too much wrong with Leeds first try from this angle www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bAIc5D ... re=related

Quote ="Hutchie"Dont think there was too much wrong with Leeds first try from this angle www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bAIc5D ... re=related'" Touch (Judge) down!

Quote ="Hutchie"Dont think there was too much wrong with Leeds first try from this angle www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bAIc5D ... re=related'" Touch (Judge) down!

Quote ="Hutchie"Dont think there was too much wrong with Leeds first try from this angle www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bAIc5D ... re=related'" border line forward but would want to go to the screen for the grounding

Quote ="Hutchie"Dont think there was too much wrong with Leeds first try from this angle www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bAIc5D ... re=related'" border line forward but would want to go to the screen for the grounding

i think you may have a point! definate lack of controlled downward pressure there

Forward passes aren't judged in relation to the pitch, Tom. They're judged in relation to the player making the pass. The ball can be passed backwards but still travel forwards due to the constant velocity (not momentum, stupid law writing idiots!) of the player making the pass.

Webb clearly wasn't going forward as fast as the ball travelled forward anyway, so it's irrelevant!

Personally, I think this is the reason why they don't go to the screen for it. Can you imagine the outrage of the fans who cannot fathom this basic rule of physics when a try is given that has gone forward in relation to the pitch by several metres when a pass is made by a sprinting player?
Youd need a tracking program or a Hawk Eye like program to detect the speed of the ball whilst in possession and after the pass has been made to see if it has been accelerated forwards or not. Either that, or a really precise GPS tracker in the ball that is synced to the video ref.

My own opinion is that two part time referees folowing the Aussie model would be better than one full-time ref who can't follow everything when the play is really intense. I don't think we have seen enough benefit from the 'full-time' idea as we could have.

Embarrassing Commenatray last night by Eddie 'no worse than level' Hemmings.

The KC pitch was cut perfectly to help show their first try was at least two yards forward.

The Tickle no try could have gone either way and if anything he should have been given the benefit of the doubt.

Peter Gentle was an absolute Legend at the end when SKY's only conclusion on how we played their Leeds completely off the park was the fortututous decision we had received, was returned with him pointing out the forward pass that Leeds had benefited from.

And then laughing at them for asking such a stupid question! Very well done!

Really like how he handles the daft questions. Doesn't give them a lot of thought, yet is very quick to dismiss it as daft with a clever retort.

He's a real class act. He comes across as quite laid back & easy going, but I get the feeling he doesn't suffer fools (i.e. people from Sky Sports & Radio Humberside).

I thought the SKY team were really poor last night, and it sounded like they had done little research.

They kept mentioning our heavy defeat to Wigan for example, but didn't seem to realise that half the team that afternoon was from the under 20's. And again the popular myth that we haven't played anyone decent was peddled, I must have missed us beating Saints and getting a point out of Wire.

Another annoyance is how they spend all game reeling out 'facts' about players or how TeamX last beat TeamY in 2002, rather than discussing the action on field. Ablett's Eye-gouge on Manu for example was given about 1 line of commentary, then it was back to telling us how many England caps Jamie Peacock has

Webb passed the ball, basically running sideways, on the 10 metre line and BJB caught it beyond the line, therefore forward pass. I understand the physics of it mate, learnt it at the same place you did

.

From speaking to other fans, I think I'm far from alone in not being overly disappointed about the Wigan loss because of the context around why we lost. I don't think any player showed themselves up and Wigan were ruthless. We had a lot of inexperience that day and had Wigan played hard the full 80. They took their foot off the pedal on Friday night after the Bentham incident (not a dig at Rovers).

Phil Clarke saying he had watched all of our games and stating this was our best defensive display of the season only tells half the story. We Hull fans all know our first team defence is a matter of pride for this team and they seem to know you don't get to take the spoils and swan dive over the line unless you've put the hard work in on the defensive line. All credit to PG, AH and LR.

The first try was a mile forward but these things happen. The ref didn't influence the game despite Sky's insistence he did. Glad McDermott was honest, fair play to him.

A forward pass isn't judged relative to the ground, so you could print a 1m square grid over the entire playing surface and it would do diddly-squat to help. On the odd occasion when a player is running sideways it should be blatantly obvious when a pass is forward without having to look at the lines on the pitch anyway.

Good point that Paul.He was very honest about the "forward" pass,for me it wasnt forward but who is complaining

also,would he have scored as Manu had him in his sights and there was another player coming in from the right as well.

Like Webb did yesterday, which was my point. And it's not even an odd occasion, plenty of runs are made sideways to suck in the defenders and make a pass on the angle to an oncoming player.

Well said sir . Couldnt agree more

I'm not sure that the Laws have [iever[/i stated that the ball must be 'passed backwards'. Certainly not in any copy of the Laws that I've seen. The wording has always been similar to what it is currently.

How exactly would you define 'backwards'? If you're going to define it as relative to the player then you have exactly the same issue as the current law which simply defines 'forwards' in the same way. If you're going to define it relative to the ground then the game doesn't work any more and radical changes would be necessary to the way it's played.

There's nothing wrong with the rules. The problem is incompetent officials.

And in virtually every one of them it's plain when the ball is passed forwards regardless of lines on the pitch. Which is [imy[/i point.



As I've just said in another post, the problem is incompetent officials. You fix that by fixing the officials, not changing the pitch or the game to suit their inadequacies.

I got [iyour[/i point, but the lines on the pitch also act as another clear inicator that it was forward, which was [imy[/i initial point.



But I agree on the officials. Their standard seems to be dropping. Bomber said yesterday that he is fully supportive of having 2 referees in a match, one senior ref to take the defensive team back and watch the offsides and one rookie ref to purely watch the ruck.

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?