Just seen the tries from Sunday an Boots n all and can't believe how far forward brough's passes to hodgson were for his 2nd and 3rd tries. Both times brough was behind the 10 metre line when he passed and both times hodgson caught the ball about 8 metres from the line. Why do we have touch judges?

seen in every match these days for and against FC

i saw one of richards' tries against rovers was forward, I think they're being leniant due to the popularity of the flat pass, I guess the touch judges just look which way the ball is spinning, if it's spinning backwards it may appear that it going forward was not intentional, if that makes sense

Oh, that's alright then

To make the referees look good.

I get the momentum rule but brough was more or less stood still with these 2

write to the RFL

Don't play forward passes anymore do we ?

It's getting like Union

It's worse than union

I don't see the point in linesmen, they do nothing, are they scared to speak up or something? Everyone in the stadium can see the forward passes, and the linesmen are in perfect positions to see them also yet they do nothing

FFS, apart from Stevo's imagination there is not nor ever has been a "momentum rule". A pass is deemed forward in relation to the man making the pass, not the flight of the ball. It doesn't matter if the ball is caught 20 metres forward of the passer, providing the player passing the ball did not propel it towards his oponents' dead ball line.

Look to the position of the passing player's hands, once the ball has left them, the flight of the ball is completely irrelevant

There are no "linesmen" in Rugby League.

There are however thousands upon thousands of clueless speccies, as this thread has shown

HTH

Spot on mate.

Rugby League is an absolute joke.

The rule should be alot more simpler i.e if the ball does not travel backwards then it is deemed a forward pass or if they player catching the ball is not behind the player passing the ball then it is deemed forward, simples realy

funny because the RFLs own operational rules use the word momentum to describe exactly that....clearly they are describing a situation were momentum of the player induces the same to the ball hence why the ball appears to travel forward from point of release. Whilst not specifying a 'momentum' rule it is exactly that.
"A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not
passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass."

Now compare the above to Stevo's "momentum rule". What you have quoted is a guide to the forward pass rule: there is no momentum rule. It has nothing to do with where the passing player starts or stops his run. Phil Clarke tried to tell Dumb & Dumberer but they were having none of it. The clarification you have quoted serves only to reinforce the point that the pass is deemed forward relative to the player making the pass and not the flight of the ball.

Nothing needs changing, it is already "simples". It was only made difficult by an idiot offering an explanation that Sir Stanley Unwin (you young'uns look him up on youtube), would've been proud of

Indeed, which is down to momentum

This would require just about every pass to be made while standing still or jogging slowly. The current rule is fine - it's just the morons on Sky who've confused the issue.

I know this thread is about forward passes but I think the RFL has to look into the role of touch judges in general much more. It seems that a touch judge only offers his opinion when asked by the referee, they don't seem to intervene enough. I don't want them on the pitch all the time but if they see something they need to support the referee more.

I think it was against Cas that the touch judge in front of me in the West Stand ran on with flag raised because of a dangerous Cas tackle, only to run back to his line as play continued. If he saw something that warranted him entering the field of play, then he should have had the courage of his convictions to bring it to the attention of the referee.

On Sunday, Cudjoe took out Yeamo after a Hull knock on but Huddersfield were awarded the scrum with no action against Cudjoe. The touch judge could not failed to have seen the incident but was satisfied with the award of the scrum.

Don't blame the TJ for that one, Alibert also saw the incident and clearly stated he had already blown for the knock on. Now I don't know when or if any guidelines have changed but I was always under the impression that a penalty will always trump a scrum

"[iIf he saw something that warranted him entering the field of play, then he should have had the courage of his convictions to bring it to the attention of the referee.[/i"

I think that the standards of officials in general are pretty inconsistent, but I do think the use of technology can sometimes hinder rather than help their case as far as the crowd is concerned. For example, with the officials being "miked up" the crowd doesn't actually have a clue what the touch judge is saying to the referee on what he may or may not have seen - whereas if he actually entered the field of play we'd at least know something was happening.

Conversely, not using the technology also can also add to the frustration. Witness the anger from the crowd over Hodgson being off-side from Brough's kick to the corner. We all screamed at the ref because he didn't know what he was doing. Then at half time everyone came back from the concourses having seen the Sky coverage and finding that actually he was on-side after all. Fair play to Monsieur Alibert for the courage of his convictions, but he'd have had much less aggro from the crowd if he'd gone to the screen for all to see.

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?