Not even close to forward

[ouryears]

Watch it again. Maloney doesn't "sprint" anywhere. Is always in front of the ball, always stays in front of it, and Addo-Carr is always behind it.

Two metres (the metre behind and metre in front that yet another journalist was getting worked up over just over on news.com a minute ago) is actually a tiny amount of forward momentum for a 10+ metre wide pass. It probably travelled such a small distance forward because Maloney's run was quite angled.

But even if he was running 60 degrees away from directly at the line (which is getting close to running sideways) he would still impart half his running speed to the ball. If he was only running at 5 metres per second, which is pretty pedestrian, that is still 2.5 metres per second. If the ball was in the air for only a second, it would travel 2.5 metres from momentum.

The fact the ball hardly travelled forward at all, is more evidence that it was thrown backwards.

Freeze the play at any point along the pass, and you'll see the relative positions of Maloney and Addo-Carr are always those of players throwing and receiving (respectively) a "backwards" pass.

It is such a regulation pass, I can only think that the media blow ups, and people getting worked up on here, are due to the nature of the match it was thrown in.

100% correct.
Any reason for some to whine.
Yes, It was thrown backwards.

 

[ouryears]

Forward out of the hands. Called it live.

Well the ref didn't
And he is the expert.

 

[ouryears]

Watching NRL 360, and the goons that they hire as so called experts are all giggling to themselves about how NSW got a lucky break with the Maloney pass to Ado-Carr for a try in last night's Origin match.

That pass was not in the vicinity of being forward. It shouldn't even merit discussion.

But the fact that these self styled experts all think it was and then supposedly have valid observations about the game shows they know next to nothing and think they know almost everything.

Just to be clear, this is not a NSW v Qld thing. No doubt plenty will see it as that, and that is the tribal nature of the sport.

Some may say I am biased as a NSWelshman. I didn't watch the game, and didn't care about the result. I was vaguely hoping Qld would win but I didn't really care.

This is also not a rehashing of the million plus page forward pass thread. If you think passes that at all go forward compared to the ground should be called forward you need to join a cult or something. You, flat earthers, creationists, anti vaxers, and climate deniers can all have regular meetings and discuss the latest trends in tin foil hats.

You might meet Hooper there, and any other idiot journalist who said the pass "floated" forward (like the fox sports writer who last night pointed out Maloney released it one side of the line and it was caught just on the other side). If your career is to report on a game at least learn the main rules.

But the dead give away that it was not forward is where Maloney ended up compared to Addo-Carr when it was caught. He was a long way in front of Addo-Carr, which is almost always the best sign of the direction the ball travelled compared to him (i.e. a long way backwards).

A ball will slow a bit from air resistance and Maloney may have accelerated a bit or straightened up a little, which can also put him in front of the receiver.

It didn't look like he did much speeding up (he probably slowed a bit if anything, as most players do after passing) or straightening though, and the ball ended up a long way behind him.

So why are ex-players and career journalists who supposedly analyse the game, unable to at all comprehend a basic part of the game?

I agree with everything you say except the part about creationists

Do you really and truly believe a big bang made apes and sea like jelly fish that evolved into man kind?

You seem way smarter than that.

 

[Vee]

Well the ref didn't
And he is the expert.

We're taking the ref's word for it now? That's funny!

 

[ouryears]

We're taking the ref's word for it now? That's funny!

Better than fans sitting 40 metres from the game.

Refs get 85% of calls right, fans get about 50% right depending whether their team gets the call.

50/50 call....looked ok by me.

 

[Vee]

Better than fans sitting 40 metres from the game.

Refs get 85% of calls right, fans get about 50% right depending whether their team gets the call.

50/50 call....looked ok by me.

Then you're as silly as they are, good for you.

 

[wibble]

I agree with everything you say except the part about creationists

Do you really and truly believe a big bang made apes and sea like jelly fish that evolved into man kind?

You seem way smarter than that.

OT: If you are a creationist you are a creationist for reasons of faith, and no logic will sway you otherwise. If you don't believe this, think of some evidence that would have you believe in evolution if it could be found (it already has, mind you).

Talking about the big bang making apes is completely misrepresenting (either ignorantly or wilfully) evolution. Big bang and evolution are separate theories, covering different aspects of how the universe exists. Big bang is not an established fact, but is well supported by evidence and is as good a hypothesis as we have.

Evolution is an established fact supported by as much evidence as any scientific theory has.

I really do believe that humans evolved from a species slightly less like modern humans and more like a common primate ancestor than us, and I believe that evolved from another primate, and that from another and so on for thousands, perhaps millions of generations. And those primates evolved from mammals that evolved from some amphibious ancestor that evolved from a sea going ancestor that evolved from single celled organisms, with millions of years between each of these steps. So yes, I do believe humans came from an ape like creature (just as other non human ape like creatures alive today did) that came from a fish like creature (maybe jelly fish earlier again). It is a belief based on plenty of evidence, that I would modify as new evidence comes in to light. I doubt creationists would say the same about their beliefs.

If you don't believe this and wish to ignore the mountains of evidence you are being deliberately ignorant to avoid challenging your faith, which is not the "smarter than that" trait you purport to favour.

Back on topic:

I agree that the referees usually get these right more so than the crowd, though they do get it wrong also (as you acknowledge). But no one who thinks this was forward has actually made any attempt to dismiss the obvious signs of this being backwards (except Perth Red). The fact that journalists, footballers, and commentators refer to the ball travelling over the line as any sort of evidence of it being forward shows that many people have no idea what a forward pass actually is.

 

[Vee]

OT: If you are a creationist you are a creationist for reasons of faith, and no logic will sway you otherwise. If you don't believe this, think of some evidence that would have you believe in evolution if it could be found (it already has, mind you).

Talking about the big bang making apes is completely misrepresenting (either ignorantly or wilfully) evolution. Big bang and evolution are separate theories, covering different aspects of how the universe exists. Big bang is not an established fact, but is well supported by evidence and is as good a hypothesis as we have.

Evolution is an established fact supported by as much evidence as any scientific theory has.

I really do believe that humans evolved from a species slightly less like modern humans and more like a common primate ancestor than us, and I believe that evolved from another primate, and that from another and so on for thousands, perhaps millions of generations. And those primates evolved from mammals that evolved from some amphibious ancestor that evolved from a sea going ancestor that evolved from single celled organisms, with millions of years between each of these steps. So yes, I do believe humans came from an ape like creature (just as other non human ape like creatures alive today did) that came from a fish like creature (maybe jelly fish earlier again). It is a belief based on plenty of evidence, that I would modify as new evidence comes in to light. I doubt creationists would say the same about their beliefs.

If you don't believe this and wish to ignore the mountains of evidence you are being deliberately ignorant to avoid challenging your faith, which is not the "smarter than that" trait you purport to favour.

Back on topic:

I agree that the referees usually get these right more so than the crowd, though they do get it wrong also (as you acknowledge). But no one who thinks this was forward has actually made any attempt to dismiss the obvious signs of this being backwards (except Perth Red). The fact that journalists, footballers, and commentators refer to the ball travelling over the line as any sort of evidence of it being forward shows that many people have no idea what a forward pass actually is.

Oh please, watch it again. Forward out of the hands, floated further forward and then swinging back which caused JAC to reach back for it and fooled the foolish. But still, forward out of the hands.

 

[TheFrog]

OT: If you are a creationist you are a creationist for reasons of faith, and no logic will sway you otherwise. If you don't believe this, think of some evidence that would have you believe in evolution if it could be found (it already has, mind you).

Talking about the big bang making apes is completely misrepresenting (either ignorantly or wilfully) evolution. Big bang and evolution are separate theories, covering different aspects of how the universe exists. Big bang is not an established fact, but is well supported by evidence and is as good a hypothesis as we have.

Evolution is an established fact supported by as much evidence as any scientific theory has.

I know this is completely off-topic, but I don't understand how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. For that matter, how a big bang is in any way incompatible with creation. It just attempts to explain how it was done.

 

[wibble]

I know this is completely off-topic, but I don't understand how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. For that matter, how a big bang is in any way incompatible with creation. It just attempts to explain how it was done.

True.

Big bang and creationism aren't related except creationists I think say that the universe and all life on Earth was created at one moment by divine will (or over a few "days") which would rule out a big bang in some versions of creationism. But also, the big bang theory supposes the universe is about 14 billion years old and creationists believe it is a few thousand years old.

I also think some creationists believe in micro-evolution, which is changes within species to create new breeds for example, but just deny that it can create species. And it probably couldn't if it only had 6000 years to do it. But over millions of years, micro-evolution becomes evolution.

Some creationists may argue that the world is indeed a few thousand years old but was created to look 4 billion years old (in a universe that was created to look 14 billion years old), but that really becomes pointless and unprovable supposition (look up "last Tuesday-ism" for the satire of that argument).
​

So the big issue with the compatibility of the theories is the time frames. Evolution and big bang theories don't exclude a divine creator, and many people hold those views together.

But I might be misrepresenting a creationist position here, so you'd have to check with a creationist.​

 

[TheFrog]

Big bang and creationism aren't related except creationists I think say that the universe and all life on Earth was created at one moment by divine will (or over a few "days")

They don't say this at all. The Old Testament is extremely metaphorical, and those who wrote it had no idea whatsoever what really happened, just as we don't today.

 

[wibble]

Oh please, watch it again. Forward out of the hands, floated further forward and then swinging back which caused JAC to reach back for it and fooled the foolish. But still, forward out of the hands.

Well at least you are trying to present a case.

Even the term "forward out of the hands" is problematic, as the angle of the hands and movement of the arms is important. I could throw a pass from a standing position that goes behind me, by moving my arms backwards and letting go of the ball, and the ball could still come forward out of my hands relative to my hands. But I get what you are saying. I don't think it is forward out of the hands, but it is a very poor guide to forward passes unless you are at a perfect position to judge.

Floated forward is a pointless distinction. That just means the passer was running forwards, which is the case in almost every pass not from dummy half.

Not sure how the ball would then "swing back" unless it had a crazy amount of spin (hundreds of revs like a wrist spinner), very forceful wind, or was thrown backwards compared to the passer.

Do you agree that Maloney is always in front of the ball's path, and JAC is always behind it? If so, how could it not be a regulation, backwards pass? If not, where do you think they were?

 

[wibble]

They don't say this at all. The Old Testament is extremely metaphorical, and those who wrote it had no idea whatsoever what really happened, just as we don't today.

Hence "days" in inverted commas. I think it is interpreted as periods of time, since days makes no sense when there is no Earth and sun yet. But creationists do literally believe much of the bible, as far as I'm aware, which is where the 14 billion year age of the universe becomes an issue.

I'm not sure it is fair to say we have no idea whatsoever about what happened. We have some idea, and the Big Bang theory attempts to reconcile some of those ideas with the evidence we see.

 

[Perth Red]

If god, lol, made man in his image, and evolution is true, does that mean god is a single cell amoeba?

Ps saw the pass again last night and it’s a mile forward! Didnt change the result or that nsw deserved the win but it was a forward pass every day of the week.

Arguing it wasn’t is like bible bashers arguing a god made the world in 7 days, its built on faith with zero evidence lol

 

[Vee]

Well at least you are trying to present a case.

Even the term "forward out of the hands" is problematic, as the angle of the hands and movement of the arms is important. I could throw a pass from a standing position that goes behind me, by moving my arms backwards and letting go of the ball, and the ball could still come forward out of my hands relative to my hands. But I get what you are saying. I don't think it is forward out of the hands, but it is a very poor guide to forward passes unless you are at a perfect position to judge.

Floated forward is a pointless distinction. That just means the passer was running forwards, which is the case in almost every pass not from dummy half.

Not sure how the ball would then "swing back" unless it had a crazy amount of spin (hundreds of revs like a wrist spinner), very forceful wind, or was thrown backwards compared to the passer.

Do you agree that Maloney is always in front of the ball's path, and JAC is always behind it? If so, how could it not be a regulation, backwards pass? If not, where do you think they were?

I find it hard to believe you don't accept a football can swing in the air independent of the motion of the passer, forward or backwards, it happens regularly.

Forward out of the hands is one of the simplest concepts for me, it doesn't require me to be in a "perfect" position and I'm often bemused how many people genuinely don't get it.

I can't comment on whether Maloney was in front of the ball, I know JAC was in front of it when he had to slow and reach back to catch it, but those are both incidental indicators for me, not proof. Forward out of the hands is what I saw.

 

[wibble]

I find it hard to believe you don't accept a football can swing in the air independent of the motion of the passer, forward or backwards, it happens regularly.

From a torpedo kick, sure. And we are still only talking about a few metres on a 30 or 40 metre kick.

How much swing comes from passing? Not the 3 or 4 metres that would be needed to bend it to that far behind Maloney when Addo-Carr catches it.

Forward out of the hands is one of the simplest concepts for me, it doesn't require me to be in a "perfect" position and I'm often bemused how many people genuinely don't get it.

But the pass is forward if it is propelled forward from the player (in a near 180 degree arc), not if it comes forward from a player's hands. Just that they are almost always the same.

In this case, I get that this is the basis for your belief it is forward. And most people who don't know about forward out of the hands just think if the ball goes forward at all it is a forward pass, which we all know is nonsense.

I am just saying that it is hard to judge forward from the hands from most positions (if it wasn't, the video ref would be allowed to call on forward passes) and the other indicators are that the pass was backwards.

I can't comment on whether Maloney was in front of the ball, I know JAC was in front of it when he had to slow and reach back to catch it, but those are both incidental indicators for me, not proof. Forward out of the hands is what I saw.

Addo-Carr actually just stops to get it more than reach back (though reaching back would make it an even more backwards pass), and more because the range is a bit short.

Watch it and freeze it mid pass. You are talking about a stunning amount of swing for that to be forward out of the hands but the players to maintain their regular positions with Addo-Carr well behind, and the pass to then go backwards relative to the two running players.

That is a much better indicator than if it "looks" forward out of the hands from one angle.

The best indicator might be the look from the right angle, but we can only assume the referees/touch judges thought it was good from their angles. In this case, we are just pissing in the wind saying who saw it better from the hands, unless we use other indicators.

 

[Vee]

From a torpedo kick, sure. And we are still only talking about a few metres on a 30 or 40 metre kick.

How much swing comes from passing? Not the 3 or 4 metres that would be needed to bend it to that far behind Maloney when Addo-Carr catches it.



But the pass is forward if it is propelled forward from the player (in a near 180 degree arc), not if it comes forward from a player's hands. Just that they are almost always the same.

In this case, I get that this is the basis for your belief it is forward. And most people who don't know about forward out of the hands just think if the ball goes forward at all it is a forward pass, which we all know is nonsense.

I am just saying that it is hard to judge forward from the hands from most positions (if it wasn't, the video ref would be allowed to call on forward passes) and the other indicators are that the pass was backwards.



Addo-Carr actually just stops to get it more than reach back (though reaching back would make it an even more backwards pass), and more because the range is a bit short.

Watch it and freeze it mid pass. You are talking about a stunning amount of swing for that to be forward out of the hands but the players to maintain their regular positions with Addo-Carr well behind, and the pass to then go backwards relative to the two running players.

That is a much better indicator than if it "looks" forward out of the hands from one angle.

The best indicator might be the look from the right angle, but we can only assume the referees/touch judges thought it was good from their angles. In this case, we are just pissing in the wind saying who saw it better from the hands, unless we use other indicators.

We'll have to agree to differ.

 

[juro]

A guy at my work (Queensland fan) was blowing up about the pass on Thursday morning. I was totally perplexed as to what he was referring to. He then sent me the video, which I watched multiple times.

I think the only thing that has confused people is that Maloney was running at an angle. Since he was running towards the wing, his arm action was different to if he was running parallel to the touch line. But this is totally irrelevant to how a forward pass is to be judged.

To put is simply, Maloney maintained his speed and direction after throwing the pass. He was always in front of the ball once it left his hands. Therefore, it was clearly not a forward pass. Anyone arguing otherwise does not understand the rules.

 

[Springs09]

A guy at my work (Queensland fan) was blowing up about the pass on Thursday morning. I was totally perplexed as to what he was referring to. He then sent me the video, which I watched multiple times.

I think the only thing that has confused people is that Maloney was running at an angle. Since he was running towards the wing, his arm action was different to if he was running parallel to the touch line. But this is totally irrelevant to how a forward pass is to be judged.

To put is simply, Maloney maintained his speed and direction after throwing the pass. He was always in front of the ball once it left his hands. Therefore, it was clearly not a forward pass. Anyone arguing otherwise does not understand the rules.

People do know that the passer ending up in front of the catcher has nothing to do with the rules right? Maloney wasn't running at full speed and nowhere fast enough for a ball that was passed backwards to end up 4 metres forward. What he does after the pass is irrelevant. If he suddenly stopped or fell over, is the pass suddenly forward because he didn't maintain his speed or direction?

 

[juro]

People do know that the passer ending up in front of the catcher has nothing to do with the rules right? Maloney wasn't running at full speed and nowhere fast enough for a ball that was passed backwards to end up 4 metres forward. What he does after the pass is irrelevant. If he suddenly stopped or fell over, is the pass suddenly forward because he didn't maintain his speed or direction?

I agree that if Maloney stopped or fell over or was tackled as he was passing, that would have made the pass look a lot worse. My point though is that he did not change speed after the pass. This gives clear evidence that the pass was not forward.