Video Ref and Offsides

[Cockadoodledoo]

IMO the first pass is sweet but the second pass definitely iffy. I am not convinced that the ball was thrown in a backwards direction by Toops and I would never trust the referee to get it right, however it is purely momentum that allows the ball travel 8 metres forward, perhaps it a metre or so forward out of the hands but it is hard to tell.

 

[Apey]

IMO the first pass is sweet but the second pass definitely iffy. I am not convinced that the ball was thrown in a backwards direction by Toops and I would never trust the referee to get it right, however it is purely momentum that allows the ball travel 8 metres forward, perhaps it a metre or so forward out of the hands but it is hard to tell.

Pretty much agree with this. First one was fine, second one was iffy, quite hard to tell given how fast Tupou was travelling and how far it was thrown.

 

[dangerousdave]

The 2nd one is forward. No disputing that it's one of the hardest calls in the game to officiate so never been one to criticise the refs on these.

Newton's second law isn't that complex. Using some arbitrary figures, if a ball finishes 18 degrees in front of where it was passed from it would require the forward velocity of the passer to be 20% of the lateral velocity of the ball when passed. This assumes that a: the pass thrown was 'perfectly flat' and b: nil friction. This point may come across as longwinded but if you were to visualise that example then it's easy to realise that the effect of inertia on a football, while disregarded by some, is certainly overstated by others. Commentators seem particularly guilty of this.

 

[Card Shark]

Thought the 2nd pass was fine.

If a passer is running at 5 or 6 metres per second, & throws a long, loopy pass infield like this, it's conceivable that the ball will be in the air for over a second, meaning it could float 6 or 7 metres forward (or more), & still be thrown backwards.

The best indication it was thrown back is the position of the body of the passer (rotated) & his location relative to the catcher when he catches it (3m in front in this instance).

Too many long passes are ruled forward.

Too many short passes are let go.

 

[Canard]

Thought the 2nd pass was fine.

If a passer is running at 5 or 6 metres per second, & throws a long, loopy pass infield like this, it's conceivable that the ball will be in the air for over a second, meaning it could float 6 or 7 metres forward (or more), & still be thrown backwards.

The best indication it was thrown back is the position of the body of the passer (rotated) & his location relative to the catcher when he catches it (3m in front in this instance).

Too many long passes are ruled forward.

Too many short passes are let go.

Pretty much this.

Often things can appear forward because of the position of the camera, the motion (or lack of) the players etc.

The thing that irks me is how many people think that if it travels forward, it is breaking the rules

 

[_snafu_]

And yet you still want to use freeze frame pictures and stationary ground markings to decide whether or not a ball went backwards relative to a moving passer.

How about you check where Maloney and Tupou are in the 2nd photos you've posted of each pass relative to the receivers (Toops in the 2nd, RTS in the 4th)

Just because a player who passes the ball ends up in ahead of the player to whom the pass was made when they received it doesn't always mean it was thrown backwards. The test is is the ball left the hand backwards.

 

[sydneyroosters69]

This video sums up why that pass was not forward:

youtube . com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg&feature

(Apologies for the discontinuous link, haven't reached 20 posts yet.)