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?

The pass has to be deemed forwards or backwards by measure of the angle of trajectory from the ball carrier. Its as simple as that.

Its really nothing to do with movement or angles of the ball relative to the pitch and its markings.



For most passes the pitch does give an obvious guide, especially when the carrier is travelling forward at a slower pace and passes at a "backwards angle" at pace. The angle is then very obvious and clearly backwards versus the player and the pitch markings.

However, the line markings are of no relevance when the ball carrier is moving forwards at high pace and the ball leaves his possession travelling backwards at a very narrow angle with little pace. In this circumstance the ball will appear to travel forward versus the pitch, which is not the measure of a forward pass. So the pass should be allowed.

If the angle can be measured as "not forward" from the carrier at the point of it leaving the carrier then it is not forward. However to prove this in our high speed game is becoming increasingly difficult and there will always be mistakes until the RFL decide to use available technology to to help with decison making.



Just think, if your on a train traveling forwards at 80mph and you throw the ball backwards off the end of the train at 5mph, you have intended to throw the projectile backwards but this is only versus yourself. But the ball will be effectively moving forwards at 75mph (ignoring external forces, wind speed etc) But you genuinely tried to pass the ball backwards and the ball would be deemed as travelling backwards versus you the ball carrier, as the angle of trajectory was backwards versus the ball carrier.