Does not matter the way he passed it. Fact: he transfered the ball to another player. Not a traditional pass? Neither is passing the ball like an NFL player. Neither is flicking a ball when under pressure from a defender. Still allowed though.

This maybe true. But I can honestly say I've never seen play brought back because of it. Ellery Hanly made a career out of doing what Webb did.

Can I just point out, if you are refering to me at all, that I agree with you on this one, just baffled as to how Webb can ever get onside again, as anyone in front of the ptb is gaining an advantage if a break if made as they are 10m further forward than they should be, so have to run 10m less to catch up with play.

the man is a complete tool and shouldn't be allowed to ref tag rugby at schools .

Agreed it is a legal method of passing (had it gone backwards) but it also had all the characteristics of a knock on (ball rebounding off hand, with no control, forwards), so IMO it was a fair call for Smith to go to VR.

You seem to be shifting somewhat. Now it was a legal pass and not a knock on. If it is a legal method of passing then Alibert cannot decide if it went forward or not.

He can't get onside for that play. He is ruled out for that whole tackle. Once the next tackle is made, the onside is restarted and Webb can join in, provided he is behind that ptb.

By the way, it wasn't aimed at you, there are a few people questioning this one, and comparing it to kicking offsides.

I don't know whether the rules were the same back then,so I can;t comment on that.

The reason we don't see it much now is because 99% of the time players are onside, and when they aren't they don't interfere.

Yes I understand that, but Webb was 10m infront of the play the ball. At the next play the ball, he was illegally 10m further forward. Therefore closer to the next play the ball than he should have been. So by logic he should have been penalised in the first instance of being offside, which could result in a raft of penalties.

No, if the ball went backwards it is a legal passing technique (or in fact is just playon as no offence has occured).

This had ALL the characteristics of a knock on, and no characteristics of a pass. It wasn't a pass.

No. You are clearly just being awkward is this is pretty simple stuff.

If he doesn't get involved, once the next tackle is made and he behind the ptb, he is onside, it doesn't matter where he was for the previous tackle, or two tackles before that, or 10 minutes before. It is where he is for that ptb.

You said that the technique is allowed. And Alibert had to decide if that technique resulted in the ball going forwards or backwards. He decided it went backwards so decided it was a forwards pass. I can't say any more on it.

Yet you ignore my statement that said it had all the characteristics of a knock on.

Again, you say I am being awkward but if the referees applied this logic consistently then the game would turn into farce. He gained an advantage, that is a fact, by being 10m further forward. This could happen all the time.

He cannot say whether it was a forward pass. He can say whether or not the ball was knocked towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball. There's no reason why a legitimate method of passing the ball cannot also be a method of knocking-on.

It did not hit the floor or another player. The ball went from one player to another. This is a pass, IMO.

The point is how can the VR decide that when he is not allowed to judge if it went forwards or not ? In this instance he could no more decide if it was a knock on than he could if it were a forward pass.

So how can Alibert make such a judgement? Its ridiculously subjective. And IMO it was a pass. I know plenty agree and plenty disagree but i'll stick by it unless some laws of the game suggest otherwise.

If I knock the ball forward, and you are a teammate of mine and catch the ball, it is still a knock on. Because I didn't pass the ball, I knocked it forwards and didn;t regain it myself.

JJB knocked the ball forwards, and he didn;t regain it himself.

The rules do not penalise him for having the 10m advantage, but for interfering with play when he has that advantage.

This really is very simple, and it's clearly not worth discussing any more. It was a correct decision, but I'll allow you to carry on with your ref bashing without my involvement.

You said yourself it is a legitimate method of transfering the ball.

Imagine if that was open play and it happened. The referee would have given a forward pass for it.

So in your opinion, is there no such this as a forward pass that hits the floor in the same way as there is no such thing as a knock on that is caught?

if it was forward then it was marginal at best, if what JJB had done had been interpreted as a pass then he couldnt have ruled it out because cameras cant tell when a ball moves forward, but they can when what he did was interpreted as a knock (on or back)

What judgement? It either was a knock-on (based on the fairly clear definition of a knock-on) or it wasn't. Whether or not it was also a pass is irrelevant.

The ref would have signalled that the ball had gone forward. The decision is exactly the same, so it wouldn't make a difference what signal he gives.

Knocking the ball backwards is a legitimate way of passing, knocking it forwards is a knock on.

Imaging this was a high kick to the corner, when the winger jumps up and knocks the ball back, that is fine. If he knocks it forward and his own player gathers it, it would be a knock on, as it is clearly not a pass.