The reason that the VR can easily rule on a player in an offside position is that he has a 2D frame of reference to judge it by - the pitch. If the Vr can plainly see that when the ball was passed, the receiver was a yard ahead of the passer, it is not a matter of debate, but a simple call.

It is completely unlike forward passes, because the 2D frame of reference - the pitch - is 100% irrelevant.

Having said that, there are plenty of examples in a season where a VR could clearly confirm and judge a pass forward. I don't believe the "camera angles" thing is the true reason. I reckon the true reason is that it would be unworkable. Let's take the Wigan v Bulls "wide to West" try - if that was referred to the VR, it would take about a week before he had had a good look at each and every pass since the last PTB, and that's the reason they won't do it, too many things for the VR to tackle within a reasonable timescale.

I've just had this great idea. Why don't we let the touch judges earn their corn and actually MAKE THE DECISION and not just suggest to the referee that a forward pass has been made. At the moment there is no reason, other than standing behind the posts for goal kicks, for them to be anywhere near the pitch.

PITT THE ELDER

A frustrating thing about the Sunday was the Frenchy ref, twice he was going to make a decision but let the play run on until a try was scored and then immediately scuttled up to the video referee. If he sees it call it and don't rely on a try being scored to pull you out of the brown stuff.

I am of the opinion that the video referee is a failed experiment...

1. there is no way that the RFL can afford to have a VR at every game (they can barely afford decent touch judges)
2. 1 means that the game is played to 2 sets of rules
3. It gives the defending side valuable recovery time in what might be a tight game
4. even the video ref makes monumental f* ups!

So, the answer drop the VR and let us fans get on with bemoaning the injustice when we see the replay. Then either go with 1 ref or employ 2 refs on the field.

P.S. Call me old fashioned, but I also fail to see how professional refs has enhanced the quality of decisions



P.P.S. OOOPS forgot the original post. Yes, technology could track the ball but you'd also need location tags on all the players and a set of samples of the passing players location leading up to the pass to be able to calculate the vectors needed to make an accurate decision. Oh, and (economically priced) location devices don't tend to be overly accurate. Maybe one day!

Unfortunately most of the said Touch judges are not fit for purpose.

Did you see the Warrington game this weekend?

Warrington missed a relatively easy conversion, one T.J got it right the other (the old looking guy – grey hair, stuck his flag up!)

If they can’t manage that, how the hell can they assist the Ref!

With better quality training? (available when the RFL lose the cost of full time refs!!)

This has been going on since the game began (and is an inevitable consequence of two observers looking at the same event from different viewpoints). It's why there's a specific clause in the rules on how to address this very situation (and that is: the ref decides)

But there's an easy solution to this one. On match day, you fix an array of extra high power light sabres fixed to the crossbar pointing straight up. Whenever there's a goal kick you switch them on. If the kick is good, the ball is burst by the laser, if it makes it in one piece, then it missed. This would work, definitely.

That's mad, think of the cost. then calls are like fifty quid each

According to Shaun McRae there is no momentum rule, heard him say it in commentary at the weekend, I would much sooner take his word for it than Stevo.

I agree that we (and the ref) should be getting alot more from the touch judges, some of the decisions they make/don't make, are just cringingly embarrassing.

To have a "momentum" rule would suggest that a player's mass has an effect on the direction of the ball whilst passed as momentum = mass x velocity. It doesn't.

However a player's forward motion (velocity) whilst carrying the ball does have an effect on the direction of the ball whilst passed which can make the ball appear to travel forward relative to the pitch markings even though it's clear at the point of release the player has passed it behind himself. Which is why the rule is relative to the player not the ground because otherwise you'd have a pretty static game.

The Notes to the RFL Operational rules do refer to "momentum". Strictly it might not be a "momentum rule" as such, but it seems valid to refer to that way?

10 KnockOn & Forward Pass


Deliberate 1. A player shall be penalised if he deliberately knocks on or passes forward.

Accidental 2. If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed.
Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.

Charge-down 3. To charge-down a kick is permissible and is not a knock-on.

Heading the ball 4. It is illegal to head the ball in a forward direction.

NOTES


Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. 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.

I've argued this point for a couple of years now. It should be the constant velocity rule.

The rules for all SL games are exactly the same. Games with the VR just mean the rules will be under more scrutiny.
It's like saying that unless we have the same referee at each game, the rules will be different.


It gives the attacking team the exact same amount of time.


As will any human referee. However, the VR makes FAR FEWER cock-ups than a regular ref.


I'd rather the RFL work towards getting more to be honest, and stopping this moaning culture.


Have to agree with you there. I honestly can't see a difference other than maybe they're fitter.


No you wouldn't. You'd only need the ball to be recognised. The velocity of the ball in possession could be calculated without a player being tagged. The time of the pass would be identifiable with a change in velocity.
To calculate velocity, you'd only need to know the location of the try line. That's the direction of speed the rule applies to. Why would the players' locations matter?

Because if a player passes at full speed then the ball will always finish further forward than where he passed it from. However this is not a forward pass therefore the players location is vital or most passes at speed could be deemed forward.

[url=http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_schleswig-holstein_question_is_so_complicated/340148.htmlPALMERSTON![/url

The players location isn't vital if you're measuring the velocity of the ball.

Example, Player A is running with the ball at 5m/s. He passes the ball, and the ball's velocity changes to 4m/s. We know then that the ball has been passed backwards in relation to the player (although it is still travelling forwards).

Player B runs with the ball at the same speed, passes and the velocity changes to 6m/s. It's 1m/s faster, therefore it's been propelled forwards.

At no point do you need to know the velocity and location of the player. You only need to know when he passed it, and that will usually be obvious when the ball suddenly changes velocity. If not, just cross reference with a video.

It's not as difficult as some people are trying to make it. Velocity of the ball is all that needs to be measured. It's just a case of finding the most accurate way to measure it.

How do you identify when the player and the ball part company?

Momentum, velocity, blah, blah.

Surely if player A passes the ball out of his hands at an angle that is passed 90 deg to his side, then its forward.

That would literally be 'forward', i.e. towards the opposition.

Simple experiment for you. (On a dry day) ...

[listget hold of a bucket of water, a piece of chalk, and a sponge.
go to a suitable, quiet, piece of tarmac or concrete
use the bucket to mark the start point
stand and find a landmark to run towards
walk a few paces towards the land mark (enough so you can get up a good run) and use the chalk to clearly mark the spot
go back to the start point
dip the sponge in the water
run like hell towards the landmark (if you are a snail, find a suitably fast friend/child that can pass)
at the chalk mark make a reasonably shallow, backward, pass
stop and examine where the splogde of water (made by the sponge hitting the ground) is with respect to the chalk mark
[/list:u

Repeat experiment varying speed running and speed & angle of pass, etc, until you are satisfied that you understand what's going on.

I have no need to go through this experiment, I am capable of understanding forward, level and backwards

The only time you'll need to know is when the ball goes forward, and you'll be able to tell this if the ball increases in velocity.

The time of the video and the time of the velocity change will be measured, so if it's not clear then you can easily cross-reference the incident.