id like to discuss something ive thought for a while now, and feel the timing is just right so here goes....

as it stands the ref can not go to the big screen for a forward pass call because the video evidence is deemed to be unreliable to call on this (i think that's the reason anyway). BUT! my question is this,

Are the video replays, with four or five maybe more different angels not (in the vast majority of times) a very efficient tool for judging a forward pass? i mean why go to the lengths to have the technology and not use it?

on any event the video ref is called upon to make the decision, but the video evidence is felt to be inconclusive the video ref has two options, 'benefit of doubt' and hand the decision back to the man with the whistle. so it would seem a contingency plan is already in place for 'poor video evidence' can we not operate the same system for forward passes?

As far as I am concerned, if you can judge a player offside by video evidence (a player is further forward than another player when the ball is kicked) then why can't you do the same or forward passes?

It wouldn't be able to rule on momentum, so unless a player is static or pretty static, it would be useless and probably even more controversial.

However, I think they should definitely be looking for offside at said passes though. You can't pass to someone who starts in front of you.

Because forward passes aren't in relation to the pitch.

I've never yet seen the momentum rule implemented properly. I'm not sure anybody even understands it.

I wonder what it would be like if we binned the forward pass rule; keep the offside rule and the knock-on rule, so if it touches the ground or an oppostition player you would lose possession, but if you catch it and were on-side you can play on... unless they've already changed it and not told us?

i cant see it changing the game all that much, as far as i can see many a pass travels forward but its always classed as flat pass.

Firstly, let me say I think the decision was fair and correct.
My question is - did the video ref disallow the late Cas 'try' for a forward pass?
I'm no expert on the laws of the game (I'm sure many on here are so please correct me if I am wrong) but I thought a player was only offside IF he collects the ball after it has come into contact with the ground or another player, if the ball goes from one player to another it's a forward pass, even if said player is stood in front of him (as is the case with most forward passes). This was the case yesterday, so did the VR technically (even if rightly) disallow the try for a forward pass?

Not sure if he ruled it came off his head, so technically a knock on?

The forward pass debate is the most contentious part of the game, however, I don’t see how to rectify it.

Maybe, instead of watching endless replays from various angles, they could have a B.G.T style £1 text vote, with 10p going to the National leagues

.

As posted the forward pass is not in relation to the pitch (off side is) so video would be problamatic at best. Having said that if Dobson had not caught the ball I am sure Ganson would have given a knock on from Lovegrove & the video could also have ruled on that. We have had enough descisions go the other way so I will take it.

I've never liked the kop-out where video refs and forward passes are concerned. Even though it's a relative motion it's still a measurable action: does the ball travel forward relative to the player who has passed it? Yes, or no?

Perhaps an option for the video ref to say "cannot rule/ref's call" if he doesn't think he can make a decision based on the footage.

I like the fact Ganson is backing himself a bit more on calls rather than going to the VR every 2 minutes, but he still seems to get caught up in the action at times and gives a call for the sake of the drama and reaction.

As far as I am concerned they should get rid of the video ref for everything except the act of putting the ball down for a try. Anything else let the three guys watching the game decide.

I dont see why the VR isnt treated the same as the touch judges.

For some reason there seems to be an attitude where the VR is treated like the ultimate arbiter of a decision, whereas the touch judges just offer advice.
The VR should be treated the same, we should allow the VR to advise on anything they wanted and allow the referee to do whatever they want with that advice.

Then it becomes a training issue, with the controller of refs making sure the VR knows the limits of the certainty of the advice a VR can give in forward pass situations.

I still think the video referee is the best possible use of the red button feature ever. "Press red to vote TRY, press blue to vote no try". Would be brilliant, interactive and thoroughly innovative.

With the added bonus Wigan & Leeds would never get a try awarded via video ref too?

Because

Offside is judged on the absolute position of the players on relation to the pitch.

Forward passes are judged on the direction of travel of the ball relative to the player making the pass, who is likely to be in motion themselves, not the pitch. TV footage from a fixed camera angle, or any number of them, will not only be unreliable, but positively misleading.

I knew it wasn't forward. Can all the Hull fans wind their necks in now please?

Remember when we used to have a crane mounted camera at every televised game?

Anyway, using the pitch markings, you can see the point at which Player A releases the ball, Player B's position when Player A relases the ball, the point at which Player B receives the ball, and Player A's position when Player B receives the ball. It cannot be that difficult to infer the relative motion of the ball from all of that data.

ETA: Sky overlay graphics on the pitch LIVE, that rather sucessfully appear static as the camera moves (teams badges, SL logo, 5th tackle indicator etc). It cannot be beyond the wit of man to translate that system to track player's relative position in playback.

Some sort of super accurate tracking chip could be inserted into the ball, have 4 or 8 or whatever sensors evenly spread around the ground (most of us have slightly less complicated versions of this tech in our mobile phones these days for christs sake) overlay said tracking data onto a virtual model of the pitch, note the position which its passed etc etc. many teams also use GPS tracking vests now aswell, make it mandatory and along with ball tracking you have all the data you need for super accurate forward pass judgements. you can even download software capable of this online for free. I use a similair but less elaborate system myself for Exercise performance analysis using a £50 hand held HD camera, and aBasic sports performance motion tracking software (which was a free download) surely the RFL could sort this at relatively small cost? it would lay all of this rest.

As mentioned by others, it's because of the difference in the rules. Run forward with the ball, drop the ball behind you, the ball will still have travelled further up the pitch from where you released it despite it being released backward.

It's an interesting one about the VR being able to judge for offside from a forward pass. Technically the VR should be able adjudicate on that now as it is an offside decision in the same way the VR can adjudicate on offside from kicks or knock ons, although I don't think there are actually that many cases where the receiver is in front of the passer anyway.

I'm sort of tempted by the proposal to only allow the VR to look at the grounding as it does my head when you can see an on-field ref kopping out of making a decision or even worse actually making one by waving play-on and then going back to check. Perfect example was in the Bradford v Leeds game where IIRC the ball was stolen from Peacock by a Bradford player and Bradford passed it out and went in to score. The ref waved play on but then went back to check the incident. If I was Mick Potter I'd have been screaming at my team to get tackled and not score on that play, as of they did and then scored on the next play, the ref wouldn't have been able to check it.
However it would also be silly if the VR could obviously see an infringement that was missed by the on-field ref, and not be able to take it into account.

To be honest I just think we need a second ref to look after the ruck and free up the primary ref to focus on other things, alongside better TJ's.

If they can't use the video referee for forward passes, how can Eddie and Stevo tell us what was and what wasn't forward?

What would happen would be a modified version of American Football. A player eg a winger, stood some distance from a passer, could run from an onside position and catch a long looped pass thrown round arm and be 20m ahead of the passer when they collected the ball

They can't. But like everything else they can't do, that doesn't stop them.

The ball's position, or direction of travel, in relation to the pitch is irrelevant.

The position or direction of travel of the ball in relation to fixed points on the itch is irrelevant