NRL looking to adopt hawk-eye technology to rule on forward passes

[Morkel]

I'm not sure people realise how fast players cover ground and therefore how far a ball would travel forward at that speed as opposed to from a stationery position.

Take this one which seems to have been debated elsewhere:

It looks forward to me, but if you break it down, it's not even close to what "momentum" would allow for. Let's just say that the person who passes the ball is doing 30kph, and the pass here takes exactly 1 second from leaving the hands to being caught. At 30kph, in 1 second, a person would run approx 8.3 metres.

As per these stills though, you'll see the ball hasn't travelled even close to that far forward:

So, allowing for momentum, and "backwards off the hands", the pass could technically be caught as far ahead as the below diagram, and still be legal.

Hence why I don't think viewers will believe that it's acceptable.

 

[Culhwch]

We gotta get Neil deGrasse Tyson all up in that bunker...

 

[Dexter]

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

This has always been the rule as long as I can remember.
There is nothing wrong with the rule just the way it's getting fucked up mostly with flat close passes. I feel a bit for the refs on this one with the speed of the game at ground level it is very difficult to pick up. Combine that with commentators bleating, especially when their team is on the receiving end, and replays which do show up forward passes a lot of the time, they are on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Super Freak]

I agree with Foordy though. Make it that simple. Do not take momentum in to account. It not only becomes easier to officiate, especially in an automated process, but is also in line with everything else in the game. The don't allow knock-ons to be okay if you allow for momentum.

The amount of stoppages during games would be absolutely absurd.

I don't see how a black and white approach would work.

 

[Huge]

I had the answer years ago and even seriously thought about building a prototype to show people. I'd reveal it but someone more motivated than I would quickly develop it and make a killing. I'd get nothing.

 

[Unbreakable]

I had the answer years ago and even seriously thought about builing a prototype to show people. I'd reveal it but someone more motivated than I would quickly develop it and make a killing. I'd get nothing.

Wait.. So, you're worried about rich entrepreneurial internet thieves browsing the Rugby League Talk section of BroncosHQ.. seeing your idea to improve forward pass detection.. Patenting, funding and engineering said idea and claiming it as their own invention?

 

[Huge]

Wait.. So, you're worried about rich entrepreneurial internet thieves browsing the Rugby League Talk section of BroncosHQ.. seeing your idea to improve forward pass detection.. Patenting, funding and engineering said idea and claiming it as their own invention?

Mmmm, when you put it like that...yep. Losing a great idea over the internet isn't as crazy as it seems! You see, you present it as though that's the only way it could happen but no! There are variations to your comedic blithering.

 

[Unbreakable]

Mmmm, when you put it like that...yep. Losing a great idea over the internet isn't as crazy as it seems! You see, you present it as though that's the only way it could happen but no! There are variations to your comedic blithering.

Just stirring ya.

Would be cool if you could share it though, can you give us a hint? Maybe we could hide a high-tech GPS device inside the ball that can track real time if it's moving towards the attacking teams try line or away from it, and if it travels forwards out of the hand at any point it lights up like a zing bail

 

[tommy]

I'd make every player wear magnetic gloves. And the ball won't leave the hands unless it's thrown backwards. Would eliminate knock ons too. And kicks, particularly field goals would become far more skillfull as you'd have to be facing backwards to perform them.

 

[Morkel]

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

This has always been the rule as long as I can remember.
There is nothing wrong with the rule just the way it's getting fucked up mostly with flat close passes. I feel a bit for the refs on this one with the speed of the game at ground level it is very difficult to pick up. Combine that with commentators bleating, especially when their team is on the receiving end, and replays which do show up forward passes a lot of the time, they are on a hiding to nothing.

Serious question: Is that the rule though? Does it specify “in relation to the player passing it”, or does it simply say it can’t be passed forward?

There was a game last year at home against the Sea Eagles where one of them threw it comically forward and it was rightly pulled up. And yet, in relation to who passed it, it would have been acceptable if the “in relation to the passer” rule was adopted. Like @soup said, it looked worse because the passer stopped / slowed down, but that shouldn’t matter if it’s in relation to how fast they were going at the moment they passed it.

 

[Dexter]

Serious question: Is that the rule though? Does it specify “in relation to the player passing it”, or does it simply say it can’t be passed forward?

Yep, that's copied straight from the rule book.
I remember quite a few years back on fox Gary Belcher and Gary Freeman proved how far a ball moves forward by marking a field into 2 mtr sections and passed the ball backwards etc .
That was probably 20 years ago, this argument has been going on that long.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Here's just one of the YouTube videos.

 

[jarro65]

 

[Huge]

Just stirring ya.

Would be cool if you could share it though, can you give us a hint? Maybe we could hide a high-tech GPS device inside the ball that can track real time if it's moving towards the attacking teams try line or away from it, and if it travels forwards out of the hand at any point it lights up like a zing bail

Everyone has thought of ways to incorporate the latest technology and I'm sure my idea would require some of the existing technology but it most certainly wouldn't need much of it. While it would not be 100% accurate and still need a little human imput it would be a dramatic improvement on what we have. It's a combination of long proven technology, small amount of new but relatively modern technology and some vital human imput.

Now that's it's been brought up I might try a simple prototype. A small scale test. I think I could put together a working model for as little as 2-4 k.

 

[Huge]

Serious question: Is that the rule though? Does it specify “in relation to the player passing it”, or does it simply say it can’t be passed forward?

There was a game last year at home against the Sea Eagles where one of them threw it comically forward and it was rightly pulled up. And yet, in relation to who passed it, it would have been acceptable if the “in relation to the passer” rule was adopted. Like @soup said, it looked worse because the passer stopped / slowed down, but that shouldn’t matter if it’s in relation to how fast they were going at the moment they passed it.

Put simply, the ball when leaving a players hands must travel BEHIND an imaginary line which is at a right angle to the side line.

Imagine a still shot of a player, preferably from a slightly elevated position. Your view and the players hands (or hand as the case may be) in line with a sideline in the background and at a right angle. For it to be legal the ball must travel behind the sight line or at least must be thrown on a trajectory that doesn't or can't cross the sightline. Naturally in motion the ball will quickly pass the sight line but it's direction or initial thrust, relative to the right angle will be behind.

 

[Sproj]

Guys, this is the NRL, nothing they do will actually work consistently, they just aren’t that competent.

 

[Alec]

Guys, this is the NRL, nothing they do will actually work consistently, they just aren’t that competent.

Well, they are consistently inconsistent at least.

Or is it inconsistently inconsistent?