More forward pass.
There has been debate over several years as to what actually constitutes a forward pass under the rules and as interpreted by the referees. There appear to be two main camps 1) those who say the ball must not travel forward (towards the line) and 2) those who say it must not be thrown (ie aimed) forward.
The law allows for both interpretations depending on whether we focus on the meaning of "throw or pass", or we focus on the definition of "forward".
It may seem as an argument in semantics, but definition (1) would preclude the flat attacking backline that has become popular with many teams unless the players stood very close to one another and pass at high speed. It would, however, make for ease of interpretation as it defines forward with respect to a fixed reference, the gound and its markings.
Some extreme examples have been given of the results this interpretation gives eg if a player running at high speed throws the ball straight back over his head, but slower than his running speed it travels forward, but can it really be called a forward pass?
Definition (2) can also be interpreted relatively easily when both players continue to run and there are no field markings to distract the judgement. In this case the line of advantage remains the ball and all that is required is that the line of advantage remains behind the passer. The difficulty arises when the passer is stopped eg by a tackle and the ball then clearly travels ahead of the passer. The travel of the ball is no different, but the perception has changed and it is difficult to judge how the ball would have travelled relative to the passer. Even if there is no tackle, but the pass is made close to a ground marking there can be a change in perception. In an extreme case consider where the passer imparts a backward component of 1m/s back while running at 8m/s forward, the ball now has a net forward velocity of 7m/s. The receiver is 15m to the side of the passer and the ball is given a sideways velocity of 15m/s (55km/h) so that the pass takes 1.0s to reach the receiver and thus travels forward 7m. Is it a forward pass? No says (2). But what if the pass was made 3m short of the goal line? the receiver would be 4m in goal before catching the ball. Would any referee allow that try?
It would seem there is no simple answer that would still allow play to flow freely without producing blatant anomolies within the spirit of the law. The current practice of allowing some inertial forward travel which does not allow the attacking team to gain an unfair advantage is probably the best we can hope for. A pass to someone in front is always going to be forward and a pass that travels back will always be legitimate. Between those is anyone's guess, but the referee's decision.
There has been debate over several years as to what actually constitutes a forward pass under the rules and as interpreted by the referees. There appear to be two main camps 1) those who say the ball must not travel forward (towards the line) and 2) those who say it must not be thrown (ie aimed) forward.
The law allows for both interpretations depending on whether we focus on the meaning of "throw or pass", or we focus on the definition of "forward".
It may seem as an argument in semantics, but definition (1) would preclude the flat attacking backline that has become popular with many teams unless the players stood very close to one another and pass at high speed. It would, however, make for ease of interpretation as it defines forward with respect to a fixed reference, the gound and its markings.
Some extreme examples have been given of the results this interpretation gives eg if a player running at high speed throws the ball straight back over his head, but slower than his running speed it travels forward, but can it really be called a forward pass?
Definition (2) can also be interpreted relatively easily when both players continue to run and there are no field markings to distract the judgement. In this case the line of advantage remains the ball and all that is required is that the line of advantage remains behind the passer. The difficulty arises when the passer is stopped eg by a tackle and the ball then clearly travels ahead of the passer. The travel of the ball is no different, but the perception has changed and it is difficult to judge how the ball would have travelled relative to the passer. Even if there is no tackle, but the pass is made close to a ground marking there can be a change in perception. In an extreme case consider where the passer imparts a backward component of 1m/s back while running at 8m/s forward, the ball now has a net forward velocity of 7m/s. The receiver is 15m to the side of the passer and the ball is given a sideways velocity of 15m/s (55km/h) so that the pass takes 1.0s to reach the receiver and thus travels forward 7m. Is it a forward pass? No says (2). But what if the pass was made 3m short of the goal line? the receiver would be 4m in goal before catching the ball. Would any referee allow that try?
It would seem there is no simple answer that would still allow play to flow freely without producing blatant anomolies within the spirit of the law. The current practice of allowing some inertial forward travel which does not allow the attacking team to gain an unfair advantage is probably the best we can hope for. A pass to someone in front is always going to be forward and a pass that travels back will always be legitimate. Between those is anyone's guess, but the referee's decision.
posted by phys teach at 9:21 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home