Blues v Highlanders
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan i was with you until the last line, thats just not true, as @Crucial said, you can throw it over your head and it wont go forward...and there is every angle between that and lateral/90 degrees, its not a case of a single degree off directly behind you and if will fly forward
@winger is right though, it would be a big change, maybe too big, too much to ask for player to run so much deeper
From memory, the video actually shows someone throwing it over their head and it travelling forward relative to the ground.
It's simple physics, the momentum of the player doesn't disappear from the ball when the player releases it.
-
@crucial said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
We’ve had these discussions before but the easiest way to judge this particular instance is the velocity of the passing and catching players. If they remained relatively constant and the catcher was the same distance behind the passer through the travel then quite obviously the ball was passed back. Physically impossible for that ball to have been passed forward unless Rieko put 15 metres on his brother in three steps.
that make sense, but surely we can see how our game has got too complicated when decisions have to be made on relative velocities
@nzzp said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
Fern's gonna Fern right?
People tend to be very one eyed when it comes to interpretation. This one surprises me because after watching the world rugby video, the only people who think that was the correct call are the TMO and people being wilfully obtuse.
does no one start to doubt themselves when someone trained and paid to do a job and comes up with a different answer?
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
We’ve had these discussions before but the easiest way to judge this particular instance is the velocity of the passing and catching players. If they remained relatively constant and the catcher was the same distance behind the passer through the travel then quite obviously the ball was passed back. Physically impossible for that ball to have been passed forward unless Rieko put 15 metres on his brother in three steps.
that make sense, but surely we can see how our game has got too complicated when decisions have to be made on relative velocities
If, a second after the ball left the hand - the ball is behind the player's hands... it's a legal pass. Simple.
As somebody mentioned above - the only problems which should arise - is when the player hits another immediately after/during the act of passing... so they come to a standstill, or backwards, or just slower.I've always wondered about how it might work going the same path as cricket... use technology to resolve this. A GPS-or-similar tracker on the ball, and the player... compare relative velocities at the point of the ball leaving hands.
And I'm not seriously suggesting this - just raising it as a possibility, buying some chips, and sitting back to watch the shitstorm. -
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan i was with you until the last line, thats just not true, as @Crucial said, you can throw it over your head and it wont go forward...and there is every angle between that and lateral/90 degrees, its not a case of a single degree off directly behind you and if will fly forward
@winger is right though, it would be a big change, maybe too big, too much to ask for player to run so much deeper
From memory, the video actually shows someone throwing it over their head and it travelling forward relative to the ground.
It's simple physics, the momentum of the player doesn't disappear from the ball when the player releases it.
@kirwan i agree, its simple physics
-
The try looks better every time I see it. Running it from your own line after a great turnover, Akira makes a great run and shows pretty spectacular vision and passing skills, and Reiko sprinting to get into position and then burning off the defenders.
O for Awesome.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
We’ve had these discussions before but the easiest way to judge this particular instance is the velocity of the passing and catching players. If they remained relatively constant and the catcher was the same distance behind the passer through the travel then quite obviously the ball was passed back. Physically impossible for that ball to have been passed forward unless Rieko put 15 metres on his brother in three steps.
that make sense, but surely we can see how our game has got too complicated when decisions have to be made on relative velocities
If, a second after the ball left the hand - the ball is behind the player's hands... it's a legal pass. Simple.
As somebody mentioned above - the only problems which should arise - is when the player hits another immediately after/during the act of passing... so they come to a standstill, or backwards, or just slower.I've always wondered about how it might work going the same path as cricket... use technology to resolve this. A GPS-or-similar tracker on the ball, and the player... compare relative velocities at the point of the ball leaving hands.
And I'm not seriously suggesting this - just raising it as a possibility, buying some chips, and sitting back to watch the shitstorm.@kruse said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
We’ve had these discussions before but the easiest way to judge this particular instance is the velocity of the passing and catching players. If they remained relatively constant and the catcher was the same distance behind the passer through the travel then quite obviously the ball was passed back. Physically impossible for that ball to have been passed forward unless Rieko put 15 metres on his brother in three steps.
that make sense, but surely we can see how our game has got too complicated when decisions have to be made on relative velocities
If, a second after the ball left the hand - the ball is behind the player's hands... it's a legal pass. Simple.
As somebody mentioned above - the only problems which should arise - is when the player hits another immediately after/during the act of passing... so they come to a standstill, or backwards, or just slower.I've always wondered about how it might work going the same path as cricket... use technology to resolve this. A GPS-or-similar tracker on the ball, and the player... compare relative velocities at the point of the ball leaving hands.
And I'm not seriously suggesting this - just raising it as a possibility, buying some chips, and sitting back to watch the shitstorm.Perhaps a SpaceX rocket booster in the ball to remove the players momentum?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
We’ve had these discussions before but the easiest way to judge this particular instance is the velocity of the passing and catching players. If they remained relatively constant and the catcher was the same distance behind the passer through the travel then quite obviously the ball was passed back. Physically impossible for that ball to have been passed forward unless Rieko put 15 metres on his brother in three steps.
that make sense, but surely we can see how our game has got too complicated when decisions have to be made on relative velocities
If, a second after the ball left the hand - the ball is behind the player's hands... it's a legal pass. Simple.
As somebody mentioned above - the only problems which should arise - is when the player hits another immediately after/during the act of passing... so they come to a standstill, or backwards, or just slower.I've always wondered about how it might work going the same path as cricket... use technology to resolve this. A GPS-or-similar tracker on the ball, and the player... compare relative velocities at the point of the ball leaving hands.
And I'm not seriously suggesting this - just raising it as a possibility, buying some chips, and sitting back to watch the shitstorm. -
The try looks better every time I see it. Running it from your own line after a great turnover, Akira makes a great run and shows pretty spectacular vision and passing skills, and Reiko sprinting to get into position and then burning off the defenders.
O for Awesome.
@kirwan said in Blues v Highlanders:
The try looks better every time I see it. Running it from your own line after a great turnover, Akira makes a great run and shows pretty spectacular vision and passing skills, and Reiko sprinting to get into position and then burning off the defenders.
O for Awesome.
Yep. And that’s why I am pissed off that it was ruled out. It was one of those tries that make you feel good about the game. It’s the skill that we tune in for and hope to witness
-
@kirwan said in Blues v Highlanders:
The try looks better every time I see it. Running it from your own line after a great turnover, Akira makes a great run and shows pretty spectacular vision and passing skills, and Reiko sprinting to get into position and then burning off the defenders.
O for Awesome.
Yep. And that’s why I am pissed off that it was ruled out. It was one of those tries that make you feel good about the game. It’s the skill that we tune in for and hope to witness
@crucial said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan said in Blues v Highlanders:
The try looks better every time I see it. Running it from your own line after a great turnover, Akira makes a great run and shows pretty spectacular vision and passing skills, and Reiko sprinting to get into position and then burning off the defenders.
O for Awesome.
Yep. And that’s why I am pissed off that it was ruled out. It was one of those tries that make you feel good about the game. It’s the skill that we tune in for and hope to witness
Yep, that's it in a nutshell.
-
@kruse GPS just isn;t accurate enough but the ball tracking stuff from cricket or tennis might be
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kruse GPS just isn;t accurate enough but the ball tracking stuff from cricket or tennis might be
You would still have the same problem as now. The ball would still travel forward relative to the ground.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kruse GPS just isn;t accurate enough but the ball tracking stuff from cricket or tennis might be
You would still have the same problem as now. The ball would still travel forward relative to the ground.
-
@crucial i think the idea would be those technologies would at least removes the human fuck up aspect, could show it going backwards first...really want the TMO to explain what he saw
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial i think the idea would be those technologies would at least removes the human fuck up aspect, could show it going backwards first...really want the TMO to explain what he saw
I suspect he was trying to fix his mistake the day before with the clear forward pass in the Crusaders game. So "fixed" his mistake with another mistake.
-
@kirwan said in Blues v Highlanders:
https://twitter.com/BluesRugbyTeam/status/1371215666737389568
That was truly laugh out loud funny. Very well done.
-
@kirwan said in Blues v Highlanders:
https://twitter.com/BluesRugbyTeam/status/1371215666737389568
That was truly laugh out loud funny. Very well done.
-
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
@nzzp said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
and everyone is really enjoying this shit, at least there are graphics for a straight line across the field the could use
This is blowing up because the call was so badly wrong. The controversial ones to referee are where the pass gets thrown in or immediately before contact, and that's where 'backwards out of the hands' is so important. Someone decelerating makes it look way way worse (even if it is technically correct).
This is just a howler. Player running, throws a big spiral pass backwards, keeps running, gets hit and the ball is still always behind him. It's just a no brainer.
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
On that basis you could deny any fact.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
On that basis you could deny any fact.
@tim said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
On that basis you could deny any fact.
I agree but other dont so it cant be clear and obvious
edit: tongue firmly in cheek, and meant only in jest @Kiwiwomble
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
On that basis you could deny any fact.
@tim so we just ignore people we disagree with? generally people on here know at least something about rugby, so if there was disagreement about rules between people that know at least a little then maybe the rules aren't as clear and obvious as we might think
-
@tim so we just ignore people we disagree with? generally people on here know at least something about rugby, so if there was disagreement about rules between people that know at least a little then maybe the rules aren't as clear and obvious as we might think
@kiwiwomble We ignore people who don't know the rules for a start. NZ Rugby could do a better job of communicating the rules with easy to interpret graphics, like the one on passes from World Rugby. Unfortunately the refs are so bad they can't even get that right and confuse the public.
-
i think im onboard with the no TMO idea, if there was no TMO we may all be annoyed we could see on the reply that it was one thing or the other...but eventually we would have to accept the on field refs can only see what they can see
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i think im onboard with the no TMO idea, if there was no TMO we may all be annoyed we could see on the reply that it was one thing or the other...but eventually we would have to accept the on field refs can only see what they can see
What makes you think we would all just accept refs only seeing what they can see? We didn't accept that in the past, why is it different now?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
i think im onboard with the no TMO idea, if there was no TMO we may all be annoyed we could see on the reply that it was one thing or the other...but eventually we would have to accept the on field refs can only see what they can see
What makes you think we would all just accept refs only seeing what they can see? We didn't accept that in the past, why is it different now?
@crazy-horse once again must just have been me, i dont remember arguing or bagging the refs as much about line balls, especially when there was a good chance they didn;t see something, like this one would be bloody hard to see on the field
This particular case the ref allowed it didnt he, which was the right call
i also think im just more inclined to let more stuff go, keep things flowing and i think refs on the fields use too just because they cant see everything and i think almost everything looks worse in slow mo
we have a higher expectation of TMO because they sitting at a screen with all the repays etc... but theyre still human and honestly seem to stuff up as many as they get right
-
@crazy-horse once again must just have been me, i dont remember arguing or bagging the refs as much about line balls, especially when there was a good chance they didn;t see something, like this one would be bloody hard to see on the field
This particular case the ref allowed it didnt he, which was the right call
i also think im just more inclined to let more stuff go, keep things flowing and i think refs on the fields use too just because they cant see everything and i think almost everything looks worse in slow mo
we have a higher expectation of TMO because they sitting at a screen with all the repays etc... but theyre still human and honestly seem to stuff up as many as they get right
@kiwiwomble don't disagree your sentiments mate, I just think people are not able to accept wrong decisions. That's why we went the route of the TMO. It's not working as well as we would like but I can't see us going back.
