Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021)
-
Actually why is Robinson putting the brakes on there? Doesn't look like he is ever going to be onside if that ball is passed inside. Now that would have been an interesting, potential PT call if he made a tackle.
-
@kiwimurph said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@crucial what onside? there's no offside line created there.
I couldn't tell. There were no arrows!
-
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
The overhead shots are via the drone that was hovering above. Just as well eh.
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
-
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
Ok.
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
@nostrildamus also, expertise and hard work was 2 minutes online. I'd love to pretend it was complicated, but it's really not
-
the line on the right image looks closer to the tryline, making it look ok, selective linesmanship!! I think Robinson helps show the momentum aspect too...but seriously, if we have to go down this route to prove a pass is forward, then I am happy with the decision made on the night
-
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
Hold on. The lines show that the ball was forward. In fact the release point is slightly before the time of first picture, so it was more forward than shown.
That only leaves issue of momentum.
Jacobson was stopped. He played the ball with knee on ground.
Look closely and you'll see that his right arm went up level or slightly forward (but certainly not backward).
No try -- other than in the book!
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
Hold on. The lines show that the ball was forward. In fact the release point is slightly before the time of first picture, so it was more forward than shown.
That only leaves issue of momentum.
Jacobson was stopped. He played the ball with knee on ground.
Look closely and you'll see that his right arm went up level or slightly forward (but certainly not backward).
No try -- other than in the book!
-
@pakman So when you nee hits the ground you decelerate to zero in an instant? The body above the knee is not flung forward? Nope, his upper body and arms are still moving forward, at quite a speed, it gives momentum to the ball. Flat ball, right call
@machpants said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman So when you nee hits the ground you decelerate to zero in an instant? The body above the knee is not flung forward? Nope, his upper body and arms are still moving forward, at quite a speed, it gives momentum to the ball. Flat ball, right call
Nice theory, shame the side ons don’t show that.
I actually think his arm goes forward, but that isn’t clear.
If you’re really interested I suggest you spend a few minutes watching the various angles.
I’ve done it, but will leave my input at that.
Onward to the Canes...
