NRL misery continues for Parramatta

Edward, there has been fast runnng /Passing in our game for ever, forward passes have always meant to the fans that the player receiving the ball is in front of the player who played it. WHEN he gathers the ball, how simple is that! why complicate this?.. I see no reason to believe that there needs to be any different understanding of the rule. as I said previously, if the ball floats 10 metres forward the player receiving the pass has gained a 10 mtr unfair advantage over his opponent. Unless I totally misunderstand your comments, 'a playet hitting the 19 mtr line could in theory throw a ball that could travel 10 mtres forward and be caught over the try line' -- worst case scenario but according to your theory it is remotely possible! I wouldn't like to see that in any game!.

Your "New" rule would mean the end of fast forward running AND passing since the faster you run forward the harder it becomes not to have some relative forward motion, given that the touchies and the refs are supposed to keep up with play they can easily judge the relative motion, whilst fans in the stand cannot, hence the frustration.

Thanks for the sensible reply., I like the idea of 'relative to the ground'. that way the ball is either a FORWARD pass or a legitimate one. BUT, is this too simple for our rule makers!.

The rule is shonky for two reasons - it's difficult to accurately rule, and it's counter-intuitive to the notion of "forward pass". I get the physics involved, I just don't buy that players are incapable of throwing a ball with enough backward momentum to counteract their own running speed. Besides which, the rule is pretty loose and ambiguous - "The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground." So if a player throws a last second pass before getting driven back - pretty common, you've got a guy who makes a line break and holds the ball up until the very last moment to draw the fullback, who is rushing up to hit as hard as he can and hopefully make contact before the pass is away - is the direction judged according to the forward momentum at the moment they passed it, or their subsequent backward momentum while the pass is in flight? Likewise, if a player passes a lofted pass forward from a stationary position and then runs further forward to be in front of where the recipient catches it? To the letter of the law, that would be a reasonable interpretation of a legitimate pass. By changing the rule to simply be "The direction of a pass is relative to the ground. If it travels toward the oppositions goal line from the point it was thrown, it is deemed to be forward" then that ambiguity is gone, linesmen don't have to crunch vectors in their head every time someone passes on the run, and the video ref can have one look and say "you must be joking, red light" when the ball has gone ten metres forward in the lead up to a try.

Gareth/Edward.. I am neither a physicist, Aero dynamics expert or brain surgeon , I merely want to see a game of rugby league where I can determine from the stands whether the pass is forward (as in travelling forward or not).. From where I sit, I cannot determine if the players hands were facing forward, backward or praying for devine assistance, what I can see is a ball being caught at least 7 metres in front of where a backward pass would end up. thereby giving the attacking player a huge advantage when he gathers it. In my simple world, If a ball travels forward, then it is a forward pass, regardless of the players intention. If this is impossible to detect, then expect us uneducated members of society, to call "Forward Pass" at the top of our voices!. I will continue to enjoy my rugby and continue to believe that balls travelling metres forward are indeed FORWARD PASSES which should be penalised, Meanwhile, you highly educated persona can continue in an attempt to Highlight the importance to the masses on physics awareness. BUT, PLEASE not to me or my mates!. we prefer simple rules that can be judged from where we sit/stand without the use of a slide rule. calculator, computer or other high tech measuring device. I will however go to the next game and wonder which way a forward pass should go and try to calculate the players speed relative to how far the ball travels, Only kiddin', I will actually still scream at the ref and enjoy doing so.. Coz I am a one eyed, official doubting, MORON!... ..

Its not shonky, its simple physics. If you didn't have this rule you would have no running passing. In both cases the velocity of the passing player must be taken into consideration, thus in both cases because the passing player was running forward and fairly fast the ball can "drift" forward relative to the stationary line markings. This simple physics also makes the pass from a player running back (towards their tryline) almost impossible to get right. Spectators and some touch judges need to go back and do some physics.

Both tries are symptomatic of the shonky forward pass rule. The pass is judged relative to the player passing it, not the field markings - so if Josh Dugan or Jarryd Hayne are running at say 5 metres per second (about half of sprinting pace), and loft a pass that takes two seconds to reach its intended target, then that ball is entitled to float forward 10 metres without being actually called forward. It's completely ridiculous, because its impossible to judge accurately. The only passes they can realistically rule on are passes out of dummy half thrown by a stationary player. Otherwise it's entirely a question of judgment. They need to go back to judging it against the field markings, and then the video ref would be able to rule on it too. It would be black and white and it would be consistent - like any game rule should be.

Yeah I think the Dugan forward pass was a square-up after Hayne threw a whopper only minutes before. Both should have been called back. Similarly in the Roosters v Warriors match we saw 2 simultaneous put downs awarded. I am certain the only reason why they awarded the Warriors try was because they allowed the Roosters try earlier. It's certainly not a great way to referee.

Yesterday I saw the worst 'forward pass try' of the season. Raiders winger received the ball about 6 to 7 metres (at least) in front of where the ball was thrown from. with four officials on the field and one in the 'box', couldn't someone see this. Linesman must have been level with play, what was he looking at .. It evened things out a bit because one of the Eels tries was also quite a bit forward too,, but this is no excuse for missing a pass so BAD!. and rewarding a try that in the end was the 6 points margin for a win. BOTH teams were abysmal in defence, which created a tryathon... a bit laughable in these days of tight defence, in the second half I thought I was watching Basketball, AFL or one of the other sports where scoring is as easy as getting within striking distance of your opponents goal. .. these two teams will end season as bottom two unless they learn to defend their line. What a difference between them and Storm/Sharkies game, both teams fully committed for full 80 minutes.. a great gutsy game played between two TOP teams. .

Yep the Eels clearly showed more pride in thier jumper in the second half.... they only gave up 16 second half points... The most hurtful thing for Eels fans, is the way Hayne says (paraphrasing) "I know I'm out of form, but give me a NSW jumper and i will wear it with pride. I won't let anyone down". How about doing that once.... just once for your club.

If I was Kearney I would walk away from this team because they are doing too much damage to his coaching reputation. Usually the underperforming team have a senior player revolt against the coach and then the coach is sacked (but gets their contract paid out) but things are so bad for parramatta that Kearney should wear the financial loss and walk away, so at least he can coach another day.

The Eels weren't awful, but I think the Raiders left side defense flattered them on the score board. I think Furner needs to find a way to stiffen it up. Putting Croker and Williams together is trouble.

Parramatta has several problems: * the management who thought hiring Kearney was a good idea. * Kearney just doesnt seem to have 'It'. * Jarryd Hayne - worst fullback defense in the NRL, not so much by not being able to tackle, but by never being near enuff to effect the tackle or contest the ball. Lazy. * Sandow contract - waaaay overpaid on this guy!