Live scores
Live Commentary
Warriors : 6
vs
Storm : 8
| 40:00

Inglis’ gritty Queenslanders go down as they don’t get the crucial calls

Tim Gore Columnist

By Tim Gore, Tim Gore is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , , , ,

301 Have your say

Popular article! 5,653 reads

    The New South Wales Blues can wrap up only their second series win in thirteen years on Sunday June 24 at home after they ran out ten-point winners over the Maroons in State of Origin One at a packed MCG.

    However, but for two crucial missed calls it could have been so different.

    The ten-point winning margin flattered the Blues, who – but for some individual brilliance from a superb James Tedesco – may well have lost.

    All the wash-up from State of Origin 1:
    » The funniest State of Origin ratings on the internet
    » How the Blues fared at the MCG: NSW Game 1 player ratings
    » How the Maroons performed: Queensland Game 1 player ratings
    » State of Origin highlights and match report

    In the 47th minute the Maroons were in the ascendancy. They were up 12-8 after a Dane Gagai try and you could tell that the Blues were starting to struggle mentally and physically, looking around for the leadership that could get them back in a game that was starting to slip away in all too familiar fashion.

    However, when Angus Crichton’s strip of Gagai wasn’t called by the officials it gifted possession back to the Blues. Instead of having to try and repel another Maroon onslaught on their line on the back of a penalty, the Blues instead attacked the Queensland line, with Latrell Mitchell scoring a crucial try that locked up the scores.

    Then in the 69th minute Tedesco made a brilliant run from dummy half, splitting the Maroon defence. He was momentarily brought down by Michael Morgan – who was excellent at fullback – before he got the ball to James Maloney.

    Maloney then passed to Josh Addo-Carr who scored in the corner. The problem was that Maloney’s pass to Addo-Carr was clearly forward, but again it wasn’t picked up.

    But that’s football. Sometimes you don’t get the calls.

    There were many predictions pre match that the referees would blow the peas out of their whistles. However – in true big game style – the officials swallowed their whistles instead, awarding just five penalties for the game. Arguably the emphasis was once more on game management rather than rule enforcement.

    Notably there was no penalty called for the Crichton strip on Gagai.

    And it was very costly for Queensland.

    Queensland captain Greg Inglis could not have done more to lead his troops. He may have been born and raised in New South Wales but last night on the MCG he personified the Queenslander spirit.

    He personally dragged and willed his troops forward in an effort for the ages that, if his side had got those two calls, would have resulted in a victory for the ages. He continually smashed his Sky Blue opponents with brutal defence.

    His efforts screamed ‘Queenslander’ as loud as it has ever been yelled. He showed the way for his team.

    Greg Inglis

    Greg Inglis of the Maroons (Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)

    I have openly questioned the credibility of Inglis playing for Queensland in the past. I won’t do that ever again. I have no doubt that he is Maroon to the core after that effort.

    With his side down 8-0 in the 26th minute, Inglis knew he needed to lift his side. Though massively offside, he lined up Tom Trbojevic and smashed him. Players ran from everywhere for some push and shove. It not only lifted his tiring men, who were down 55-45 per cent in possession, it bought them time.

    In the next set Valentine Holmes saw James Maloney’s pass from a mile away, like his old Sharks teammate was actually passing it to him, and he streaked away to score an intercept try.

    It was game on.

    Inglis also smashed James Roberts, Nathan Cleary and Josh Addo-Carr. Each time he put on a hit his side lifted and regained the ascendency.

    When his side went ahead 12-8 in the 42nd minute it looked like the Blues might be once more bested by the Maroons.

    And but for those two missed calls they may have been.

    Greg Inglis

    Greg Inglis and the Maroons (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)

    While the Blues may have drawn first blood, make no mistake: this series is well and truly alive. Just eight times in Origin history has the side that has won the first game not gone on to win the series, however this could well be the ninth occurrence.

    Sure, the New South Welshmen got the win, but they did not convince me. They still look like a work in progress.

    Because they are.

    Taking eleven debutants into an Origin game was ballsy. Brad Fittler took a huge risk doing it as there was every chance that those eleven boys – for all of their potential, strength and speed – could have crumbled when the more experienced Maroons put the blow torch to their bellies.

    While Inglis’ men did get their acetylene torches out on a number of occasions, Fittler’s side only made five errors for the game. Tom Trbojevic, for example, was continually targeted with high balls but took them all. Meanwhile, Will Chambers was doing his best Dylan Walker impersonation all night to try and get Latrell Mitchell to execute one of his patented brain explosions that we know him so well for. However, Latrell would not be baited.

    However, that doesn’t mean the Blues side clicked. Sure, there were some good performances. Boyd Cordner worked his guts out with 21 runs for 165 metres and 33 tackles – and no misses – is superb stuff. Damien Cook’s 113 metres, a line break assist and 54 tackles for just one miss was as fantastic as we’d hoped.

    Boyd Cordner NSW Blues State of Origin NRL Rugby League 2017 tall

    NSW Blues captain Boyd Cordner (AAP Image/Dan Peled)

    And of course James Tedesco was superb with 210 metres, 11 tackle breaks, two line breaks and two line break assists. He even shaded Inglis’ superb effort.

    However, it was not a dominant victory by any stretch.

    And just like last year the Maroons will be able to go back, regroup and assess their side. And they’ll certainly make some changes.

    Firstly, Dylan Napa will be an unlikely starter on June 24. His six missed tackles and a return of only 82 metres just isn’t good enough. Expect Tim Glasby or Matt Scott to come in for him.

    Further, I’ll be stunned if Kalyn Ponga doesn’t take Anthony Milford’s bench spot, with Will Chambers’ seven missed tackles also putting pressure on his spot in the side.

    And of course Billy Slater, with all his experience, leadership and trash talking, will be back to give Greg Inglis some more leadership help.

    So New South Wales supporters should be very wary of being too cocky. There is nothing more dangerous than the Maroons with their backs to the wall and their effort last night showed me that they are far from done.

    In fact, if they’d got a few calls that they deserved I think they would have won.

    Tim Gore
    Tim Gore

    Tim has been an NRL statistician for ABC Radio Grandstand since 1999, primarily as part of their Canberra coverage. Tim has loved rugby league since Sterlo was a kid with lots of hair but was cursed with having no personal sporting ability whatsoever. He couldn't take a hit in footy, was a third division soccer player making up numbers, plays off 41 in golf and is possibly the world's worst cricketer ever. He has always been good at arguing the point though and he has a great memory of what happened. Follow Tim on Twitter.

    Getting hassled by a parent or partner about spending too much time playing video games? Now, you can tell them the story of how some ordinary gamers scored $225k for just seven weeks of work.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (301)

    • Roar Guru

      June 7th 2018 @ 8:48am
      Cadfael said | June 7th 2018 @ 8:48am | ! Report

      It was getting better in the wseekend footy with referees actually refereeing the game. Sadly, last night was back to managing the game. On another note, why can’t rugby league have the video ref rule on forward passes. In union the TMO can rule on this. It is easier in league because there are lines across the field every 10 metres. Is it because it is a union innovation?

      • June 7th 2018 @ 8:57am
        Boz said | June 7th 2018 @ 8:57am | ! Report

        It seems illogical that they can rule on a knock on – but not a forward pass, both of which require a judgement call on the trajectory of the ball.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 10:21pm
          Peter said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:21pm | ! Report

          The simple reason is that a knock on is simply ruled when the ball is projected forward, whereas with a forward pass the ball is allowed (explicitly in the rules) to go forward with regard to the field. A forward pass is judged on how the player threw it, which is the difficult and subjective part.

        • June 8th 2018 @ 6:20am
          Chris Love said | June 8th 2018 @ 6:20am | ! Report

          Trajectory of the ball has NOTHING to do with a forward pass.

      • June 7th 2018 @ 9:02am
        Busty McCracken said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:02am | ! Report

        They were able to when the video ref was first introduced. Many controversies later they seemed it to hard basket. I’m all for it being kept out of the video refs hands, I just wish the touchies would get more involved with them.

      • June 7th 2018 @ 9:48am
        jameswm said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:48am | ! Report

        No need to rule on it. Not forward out of the hands. Doesn’t matter where it ended up relative to where it was paswed from. Simply momentum explains that.

        • Roar Guru

          June 7th 2018 @ 11:16am
          spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:16am | ! Report

          James,

          Sorry – that’s wrong.

          Maloney caught that from a slightly standing start and passed it in 5 steps. Physically, he cannot generate the speed required to call that momentum carrying the ball forward. Science has explained that several times over.

          Momentum at that pace does not carry a ball two metres forward.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 11:26am
            jameswm said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:26am | ! Report

            We’ll have to agree to disagree.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 5:10pm
              Roger said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:10pm | ! Report

              Except, james, that it was a banana pass, curvng back to Ado-Carr so it had to start out going forward.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 12:35pm
            Clint said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:35pm | ! Report

            You keep saying that science and physics refute the fact that momentum could have carried that pass forward spruce moose but I don’t agree.
            Maloney easily covers 4 meters in a second or less prior to making the pass and is accelerating. Assuming he is travelling at 4m/s (14.4km/hr – not a stretch given average jogging speed is 10km/hr) and passes the ball in a direction parallel to the goal-line (not illegal – forward pass has to be towards opposing goal line) the ball will also drift forwards at the same velocity (1st law of inertia). It only needs to be in the air for 0.5 seconds to drift from the 11m line to the 9m line (where it leaves Maloney’s hands to where JAC gathers the pass). This ignores friction, air drag, wind etc. but given the pass leaves Maloney’s hands at 68:54 and arrives at JAC at 68:55 one could reasonably assume that the extra 0.5 seconds of hang time could conceivably negate these factors.

            Now whether it was forward out of the hands or not – that is a fair argument.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 1:39pm
              Doc79 said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:39pm | ! Report

              It’s the passes out of a static dummy half that are the ones that should be glaringly obvious. There were at least 4 last night.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 3:36pm
                Pedro the Maroon said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:36pm | ! Report

                Maloney has built a career out of popping forward passes to fast / big men on the inside.

              • June 8th 2018 @ 6:18am
                Chris Love said | June 8th 2018 @ 6:18am | ! Report

                Cameron Smith got away with it for 15 years and still does.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 9:10pm
              cinque said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:10pm | ! Report

              “Backwards from the hands” is hard to adjudicate. What should have made it clear is Maloney’s running angle. If he had been heading straight for the sticks at top speed at the time he flung it wide, then a 5-metre drift forward is plausible and legal.
              However, he was cantering at 45 degrees. A-C checked his run, not by enough. Clearly forward.

              Dagai dropped it cold, though. A good rule change would be dead ball after a ref calls held. Drop it if you feel like it, then pick it up and play it. All good.

      • Roar Guru

        June 7th 2018 @ 10:03am
        Wal said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:03am | ! Report

        This video shows perfectly how useless the lines on the field are as a frame of reference.

        https://www.google.com.au/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-gbAU728AU728&ei=Y3UYW-GcNMLP0ASM9YTQAw&q=dropping+a+ball+while+moving&oq=dropping+a+ball+from+mo&gs_l=psy-ab.3.1.0i22i30k1l4.10597.16082.0.19731.10.10.0.0.0.0.244.1240.0j2j4.6.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-

        Ball passes 3 full parking spots despite being thrown straight.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 3:29pm
          Mumbles said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:29pm | ! Report

          So the passer (US video) travelling at faster than human pace with lots of momentum throws the ball sideways allegedly – in this case if all players are running and passing they would all be forward passes. How about NSW forward pass at 46 minute that went forward 2 inches and was called forward – both were moving forward. Receiving the ball 4 metres in front of the passer has been a forward pass for 100 years.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 4:48pm
          Tauranga boy said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:48pm | ! Report

          Frankly I dislike beautiful passing movements being called back for borderline forward passes. I believe that unless the receiver is standing well ahead of the passer and they are getting an unfair advantage it should be play on. I hate picky whistle-happy refs. I like free-flowing footy. (I also dislike stoppages for “knock-ons” when the ball is dropped straight down or backwards. After all, the loss of possession gives a chance to the other side anyway. The less stoppages the better.)

    • June 7th 2018 @ 8:56am
      The H said | June 7th 2018 @ 8:56am | ! Report

      So Qld are upset about a couple of calls. Big deal. They have had the best of 50/50 calls for a long long tine!
      It’s different without thecown Ref in Cameron Smith isn’t it?

      • June 7th 2018 @ 9:49am
        jameswm said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:49am | ! Report

        There was only the strip. The other calls were fine.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 10:58am
          Bee bee said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:58am | ! Report

          I have not heard much ref blaming up here in QLD. NSW were better and deserved the win. NSW will be even stronger in game 2 and on home soil.

          Slater is a big inclusion if fit. But he is not enough. NSW should be unbackable favourites for G2.

          I agree that QLD were Ok. But come on Tim. You know QLD need to gamble in Sydney. And they are low on chips. NSW will require a collective nuclear brain explosion to lose.

          • Columnist

            June 7th 2018 @ 11:00am
            Tim Gore said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:00am | ! Report

            Nuclear Brain explosions are NSW speciality. And a queenslander is a queenslander. Never write them off.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 2:18pm
              Bee bee said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:18pm | ! Report

              No Tim. NSW are value at $1.10. So many good young players. No big Heads to detonate. No Cam Smith to haunt this young sides dreams like a Footballing Freddie Kruger. It’s been a good run but the Blues tattoo reduction program will get them through.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 4:11pm
                Brian Jones said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:11pm | ! Report

                This really is a…. “If” your auntie had a d1ck , she’d be your uncle article.
                You could make a redundant argument such as this , about almost any game played any week.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 7:31pm
                R N said | June 7th 2018 @ 7:31pm | ! Report

                Tattoo reduction program… LMFAO!

              • Columnist

                June 8th 2018 @ 2:14pm
                Tim Gore said | June 8th 2018 @ 2:14pm | ! Report

                “Tatoo reduction program” = total gold.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 3:50pm
              Really a Qlder? said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:50pm | ! Report

              Inglis a Queenslander? Born and bred on the mid north coast of NSW? Maxwell is now a suburb of Brisbane? The only Queensland trait he shows is the ability to sell out to the highest bidder (thinking Jo Bananas here). Just a total sell out! Exactly why ‘State of Origin’ is a joke!

            • June 8th 2018 @ 7:37am
              bazza said | June 8th 2018 @ 7:37am | ! Report

              Mate your team didn’t even look like scoring trys.

              NSW had 2 non trys and the last one i thought that was a bit suspect.
              There was lots of forward passes missed but the one for the try by NSW was def forward every day.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 2:31pm
          Jara W said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:31pm | ! Report

          Funny old thing perspective isn’t it.

          Personally had no issue with the strip or the forward pass. Both could’ve gone our way on another night. But you can see how the decision was made.

          I had two different concerns from last night:

          Overriding the line drop out when JAD tried to smack it out of the stadium. Even if Gagai got fingertips to it (and I wasn’t 100% convinced) how does someone striking at the ball get the benefit over someone trying to catch it. Why is the rule different from if Gagai had possession? But mainly I thought it was too inconclusive to overwrite such a critical decision.

          The other was the obstruction in the Mitchell try. Every day of the week that’s no try. There’s only one reason that wasn’t deemed obstruction, and that’s because QLD didn’t milk it and play for the penalty.

          Buttttt… Neither of these are “we was robbed” material. Hats off to the baby blues. They took advantage of their opportunities better than qld. And I was pretty impressed that they played right till the 80th minute when they looked down and out at a few stages of the game.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 3:51pm
            shirtpants said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:51pm | ! Report

            It wasn’t an obstruction because it was a poor defensive read. End of.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 4:52pm
          Tauranga boy said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:52pm | ! Report

          No one has mentioned it but the penalty with which NSW drew first blood (2-0) was a bad call. Qld did not lay on the NSW player in the tackle. It was a harsh call!

          • June 7th 2018 @ 6:57pm
            NSW 20 year Dynasty said | June 7th 2018 @ 6:57pm | ! Report

            To all you Queenslanders, the real score should have really been 38 to NSW and 6 max to Qld! End of story! Qld were never ever in this game and were lucky with that intercept! NSW were never ever going to lose this game! All the excuses are just what ‘sore losers’ come up with! If Gagai (even though he’s a Bunny) wouldn’t of let that ball go then he wouldn’t of knocked that ball on, the ref called a knock on and he called it a lose carry, simple. Then the Gagai and JAC incident in the in goal, if you look at that closely, Gagai was coming onto that ball and he had all the momentum, JAC tried to palm that into the in goal but it hit Gagai’s fingertips, that is a Gagai in goal which is a 20m/7 tackle start, which the refs got right.

    • June 7th 2018 @ 8:56am
      Richard POWELL said | June 7th 2018 @ 8:56am | ! Report

      Maloney’s pass was not forward. Doesn’t anyone know physics and Newton’s laws of motion? Maloney turns his hips so the ball leaves his hands in a backwards motion, and clearly left of his left hip. Because he (and the ball) are moving at around 20kph the ball necessarily must maintain that trajectory of movement and the ball must float forwards. It happened right in front of the touchie, and touchies attend physics classes every Monday.

      • Roar Guru

        June 7th 2018 @ 9:13am
        The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:13am | ! Report

        We all know the rule and the laws of physics….Maloney didn’t actually turn his body to throw the pass. That’s the problem, he throws it from a mostly front on position and it’s forward out of the hands.

        There’s a still shot at the top of article linked below. It shows Maloney starting to throw the pass and he’s barely turned his body at all.

        I’m a NSWman and that looked forward to me out of the hands live and no replay has changed my opinion.

        http://www.sportingnews.com/au/league/news/state-of-origin-james-maloney-forward-pass-nsw-queensland/5if44eibln5x13v87bqt23qbu

        • June 7th 2018 @ 9:40am
          jimmmy said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:40am | ! Report

          It was forward but I can live with it. Usually the long passes like that are not forward and when they get pulled up it irritates me endlessly.
          That one though was forward from the hands. Forget about where the ball finished .
          It was forward as soon as it left his hands. NSW deserved to win , no complaints here.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 9:50am
            jameswm said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:50am | ! Report

            Nah disagree. Not forward out of the hands.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 10:17am
              Mumbles said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:17am | ! Report

              It was more forward than the NSW pass called on sixth tackle early in second half when NSW were in front. RL have a habit of calling passes forward that arent and now a blatant one is not even talked about by Nine “experts” – how predictable – ref pulls up another NSW win when required as last year to make the series interesting. Qld got 1 penalty early for a cheap offside and none after and the balance of decisions went against them. Is this entertaining or the Roller Game??

              • Columnist

                June 7th 2018 @ 11:02am
                Tim Gore said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:02am | ! Report

                Forward. I bet on the Blues and was going for the Blues. It was forward. Beashel was right in line so he agrees with you.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 2:50pm
                Doc79 said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:50pm | ! Report

                55 mins 48 sec- check out McCullloch pass to Munster. No momentum- flat out forward.

                6 missed tackles in the lead up to JAC forward pass try.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 11:37am
                Greg said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:37am | ! Report

                I bet on the Blues and was going for them too. Crightons strip was an obvious penalty they got wrong. Maloneys pass was backwards and the bloke was right in line with it, who is trained, has a lot more experience than anyone else on this blog and judges these things every week correctly deemed it a legal pass.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 12:30pm
                spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:30pm | ! Report

                Oh, Greg…

                You would be in a field of one to blindly defend the touchies.

                They are about as useful as a flyscreen on a submarine.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 12:39pm
              IAP said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:39pm | ! Report

              Ado-Carr was standing still when he caught the ball; he threw it towards him when it left his hands. You can’t throw a ball backwards when the person you’re throwing it to is forward of you. If that wasn’t forward you may as well change the rules and turn the game into grid-iron.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 1:20pm
                Dave said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:20pm | ! Report

                It was not a forward pass, look where Maloney is when Ado-Carr catches the ball, Maloney is well in front of Ado-Carr (about 2m in front). This is a text book example of NOT being a forward pass – where momentum of the person passing the ball makes it look forward.

                On a side note the game would be a lot simpler for the ref if the rule was the ball has to be caught behind the position that the passer released the ball – but that is not the current rules.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 1:30pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:30pm | ! Report

                What has that got to do with anything? The only thing that seperates whether a pass is forward or backward is how it leaves the hands. Relative positioning of players moving at various speeds is a rediculous way to judge if a pass was forward or not and only serves to muddy the water

      • June 7th 2018 @ 9:27am
        jacko said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:27am | ! Report

        i agree……Pass not forward…..It is very basic, just look where malony was when the ball is caught…..That is where the balll would have been if Malony didnt pass it and for the ball to go forward it needed to be in front of the passer…Simple thing to check and basic physics…..There is a neat peice on Utube showing this….But who cares …its league so refs are all part of the entertainment

        • Roar Guru

          June 7th 2018 @ 12:57pm
          JamesH said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:57pm | ! Report

          It’s anything but basic.

          The ball doesn’t have the same momentum as the player does when it leaves their hands because it is thrown in a curving motion by the arms, imparting a degree of backwards force. There are also factors like spin, air resistance and the players’ changing speeds to account for.

          If the ball was fired straight out of a tube in a vacuum then the momentum would be basically the same. Back in the real world, your statement is blatantly untrue.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 1:16pm
            soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:16pm | ! Report

            pretty good rule of thumb tho and “blatantly untrue” is going a bit far.

            certainly if it passes by that rule of thumb its close enough to not worry if it gets called ok.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 1:23pm
            Dave said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:23pm | ! Report

            Complete nonsense, the ball has the momentum of the player when passed. As an extreme example, throw a ball 10 km/hr from a speeding car going 100 km/hr – are you saying the ball doesn’t have the momentum of the car after it is thrown?

      • Roar Guru

        June 7th 2018 @ 9:42am
        Mango Jack said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:42am | ! Report

        It looked forward from the original video angle, but looked OK from the side on view. Dunno. Great break from Teddy, and tired sloppy defence from QLD.

      • Roar Guru

        June 7th 2018 @ 11:18am
        spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:18am | ! Report

        Richard – clearly you don’t understand laws of motion.

        Laws of motion dictate that Maloney would need to be travelling faster than what he did for momentum to carry that ball forward over the course of 15 metres.

        It was forward all day long, but the touchies simply don’t do their jobs anymore.

        • June 7th 2018 @ 1:26pm
          Dave said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:26pm | ! Report

          So how was Maloney 2m in front of Ado-Carr when he catches the ball? The real answer is Maloney had forward momentum

          • June 8th 2018 @ 7:33am
            Roger said | June 8th 2018 @ 7:33am | ! Report

            Or Maloney kept running…

      • June 7th 2018 @ 12:26pm
        Magic Lyrebird said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:26pm | ! Report

        I agree, I don’t think it was thrown forward. The ball was in the air for about 2 seconds. Assuming that Maloney was running at 15 km/h at the time of passing, a flat pass would have travelled about 8m forward in those 2 seconds.

        Maloney didn’t appear to accelerate after passing and was well in front of Addo-Carr when Addo-Carr caught the ball.

        It’s impossible to be certain, but based on the evidence I’d say it would have been a tough call had NSW been denied a try for that pass.

        • Roar Guru

          June 7th 2018 @ 12:39pm
          spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:39pm | ! Report

          Jeepers creepers. What astonishingly poor maths.

          You do realise Maloney has arms? You realise that his arms generate speed and power?

          By your abysmal logic, if you are standing still then a ball is passed at 0km/h.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 1:28pm
            Clint said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:28pm | ! Report

            Magic Lyrebird’s logic is on point. Your understanding of it is abysmal.

            If you’re standing still and pass a ball perfectly parallel to the opponent’s goal-line then – ignoring wind, friction, spin etc. – it will have a momentum of 0km/h towards the try-line. Magic Lyrebird is providing the rationale that it is feasible for the momentum of a body in motion (i.e. Maloney’s) to impart forward momentum on a ball passed sideways thus causing it to travel forwards.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 1:30pm
            Dave said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:30pm | ! Report

            Wow… you are making no sense at all.

            When you are standing still and pass it sideways the ball has no forward momentum.

            When you are running 30km/hr forward and pass it sideways, the ball has 30 km/hr forward momentum and a sideways momentum equal to the strength of the pass.

            In this case, even though Maloney slowed down after passing he was well in front of where the ball was caught – thus the pass was NOT forward – it wasn’t even really close to being forward.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 3:36pm
              Mumbles said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:36pm | ! Report

              It smelt like a forward pass, looked like one and they would never call any long pass forward ever again if they didn’t call that one.

            • Roar Rookie

              June 7th 2018 @ 8:26pm
              Evanfinity said | June 7th 2018 @ 8:26pm | ! Report

              Maloney continues to travel forward – his legs don’t just fall off. The ball stops accelerating towards the goal line when it leaves his hands – it loses forward momentum faster than he does. That’s why he ends up in front of the ball.

              Can someone provide a charge code for this?

              • June 8th 2018 @ 6:39am
                Chris Love said | June 8th 2018 @ 6:39am | ! Report

                Travel forward yes but clearly decelerating. The ball however while no longer accelerating (disregarding wind drag) remains traveling forward at the same pace as Maloney was when he released it.

      • June 7th 2018 @ 1:55pm
        RandyM said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:55pm | ! Report

        yeah I didn’t think it was forward and I was watching the game with a bunch of one eyed QLDers who didn’t say anything… they called some other NSW passes forward, but not that one.

      • June 7th 2018 @ 2:01pm
        JVGO said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:01pm | ! Report

        So a line ball decision went NSW’s way for the first time in 15 years? Unbelievable.

    • June 7th 2018 @ 8:58am
      Greg said | June 7th 2018 @ 8:58am | ! Report

      Maloneys pass wasn’t forward. Yes he passes it behind the line and JAC catches it over the line, but look where Maloney is when JAC catches it – 2m in front of JAC. Maloney is running forward when he passes it so Maloneys forward momentum is what causes the ball to travel over the line. It’s basic physics and is the reason why video refs aren’t allowed to rule on forward passes.

      • June 7th 2018 @ 9:07am
        Greg said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:07am | ! Report

        This video explains it perfectly

        • Roar Guru

          June 7th 2018 @ 9:16am
          The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:16am | ! Report

          That’s a great video Greg but the difference is it was forward out of Maloney’s hands, it wasn’t just the momentum. Maloney wasn’t running at anywhere near full pace.

          • June 7th 2018 @ 9:19am
            Greg said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:19am | ! Report

            It’s exactly the same as the video, Maloney is 2m in front of JAC when he catches it. The tough judge was right in line and ruled it came backwards out of the hands, he has a better view than anyone else and he deemed it legal.

            • Roar Guru

              June 7th 2018 @ 9:36am
              The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:36am | ! Report

              I guess we agree to disagree. The players on the video turn to throw the ball backwards. I don’t think Maloney did. It left his hands forward, there was no attempt to turn and throw it backwards.

              Forward passes are one of the blights of the game so I’m not going to put all my faith in a touchies call. There were several others missed through the game – both sides – so the touchiest are far from infallible.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 9:43am
              jimmmy said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:43am | ! Report

              No , Malone’s passes was forward as soon as it left his hand . If it was flat it still would have travelled forward over the distance but not by quite as much. Surely it’s not that hard to understand.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 10:44am
                Rob said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:44am | ! Report

                If you have blue lenses fitted your glasses it wasn’t forward. Seriously you don’t have to apply physics theories and speed trackers. The basic laws of the game are being greyed continually and it’s garbage. Catching a pass in front of the position from which it was thrown is forward. Queensland missed tackles and ref missed it. The ref missed a few things? The fact is we have to be better in game 2. Well done blues.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 11:13am
                Wal said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:13am | ! Report

                Catching a pass in front of the position from which it was thrown is forward.

                That would make any pass in open field play illegal. At top flight, these guys are running at 35+kph. That’s 10 metres per second. A longer pass would need to be thrown backwards 10 metres to ensure it doesn’t travel forward.

                Malony remains in front of the ball without speeding up meaning relative to himself and his momentum the ball travels backwards.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 11:22am
                spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:22am | ! Report

                Wal,

                Maloney clearly wasn’t travelling at 35kph. he was barely travelling 20kph.

              • Roar Rookie

                June 7th 2018 @ 11:58am
                Paulo said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:58am | ! Report

                Moose, Wal is refuting the statement any pass caught in front of where it was thrown is illegal. This is clearly incorrect and demonstrably incorrect and shows a clear misunderstanding of the game mechanics. His 35km was an example to illustrate this.

                In regards to the Maloney pass, he is in front of the the winger when he catches it so this would suggest the pass travels backwards relative to Maloney.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 12:30pm
                Wal said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:30pm | ! Report

                Cheers Paulo

                Simply put Maloney doesn’t speed up yet stays in front of the ball. So relative to himself the ball travels backwards.

                The other extreme example is
                Chuck a tennis ball from a car @ 100kph it is physically impossible to make it land behind the point you threw it from no matter how hard you throw it backwards.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 12:43pm
                spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:43pm | ! Report

                Wal, Paulo.

                Paulo first – BS. He is infront of the winger when Addo Carr catches it yes, but that proves nothing. Maloney could just as easily have stopped beforehand. This argument is so pointless.

                Wal – 100km/h yes. The force required for a ball to be launched back is massive and no human could do it. 15km/h moving sideways? Arm power can overcome that…as they do every f’ing week in rugby league. Your logic is pointless – you are basically implying it is impossible to throw a ball backwards unless you are standing still.

                Maloney in the first half was running faster when he threw the final pass to Tedesco, a pass that went clearly backwards, demonstrating just how dreadfully inept your knowledge of physics is.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 1:37pm
                Wal said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:37pm | ! Report

                Spruce I stated this was an extreme example, but does demonstrate Rob’s point Catching a pass in front of the position from which it was thrown is forward. Is not an accurate measure of passing forward.

                As for the detail in this particular pass.
                Maloney is probably travelling at about 20kph (5.5m/s) the ball is in the air for approx 1 sec. So his momentum alone would allow for the ball to travel forward 5 metres. Without him propelling it any further forward.

            • Roar Guru

              June 7th 2018 @ 9:44am
              Mango Jack said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:44am | ! Report

              Yep, and the video from the touch judge angle shows it was OK.

              • June 8th 2018 @ 12:49pm
                Mumbles said | June 8th 2018 @ 12:49pm | ! Report

                Rubbish

          • Roar Guru

            June 7th 2018 @ 11:21am
            spruce moose said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:21am | ! Report

            Barry, EXACTLY!

            Maloney was nowhere near full pace to explain that as ‘momentum’.

            Physics wins out.

            Momentum will not move a ball two metres forward at that pace. he’s going WAY too slow for momentum to intervene over that distance. It went forward because of the pace generated out of his hands, not his legs.

            Forward pass all day long.

            Ironically, half the crowd here who are claiming ‘momentum’ would have no objection to that being called forward if it happened midfield and didn’t result in a try.

            • June 7th 2018 @ 11:32am
              Greg said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:32am | ! Report

              You don’t have to be at full pace. Maloney travels 5m from when he passes it to when JAC catches it. The ball goes forward 2-3m in the same time.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 11:46am
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 11:46am | ! Report

                That’s ridiculous though…the ball starts slowing down as soon as it leaves Maloney’s hands…Maloney doesn’t.

                I can throw a ball in the air five metres forward and run past it before it lands. Doesn’t mean I haven’t thrown it forward.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 12:47pm
                Greg said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:47pm | ! Report

                Only if you throw the ball up into the air with a lot more vertical velocity than what Maloney’s pass was

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 1:00pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:00pm | ! Report

                You’re changing your story now.

                You presented Maloney travelling further forward than the ball as evidence that the ball couldn’t have been thrown forward. I’ve presented a situation where it could.

                You’re still incorrect though. Maloney’s pass went at least head height. I can be jogging and toss the ball at head height two metres forward and get past the ball before it hits the ground. I still threw it forward. And that’s without allowing for the additional time Maloney’s pass was in the air.

                Where Maloney finishes up relative to the ball is practically irrelevant to determining whether the ball was thrown forward…completely irrelevant if considered on its own.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 1:28pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:28pm | ! Report

                barry unless you sped up after throwing you have thrown it backwards.

                where he is when its caught is not irrelevant if we assume maloney’s motion is constant. if anything he actually slows down from my viewing.

                its not perfect but its a reasonable indication.

                why do you feel the ball starts slowing down? air resistance? i reckon thats pretty negligble for the accuracy we’re dealing with. you dont see balls slow noticeably when theyre kicked or passed through the air (in still conditions of course).

                and it might lok more forward because he’s running diagonally perhaps.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 1:35pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:35pm | ! Report

                What is this? The amature physics hour? You’re completely talking out of your *bleep* right now

              • June 7th 2018 @ 1:44pm
                Rumpole said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:44pm | ! Report

                You got any basis for that comment, or just a bit of wind?

              • June 7th 2018 @ 2:04pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:04pm | ! Report

                emcie, id class it as high school level physics which, yes would place it as amateur level

              • June 7th 2018 @ 2:04pm
                Rob said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:04pm | ! Report

                Thanks Barry. I couldn’t be bothered as they have little concept of a forward pass. If they applied the same logic to a player dropping a ball at pace and the ball then lands behind his foot it’s knocked backwards? Players have never been able to advance/promote the ball forward from the hand. It’s creating an advantage the defence is incapable of defending. Imagine a player running for the try line throws the ball to a support who catches it in the in goal? Ado Carr should have been deeper and Maloney should have turned his upper body and hand position to propel the ball backwards. He does this consistently but if the pass is short he get away with it. JT does the same on some Cooper short balls and I’m a Cowboys fan. We missed to many tackles and the rub of the green went against us. We get another chance in game 2.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 2:22pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:22pm | ! Report

                You can’t half-arse physics, if you’re dumbing it down you’re doing it wrong. In this situation there’s two players and the ball all travelling at variable velocities in different directions within a 3D space. The ball is not travelling under its own power so of course its going to slow down, otherwise it would just keep going up and JAC would not have had to drop his hands to catch the ball. Maloney and JAC are not and should not be considered to be travelling at constant speeds, which should be pretty obvious. Physics doesn’t work without actual numbers to base calculations on unless you’re assuming that every object involved is traveling at equal velovities in defined directions, which is clearly not the case here. You can’t just dumb things down untill they fit your arguement.

                All of this is entirely irrelevent anyway, the only thing that matters is whether the ball came out of the hands forwards or backwards. The physics (as shown in the video above somewhere) is the reason the current interpretation exists, it doesn’t counter it.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 2:41pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:41pm | ! Report

                Soapit – in a thread of daft comments that is possibly the most daft.

                1. If I’m running and I throw the ball up in the air to land say five metres in front of where I’ve thrown it and in the time it takes the ball to land I manage to run six metres it does not mean I have thrown the ball backwards. No way, no how.

                If I throw the ball a bit higher, but it still lands five metres ahead of me I can run even further than six metres. My finishing position is completely irrelevant to whether I have thrown the ball backwards or forwards.

                If I run faster but still throw the ball to land five metres in front of where I throw it from I can run further again before the ball lands. Does not mean I have thrown the ball ‘more backwards’.

                To show how ridiculous and irrelevant the finishing position concept is, I can throw the ball five metres forward from a standing start wher ther is no momentum and be in front of it when it lands, if I throw it high enough. It doesn’t mean I have thrown the ball backwards.

                To apply that to Maloney’s pass. Maloney finished up in front of the ball, passing it a little bit above head height. If he’d have thrown the ball in more of a parabola and got even further downfield what does that mean to how far forward he has thrown it? Absolutely zero.

                If Maloney threw a flat bullet pass to JAC and couldn’t get further downfield than the ball what difference does that make. Zero. Maloney’s finishing position is completely irrelevant to whether the ball has gone forward or not.

                2. “why do you feel the ball starts slowing down”? You’ve got to be kidding me. If the ball didn’t start slowing down the millisecond it left the hand it would travel at its initial velocity forever.

                What makes me think the ball slows down…? A couple of little things called gravity and atmosphere. They are not negligible. They are the reasons why Maloney’s pass, thrown while on the run only travels 15 metres or so.

                “you dont see balls slow noticeably when theyre kicked or passed through the air”. I do. For the reasons above. Why do you think a kick off lands on the say the goal line instead of continuing on its trajectory out of the stadium and into orbitat its initial velocity? Because it slows down and eventually loses forward momentum.

                Think of it this way…if someone kicked the ball and it hit you in the face would it hurt more if you were standing one metre away or 50 metres away? Why? Because the ball has slowed down.

                This is too much.

                Forget all the nonsense about car parks and where Maloney finished up and shooting balls out of cannons in cars at 100kms per hour, Maloney threw the ball forward relative to where he passed it from. His hands were facing forward, he didn’t turn his body…I get all the physics about not being able to throw the ball backwards relative to the ground while moving forwards but the player passing it has to throw it backwards out of the hands. Maloney didn’t. It’s that simple.

                Go the Blues!

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 3:17pm
                Wal said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:17pm | ! Report

                Barry it’s not daft. The reason you are getting 100kph examples is that your example completely ignores your forward velocity

                In your exact example, If you are running forward and through the ball 5 metres forward it will land 5 metres forward plus the metres/sec/sec your forward velocity adds to the ball.

                Example if you are running @ 5m/s through the ball forward 1 metre (relative to yourself), but also up so it is in the air for 1 second it will travel forward relative to a stationary object (say a TV camera or pitch marking) 6 metres. Through it backwards 1 metre (again relative to yourself) and it will travel forward 4 metres

                Alternatively, watch the front on view and you can clearly see his top hand roll over the face of the ball propelling it backwards, his shoulders twist and his hand end up behind his hips.
                https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/state-of-origin/opinion-phil-gould-and-the-channel-9-team-couldnt-inspire-maroons-to-win/news-story/6e66ed905c72f1fa4d76b28f03b175a7

              • June 7th 2018 @ 3:25pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:25pm | ! Report

                barry, im sorry you feel its daft but its a pretty established principle of motion. if you throw something forward, you cant get it behind you with out increasing your own velocity after you release it.have you actually tried it? promise me you wont speed up.

                thats the way the rule has always been reffed, thrown backwards reletive to the player (ie from the hands). this ackowledges the pricniciple everyones trying to explain to you whether you realise it or not.

                youre not convincing anyone who knows better by claiming gravity will cause the ball to slow down. it only moves the ball down. you seem to be thinkign i am claiming the ball will never land. motion has different planes (vectors) gravity acts in a completely different plane (completely vertical) to the one that forward passes are judged on (completely horizontal) and seeing as theyre 90 deg from each other they dont impact each other.

                i expect atmosphere will have negligble impact on something moving so slowly relative to the atmosphere (ie if theres no wind).

              • June 7th 2018 @ 3:33pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:33pm | ! Report

                emcie the reason he has to drop his hands is because of gravity, which as ive explained to barry is irrelevant to forward passes.

                you dont need actual numbers to understand the principle and whether the vel of the ball is positive or negative in relation to maloney (relative to maloney parallel to the sideline).time is constant for both so its just the motion of the ball versus maloeys and maloneyes is greater (he’s in front of the ball there its neg vel (vel is motion (displacement) / time)

                if you want to know how much positive or negative yes you will need numbers but we dont need that for the forward pass rule, just the + or – and maloeys continued motion gives us the reference for that given time is contant for both.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 3:50pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:50pm | ! Report

                Geez soapit, you’ve gotta be having us on surely? For the sake of the education system and 300 years under the scientific principle please burn that comment and never show it to anyone! I don’t think I’ve seen this many missapplied principles in such close proximity since my mate showed me a flat earthers “video proof”…

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 4:00pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:00pm | ! Report

                Wal with regards to your last paragraph about Maloney’s pass if that the way you saw it fine, we all have different interpretations,

                The rest of it is rubbish. There are literally dozens of reasons why you can’t compare where Maloney ends up or where the ball ends up.

                Forget adding your own fake science to my scenario, I can throw a ball in the air forward relative to where I release it and finish in front of it before it hits the ground. I’ve still town the ball forward. End of story. That 100% proves that Maloney’s finishing position is irrelevant to whether the ball went backwards or forwards.

                Now, you can create a situation wher I throw a ball in the air and due to my speed and how high the ball goes and all the rest of it I don’t finish in front of it when it lands but that’s irrelevant.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 4:27pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:27pm | ! Report

                Soapit sorry mate but you’re on a different vector of reality.

                Gravity doesn’t just work “up and down” it’s also the force that stops an objects forward motion, Don’t argue this point. You are wrong,

                If it’s not gravity what do you think is the force that slows and stops an object in motion?

                “if you throw something forward, you cant get it behind you with out increasing your own velocity after you release it.have you actually tried it? promise me you wont speed up.”

                Bollocks. This can be simply disproven. I can be walking at 0.5 kms per hour and throw an object 50 metres into the air and two metres forward. I’ve thrown it forward and I can easily get it behind me before it lands. This scenario takes into account my forward momentum and your position is 100% disproven.

                Now don’t tell me “Maloney didn’t throw it 50 metres in the air” I know. I’m just using this as an example to disprove your position that it’s impossible to get behind an object you have thrown forward.

                “thrown backwards reletive to the player (ie from the hands). this ackowledges the pricniciple everyones trying to explain to you whether you realise it or not”

                No it doesn’t. a) because it’s not true as shown above and b) because that’s not the principle you’re explaining – you just don’t realise it.

                “youre not convincing anyone who knows better by claiming gravity will cause the ball to slow down. it only moves the ball down. you seem to be thinkign i am claiming the ball will never land. motion has different planes (vectors) gravity acts in a completely different plane (completely vertical) to the one that forward passes are judged on (completely horizontal) and seeing as theyre 90 deg from each other they dont impact each other.”

                That’s literally the dumbest thing anyone has ever written. It’s impossible to come up with a logical argument because what you’ve stated there is pure make believe.

                If you think gravity only works in the “vertical plane” please name the force that works to slow an object in the “horizontal plane”. There must be one because otherwise objects would remain at a constant velocity forever.

                But that only explains a two dimensional reality. As you know (I hope but I shouldn’t assume) we live in a three dimensional world. So that must mean there is a third force that operates in the “depth plane”. Can you please name that force too as it’s clearly not vertical gravity and I assume it’s not the as yet unidentified “completely” horizontal force.

                Hahahahahahahaa…..WTF am I saying…this is the biggest load of old bollocks I’ve ever read. You are completely unequipped to be having this conversation. You’re inventing your own laws of physics and don’t even know it.

                What did your teachers do to you?

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 4:52pm
                Nat said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:52pm | ! Report

                This is hilarious. TB, you’re putting far too much effort into a bloke who doesn’t understand first principle. So much for not getting bogged down.

                Soapit, the pass was forward, you got a good call. The game wasn’t dependent on that. Physics may not be your forté to argue this point. Enjoy the win

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 4:59pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:59pm | ! Report

                Cheers Nat

                Believe it or not I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me (yeah right🤔) but when someone calls my stuff nonsense and then comes out with this load of rot, I can’t help myself.

                I’ll be generous and say that soapit is winding me up and having a good laugh at my expense. I hope that’s the case and if so that he enjoys it. The alternative – that he really believes what he’s written – is too scary to consider.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 5:28pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:28pm | ! Report

                ok guys you genuinely feel you are right and i admit i may not have explained the situation in a textbook accurate way in my rush to get to kids soccer but for my sake can you explain to me how you feel the vertical force of gravity changes whether the ball moves closer to the tryline horizontally relative to the passer or further away in the time between when it is let go and the time it is caught

                im genuinely not winding you up. im not trying to give you grief. just doing my best to explain.

                given your fervour im open to learning something new but i cant see how a vertical force can have an impact on horizontal relative motion.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 5:42pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:42pm | ! Report

                Soapit – if you were walking forward and you had a pressure exert downward force on you would it make walking forward easier or more difficult?

                The flaw with this example is that you are able to keep exerting force to keep you moving forward.

                The downward force of gravity (plus things like wind resistance, atmosphere) slow the forward progress of things like footballs, bullets, etc to the point where their forward momentum stops and they fall to the ground.

                After passing the ball Maloney can continue to exert a force to move forward (ie running) while the ball has no force propelling it forward, only forces slowing it down. That’s why comparing Maloney’s final position to the ball’s is flawed. It’s not based on their momentum at the point of release as both are subjected to different forces after that point.

                WDDs comment below is probably the best of the lot of us. Who cares about the physics, it really just comes down to whether we think the ball has been thrown forward or backward out of the hand.

                Trying to apply blanket rules to every situation is pointless.

                Cheers mate.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 6:21pm
                Brian said | June 7th 2018 @ 6:21pm | ! Report

                This is so painful to read. The Barry – the force the stops motion is not gravity, it is friction with the air. The density of the matter you are pushing through is the primary factor. If that’s confusing, replace the air with water and how far do you think the ball would go? You are absolutely, completely wrong about this.

                I’m simplifying this response because this whole thing is already convoluted enough and gravity does have an effect on how that friction effects an object (the ball), but you’ve really got this completely backwards.

              • June 7th 2018 @ 6:17pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 6:17pm | ! Report

                barry the only reason gravity slows me down in that circumstance is (well a couple of reasons) but they all involve interaction with the ground. the ball is in the air between the pass and the catch and there is no way for the vertical force to create a horizontal force on it without it contacting something.

                gravity on its own does not slow bullets horizontally. they keep going until a horizontal force is applied be it wind resitance, or something harder (even if that ends up being the ground). following from this, ii agree atmosphere would have some impact. i still believe negligible for the accuracy we’re talking about.

                no worries, im not trying to create a blanket rule (tho laws of motion to tend to do that). all i’m saying is its a pretty handy guide and by that guide the call seems pretty reasonable.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 6:39pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 6:39pm | ! Report

                Gravity affects the ball by changing the trajectory of the ball, a ball heading towards the ground at 10k/h on a 45 degree angle is not travelling at 10k/h across the horizontal plane. But gravity is just one of many forces that affects the momentum of the ball

              • June 7th 2018 @ 10:18pm
                Rob said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:18pm | ! Report

                “Half a glass of full cream dairy milk in every block”. F$%King Ref’s

              • June 8th 2018 @ 6:14am
                soapit said | June 8th 2018 @ 6:14am | ! Report

                yes emcie you are right, the object will have different vel in different planes. however what ever vel it has in the horizontal plane doesnt change as a result of gravity until it touches the ground

            • June 7th 2018 @ 1:40pm
              Dave said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:40pm | ! Report

              You have no idea about physics – you are completely wrong.

              Maloney keeps going about the same speed after he passes the ball – that is his forward momentum. He passes the ball backward but with his forward momentum. The ball lands 2m behind him. The pass is NOT forward – it actually isn’t close at all to being forward.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 2:53pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:53pm | ! Report

                Nonsense. If Maloney stopped immediately after he passed it or sprinted as fast as he could after he passed it, it has zero impact on whether he threw the ball forwards or backwards but it completely influences whether he gets further downfield than the ball by the time JAC catches it.

                Maloney’s finishing position has nothing to do with whether the pass is forwards or not.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 3:00pm
                The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 3:00pm | ! Report

                Also, that’s not Maloney’s forward momentum. Maloney continues to exert force (ie running) to continue his journey downfield after he has passed. Maloney’s finishing position isn’t determined by his momentum at the time he released the ball at all.

                Once the ball leaves Maloney’s hand it only has forces applied that slow it down. Comparing Maloney’s finishing position to that of the ball as a test of momentum is completely flawed.

                One has forces applied that accelerates, one has forces applied to decelerate. Comparing their finishing positions as a test of whether the ball went backwards is apples and oranges.

              • Roar Rookie

                June 7th 2018 @ 4:35pm
                William Dalton Davis said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:35pm | ! Report

                You guys are overthinking this immensely. Don’t worry about the physics and the what have you. The only thing that matters is whether the ball came out of the hands in a forward or backward/flat motion. By the rules of the game the ball can take off and do a lap of the MCG then Travel to the moon and back (without touching it of course) so long as it goes backwards out of the hands. There’s two angles that suggest it’s a forward pass and one that says it’s a 50/50. The physics are there to explain that while a ball travels forward it doesn’t constitute a forward pass and vice versa. Nothing more nothing less.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 5:43pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:43pm | ! Report

                We established that a while ago, now we’re arguing about the rules that govern the universe

              • June 8th 2018 @ 7:28am
                Chris Love said | June 8th 2018 @ 7:28am | ! Report

                Guys I dabble in long range shooting and deal with ballistics a lot. For this example you can quickly discount a few things.

                1. Spin Drift over this distance is so negligible it’s not worth discussing. A 308 round going 2700fps at the muzzle is going to drift maybe 12 inches…… over 900meters with a hell of a lot more revolutions.

                2. Gravity. The only time gravity has ANY impact on the forward motion of anything is because it forces things to hit the ground. For the time it is in the air gravity does not slow down a bullet or a football.

                This statement by Barry is completely false and is demonstrated in yr10 physics. This is basic basic basic stuff.

                “Soapit sorry mate but you’re on a different vector of reality.

                Gravity doesn’t just work “up and down” it’s also the force that stops an objects forward motion, Don’t argue this point. You are wrong,”

                3. Drag. A football isn’t nearly as ballistically efficient as a bullet and it also has a surface for gripping that would create drag. But over this distance it would be so negligible that to the naked eye it would be impossible to detect.

                Where Maloney ends up when the ball is caught is completely relevant. If you assume that Maloney’s forward velocity remains constant or even slows then if the ball lands behind him relative to him then the ball was projected backwards from him.

                If you want to argue Maloney sped up after passing then that’s another argument. If you’re not making this argument it’s time to accept basic basic physics. Yes wether he threw it backwards and where he ends up could be two completely different things but all of the above applies and where Maloney ends up is a very good gauge.

            • Roar Rookie

              June 7th 2018 @ 4:06pm
              Ray Paks said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:06pm | ! Report

              have to agree with soapit. If 2 players moving at the same velocity one a metre in front of the other and the one ahead passes the ball to the one behind the ball actually goes forward at the same velocity they are moving at, except it stays behind the player that passed it on, in that circumstance it is usually accepted as a pass that went backwards.

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 4:12pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:12pm | ! Report

                That’s of course assuming that Maloney jogging is traveling at the same speed that the fastest guy in the league running for the try line is, not to mention ignoring factors such as spin on the ball, the distance the ball travels compared to the distance the players travel and the fact that League is not played in a vaccuum tube

              • June 7th 2018 @ 5:45pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:45pm | ! Report

                emcie, its got nothing to do with how fast jac moves, its relative displacement between the ball and the passer (maloney).

                and only the distance parallel to the sideline matters. their sideways vector is ignored.as is the time its in the air because that is equal for both the balls motion and maloneys in the comparison.

                i agree that things like spin and probably even atmosphere could have an impact which is why ive always said its just a rule of thumb guide test but given it passes that test (or tried to remeber to anyway) theres no reason to think its a particular dud call (spin could just as easily make it go further back and no reason to assume it would make it worse for example ).

              • Roar Guru

                June 7th 2018 @ 6:49pm
                Emcie said | June 7th 2018 @ 6:49pm | ! Report

                I was replying to Ray’s interpretation. At any rate, the momentum of the ball will drop off over distance.

                As has been said many times now, all this is just noise anyway. The only thing that matters is how the ball came out of the hands

              • June 7th 2018 @ 6:59pm
                soapit said | June 7th 2018 @ 6:59pm | ! Report

                yes. and it it comes forward out of the hand, without other force it will end up in front of maloneys continued position. it didnt this time so at the least not clearly forward.

      • Roar Rookie

        June 7th 2018 @ 1:01pm
        Ray Paks said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:01pm | ! Report

        I thought it was a little bit forward, which makes it at the end of the day ‘forward’. but we’ve seen some of those called back and others like last night let go. interesting reading all this momentum and velocity talk has some guys really sciencing the sh11tt out of this one..

        • June 7th 2018 @ 1:48pm
          jewboy said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:48pm | ! Report

          Why can ‘t they apply the old ‘duck’ science of identification…..’if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck’.
          Seriously though,the bunker should be allowed to rule on a forward pass ‘when a try is involved’.
          Surely they have enough technology and common sense to able to rule on “a howler”.

          • Roar Guru

            June 7th 2018 @ 4:00pm
            Mango Jack said | June 7th 2018 @ 4:00pm | ! Report

            Common sense seems to be lacking in this forum though. The ONLY criteria is whether the ball was projected towards the opposition try line at the point of release. Relative position of the player passing and receiving, and where the ball end up in relation to the player etc may be useful in explaining the optics, but have nothing to do with whether the pass should be ruled forward or not.

            See Section 10, P25:
            http://www.rlif.com/ignite_docs/Rugby%20League%20International%20Laws%20of%20the%20Game%20-%20Oct%202017.pdf

            • Roar Guru

              June 7th 2018 @ 5:13pm
              Matt H said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:13pm | ! Report

              Thank you!

            • June 8th 2018 @ 11:23am
              Dave said | June 8th 2018 @ 11:23am | ! Report

              ” 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”

              So it clearly was not a forward pass.

    • June 7th 2018 @ 9:03am
      Canberra Matt said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:03am | ! Report

      QLD played a tight game and though NSW didn’t really ‘click’ they still put 4 tries on and only conceded to a kick and an intercept – bring on game two…

    • Roar Guru

      June 7th 2018 @ 9:03am
      The Barry said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:03am | ! Report

      It’s a funny one Tim…NSW were a couple of cms from two more tries to JAC and Mitchell and we’re talkinh about a shellacking.

      But I agree, it wasn’t just those two calls, Queensland didn’t get a 50/50 all night.

      They were also their own worst enemies at times. They dominated the middle 20 of the second half but low percentage plays early in the count from Chambers and Morgan handed possession back to NSW when Queensland should have been grinding their line.

      Un-Queensland like number of missed tackles too. Right edge had Chambers 10, Kaufusi 8 and Hunt 5. That’s enough for an entire team.

      That was a fantastic game though especially for a game one where combinations can be a bit rusty. I guess that’s a big question for game two, has NSW hit the ground running or can they improve their cohesion for game 2? How much Queensland improve by bringing in Slater, Scott, Gillett and Ponga.

      Who has the most improvement in them for game 2?

      • June 7th 2018 @ 9:29am
        jamesb said | June 7th 2018 @ 9:29am | ! Report

        That’s a good summation.

      • Roar Rookie

        June 7th 2018 @ 10:20am
        William Dalton Davis said | June 7th 2018 @ 10:20am | ! Report

        I may be in the minority but I think Oates should’ve been in the side. While QLD do start making metres as the half goes on during those first 15-20 minutes each half they really struggled making metres. Oates if nothing else will put QLD on the front door more often than not. The only question is whether they can fit him in the side. Not this year I’d say. Apart from two or three misses I thought Chambers did a great job on Mitchell, Gagai and Inglis simply won’t be dropped, and Holmes is the closest thing to a goal kicker we have and a better finisher than Oates.

        Our biggest problem imo was simply a couple of bad misses at crucial times. While I personally love taking a refereeing error from the X minute and blaming that, in the end Kaufusi’s effort on Cook was poor for the first try, Chambers should’ve made the one on one on Fox, and Tedesco was simply given too much room. Make no mistake though this NSW team is beastly.

      • June 7th 2018 @ 12:42pm
        Magic Lyrebird said | June 7th 2018 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

        TB, I think QLD did get some fifty-fifties. I’d call the Maloney pass that WAS called forward a fifty-fifty – it looked backwards out of the hands to me (I am sure others will disagree). Also, there were quite a few short forward passes from QLD players (McCullough in particular) that weren’t called. (There were also a few of these from NSW that weren’t called.)

        Overall, however, I agree – I think NSW got the rub of the green with the refereeing. (Though I do wonder whether QLD’s amazing line-speed in the second half might have had something to do with standing offside – they never show the wide shots on the telly, so it’s hard to say.)

        • June 7th 2018 @ 2:02pm
          Albo said | June 7th 2018 @ 2:02pm | ! Report

          Spot on !
          I can’t believe the carry on here over one forward pass and one strip ! After the decades of rubs of the green to QLD. There were 50 forward passes in the game last night mostly by QLD that were allowed to go. Then the QLD pack was offside all night or do we call that great line speed these days ? But we all knew there was no whistle blowing in these games. NSW gifted QLD their two tries with Maloney errors, otherwise it would have been a complete shut out . The NSW team will have an enormous upside from this experience for game 2 and QLD will once again weep & gnash their teeth as to whether to do “the QLD pick & stick” or change out some of the duds they selected for game 1 ?

          • Roar Guru

            June 7th 2018 @ 5:15pm
            Matt H said | June 7th 2018 @ 5:15pm | ! Report

            Hyperbole alert!

            “After the decades of rubs of the green to QLD. There were 50 forward passes in the game last night mostly by QLD that were allowed to go. Then the QLD pack was offside all night “

      • Roar Guru

        June 7th 2018 @ 1:46pm
        Rellum said | June 7th 2018 @ 1:46pm | ! Report

        Chambers was terrible in defense. Those around him not much better.

    Explore:
    , , , ,