Stormers draw with Crusaders in thriller

There were a few more but didn’t want to start listing… but seeing as you started, one of the later mauls Marx completely detached from the back of the maul with ball in hand, and then reconnects. There was clear air between him and the pack and ref was right there. Barret penalised for pulling down another maul, being told others had engaged and he waited too long. Replay shows he pulled it straight down and was the only one engaged, completely legal. I’m sure the Crusaders got away with a couple but I don’t recall them (i freely admit I am one-eyed). But is frustrating as all we want is consistency. There were far more dubious passes in the game that the one that got called.

Don’t bother Clarke, you won’t convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced. We all know the convention on how to assess a forward pass, and I would bet so does Brett, it’s his team that got the benefit of the call, so naturally will view the call as correct, it’s human nature.

Well the direction of the hands is a bit of a misnomer to be fair. Simple question - did the player pass the ball forward. If you say Yes well then its forward for you but you seem to be basing your decision on where the ball was caught rather than looking at the actual pass.

I did… Saders player passes on the line. Saders players clasps it out of the air 2 meters pst the half way line…. wait wait…. we must all watch the direction of the flapping hands… it’s the hands I tell you!!

Yeah that makes sense. we were not the worlds number one team for 90 years with two world cups to boot without an extraordinary conspiracy among the world refereeing fraternity to make us win matches we would otherwise have lost. World sports greatest conspiracy.

I haven't said this for a long time so I'm going to say it again. I am of the opinion that judgments regards potential forward passes should be removed from the TMO process. The reason being is that the tool (i.e watching a TV replay) is totally flawed in that generally it gives a deceptive view. In this instance however, because the replay was more in line with play, I think the process should have worked. To me the TV replay clearly shows the player did not pass the ball forward.

I would have thought the solution lies with the match officials (including the TMO).

Brett - did you watch the video? The pictures explain it.

Yes, and so is where the ball was received, which I expect influenced the TMOs view of what happened. The TMO said there was compelling evidence that the pass was forward. I thought there was compelling evidence on my screen that the pass was not forward. Its obvious the ball drifted forward in flight but that was not caused by the ball being passed forward. I would suggest that it would be rather difficult to actually pass a ball in a forward direction and still be significantly in front of it when it is caught unless you were to lob it upwards.

African TMOS need to go unbelievable this guy is in the world cup ref squad . The fact he overruled the ref for something that wasnt obvious sums up african rugby I really seriously doubt there is a victory they can claim as their own without officials Bias .

Sorry Brett, but UH is completely correct. When deciding if the ball travelled 'forward out of the hand' the frame of reference of the passer must be considered. In this case, the passer's velocity appears to remain constant towards the attacking goal line. Therefore ignoring air resistance, if the passer is ahead of the ball at all times (included when received) then the passer's frame of reference is travelling at a greater velocity towards the goal line, than that of the ball. This can only occur if the ball travelled backwards out of the hand.

You missed the point. Harry wants exactly that TMO when South Africa is playing in Japan. Not another one. That one.

" When the TMO came back with that shocker I assume the ref felt bound to accept it." that shows how rubbish he is as a ref. and he is goiing to world cup. at least Rasta had the balls to refuse the TMO intervention to get Franklin sent off. Rasta was not great - he missed a lot of Lions infringements but at least he did not feel obliged to take the TMO call. and the beauty of it is - if he did and yellowed Franklin there will not have been any protest. but im still wondering how the TMO can keep getting in the refs ear. i thought world rugby changed the TMO protocol - so that they can only get involved when a ref talks to them and not he other way around seems saffa refs and TMOs and mangers and what anot are LAw unto themselves!!!

dude there were at least a couple of penalties in that last 10 minutes which are very contencious. u cannot lift a prop at a scrum - the lifter shud be penalised but in this case it was the lifted prop who got penalized then the high tackle by crusaders prop - both guys were halfway o the ground. it was not a standing tackle. but Berry and the touchies let go a neck high hit on Mounga previosly. and then there was the play on after havili was tackled by Willemse. that ball came off willemse's hand . lets call it a knock on in tackle - but then that ball was caught by a stormer way in front of willemse. shud have been penalty for off side play. Berry was and is rubbish - he shud not be going to world cup. there are far better refs but the powers seem to be hell bent on sending young boys to the battle field in order to make men of them !!!

MR. JONES plz explain what use is slow motion replays if as u say " But a no-spin float-toss that travels 5 m forward, even if the hands are OK, will OFTEN be called forward. " ??? if the ref called it - i will take it . he is seeing it at normal speed and looking at many thigns. but when the TMO look at it specifically - there is no way he is not looking at hnds. and if he is not lloking at hands then he is not respecting the WR LAWS and GUIDELINES. in such a case - do u want a TMO like that at the world cup ??

The solution for Ennor was a harder, flatter pass. The TMO would’ve let that go, even if momentum carried it 2-3 m forward. But a no-spin float-toss that travels 5 m forward, even if the hands are OK, will OFTEN be called forward.

By the 'in relation to the two players' argument logic, then if the passing player is abruptly stopped - say by a tackle- and cannot continue the run, then and only then the ball would be forward. So too, what would the argument be if that angle of pass was from a static position being the base of the scrum? The first point of reference is always the angle of the pass in relation to the direction of the passing player.

It's the hands that are important. Watch this video which explains how physics can make the ball go forward, even though it was passed backwards by a moving player. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Where Ennor was when the ball was received is completely irrelevant.

I simply can't understand what the fuss is about. 'Forward' by definition means moving in the direction that the advancing player is moving... and one of the principle rules in rugby is that passes must go in a backward motion from the passing player. So last night we had the Crusaders player passing exactly on the half way line. When his team mate receives it with his hands outstretched, that player is well ahead of that same half way line. Easy. There are two screenshots doing the rounds which prove the point. Don't be fooled by looking at where the hands are pointed out keeping an eye on the passing player who carries on running ahead to give the impression that the pass is behind him. It is the point of the pass and the point of the catch...draw a line between the two and you will see it was a forward pass.