Last weekend we again saw a match result very arguably decided by a try that was awarded despite a blatant forward pass being thrown.
While the video replays clearly showed that the pass was unquestionably bad, the Bunker was unable to overturn the howler as it can’t rule on forward passes.
The burning question is “why the hell not?”
Every season, we see this exact situation happen multiple times. One team gets robbed and the other gets lucky. This time it was the Raiders that were robbed. However, the Warriors – and pretty much most other sides – have been on the rough end of the pineapple at one time or another.
Graham Annesley on Monday admitted that referee Henry Perenara and touch judges Rickey MacFarlane and Drew Oultram had made a big blunder not calling back the Ben Murdoch-Massila try due to the blatant forward pass from Kodi Nikorima.
Annesley even hinted that the technology might soon exist for the Bunker to rule on forward passes soon.
Here’s a news flash Graham: it already exists. It is called video replays, a set of eyes and some common f$#king sense.
So why isn’t that already the methodology I hear you ask?
The case against forward passes being review by the Bunker is based on physics.
The laws of physics – the very same culprit that brought you such family favourites as gravity, diffraction and sound waves, as well as existential horror stories like the second and third laws of thermodynamics – also bring to you the laws of momentum.
Here is what the rule book officially says:
“FORWARD means in a direction towards the opponents’ dead ball line.”
And then
“Direction of Pass: 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.”
In a nutshell, the person passing the ball has momentum that transfers to the ball when passed.
A person running fast – as rugby league players often do – can pass a ball backwards but the transferred momentum will mean that it continues forward towards the try line after release by the passing player. So while the ball technically travels forward it was not in fact thrown forward.
The key term that is used is “backwards out of the hands.”
I have had this argument made to me passionately by a number of ex-NRL first grade officials as to why forward passes shouldn’t be reviewed by the Bunker. In the past I have ceded to their expertise.
However, that stops now. It is just dumb.
Because of this logic, as it stands now the Bunker does not review any incidents of possible forward passes – or passes called forward that might not have been – because there are sometimes incidents where the player has such momentum that, while they do pass the back backwards, it travels forward.
To me that logic is akin to not prosecuting a type of crime because there are incidents where the person being prosecuted was found innocent.
The referee calls a forward pass on Rabbitoh Cody Walker. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Surely we can establish through video review whether a player passed the ball backwards but transferred sufficient momentum that the ball travelled forward. Surely that is possible.
Surely the Bunker – right now and without the aid of any further technology – can also pick up where a pass is clearly just forward, as was the case with Nikorima’s pass to Murdoch-Massila.
Officials are human. They make mistakes. The Bunker is there as a safeguard for that. Forward passes have been, as long as I’ve been following rugby league, a constant issue. It is time that they were included in reviews.
While it might be embarrassing in the short term for an official to have their ruling overturned at the time, in the long term officials actually prefer that option over a howler they make being subject to prolonged scrutiny.
Make no mistake, the officials hate these incidents as much as the teams and the fans. It is their reputations that are affected and competence that is brought into question. They may even get dropped.
One of the officials who failed to call the Nikorima pass as forward was Rickey MacFarlane. His experience in 2017 with a missed forward pass was not a pleasant one.
Not only did he incorrectly call a pass from Anthony Milford to Ben Hunt forward, causing a good try to be disallowed, he was hung out to dry for the mistake by then Referees boss Tony Archer and then dropped to NSW Cup.
Given that experience, you could understand that Rickey – or any NRL officials for that matter – might be a little hesitant to make calls on forward passes.
It is just logical to bring the ability for forward passes to be reviewed by the Bunker. Let’s make sure that the laws of physics form part of any video review, but momentum is only one consideration when a forward pass is concerned. It cannot and must not be the only consideration.
Because the current state of affairs isn’t working for anyone.
The NRL Bunker – from the inside. (Photo: Joe Frost)
Ricky Stuart alleged abuse of Henry Perenara
In my role as sideline eye for ABC Radio Grandstand, I was on the side of the pitch for the Raiders-Warriors clash.
The only person closer to Ricky Stuart during the game than myself was Fox broadcaster Matt Russell. When the Nikorima pass was let go by the officials I immediately looked to Stuart for his reaction.
While Stuart was clearly upset and made exclamations – which like the majority of the 13,000+ crowd included expletives – at no stage did I see him target abuse towards any official.
Further, at the time of incident the closest official – touch judge Drew Oultram – was already well past Stuart and out of earshot.
At the conclusion of the match Stuart immediately left the sideline and went to his teams dressing sheds, well before the officials departed the field.
While I’ve made the NRL aware of my very relevant perspective in regard to the Ground Managers report, I am yet to be contacted as part of their investigation into the matter.
I assume they’ll call Matt and myself any moment now.
PK
Guest
Well not having forward pass ruling just cost Cowboys a Grand final birth. A lesser team now go through and the whole shabang is a farce an absolute joke. Cows would have to be the most robbed finals team since The Hand of Foran in 2012 and the invention of the 7 tackle set in 2013 so they could justify poor refereeing putting Sharks into the next final. If you are facing backwards and the ball goes forward it can only be one thing it's common sense.
Joey
Guest
.. *watch this, I meant of course
Joey
Guest
Hi Tim, what this pure physics analysis of the forward pass on YouTube. It’s got nothing to do with where the player caught it. The one over the back of the head proves it. NRL need to watch. Fans and commentators likewise. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg
The Warriors finally get a call in their favour, and the NRL media goes ape-sheit Man, give it a rest. Only 300 more calls need go the Warriors way to even the score.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
In the Dragons v Knights game the video ref has intervened after a try was awarded to the Dragons. The video ref ruled the no try because of a knock on or a forward pass by the player who was cut out in the pass to Lomax who passed to the winger who scored. The pass to Lomax was legal and there was no deflection forward after touching the decoy runners so there was no knock on or forward pass if there was a touch at all. There was no common sense displayed by the video referee.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
It's a discussion about using the video ref to check for forward passes. Ricky Stuart has been criticised for his dummy spit and walking out of the post game interview where he would've given the Warriors their due credit. On the Greg Chappell scale of bad sportsmanship it is a 1/10.
Greg
Roar Pro
There is only one genuine solution and that is to modify the rule. Suggestions for rewording (which would need fine tuning) would be: pass receiver must be behind passer at time of release. Essentially the same as a kick. This would allow some genuine forward passes to be allowed but still prevent someone running down field for a pass. Or The receiver must be behind the passer when he catches the ball. So theoretically the passers momentum should keep him in front of the ball. There may however be the odd occasion of a player being driven backwards in a tackle faster than the ball is travelling backwards. The rule as it stands will always have grey areas to what is/isnt a clear forward pass
Rossi
Roar Rookie
But Tim, if this happens Uncle Nick won't be happy as Jake Friend will have to learn how to pass backwards!
watcher
Guest
Before having the Bunker rule on forward passes how about first getting the Bunker to be more credible on the decisions they make now. How far back will this go, if the pass to the Winger from a Centre is suspect, do you review back to the DH pass. To me there is more of a problem with forward passes from play the balls than anywhere else. As to the pass in the Raiders game, to say that pass cost the Raiders is just wrong, the Warriors were well on top at that stage, what is to say wouldn't have won even if it had been called. Secondly over the last couple of years the NRL have apologised to the Warriors a couple of times for called forwards passes that were wrongly called which would probably have cost Warriors wins. Rub of the green perhaps. There seems to be a media bias towards the bigger teams and this storm in a teacup is another example.
Chris.P.Bacon
Guest
Yep. Excellent video (a bit long though) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s&ab_channel=MKuwashima
Pilferer
Roar Rookie
The bunker should only be used for touch in goal , groundings and foul play reviews. Nothing else , if the ref doesn't call obstruction or forward pass then thats the call just like it is when the play doesn't involve a try.
Nat
Roar Guru
Baked at 7am? You're a real community leader aren't you? Your parents must be so proud. You embarrass yourself every time you post. You have Raiders fans who patronise you because you're a pa-thetic stereotype who can only to bring up the 2019 GF because you got nothing else to say. And Sweetheart, the last word is for those who can form a sentence.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yeah, true
The Barry
Roar Guru
Conclusive was your word not mine, I don’t know why you’re throwing it back in my face. Why didn’t you just say the bunker rules on the forward pass instead of “if it’s conclusive...” The answer to your other questions is obvious. It’s far easier to judge a knock on or an offside or a grounding or a foot in touch or a ball on the line on a replay than it is to judge a forward pass Having the bunker review those things is far less controversial than forward passes. Very few forward passes are conclusive compared to say whether a winger has put a foot in touch or a player is offside at a kick As I keep saying this isn’t me guessing, it’s been done before, we’ve lived through this and it was a shambles What do you think worked so well last time that you want to re-introduce it with no discernible increase in technology?
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Baz, when the attacking team kicks thru & a team mate chases thru & sores a try, often the bunker has to rule on a very close offside call. How conclusive does it have it have to be or do we scrap the review & say it's all too hard? When the player chasing through takes possession of the ball in the air but there is a slight hint that the ball might have touched the defender before the attacking player takes full possession of the ball & grounds the try. How conclusive does it have it have to be or do we scrap the review & say it's all too hard? There is often the same scenario with double movements, but they are allowed to be reviewed. So many times, we do not have accurate camera angles so we have to live with that. Every week I watch games where the video referee states it is not conclusive please proceed. I can live with that, what I struggle with is the NRL not wanting to step up to the plate & allow the bunker to rule on clear forward passes in a try scoring play. The issues you state that would prevent you on allowing forward passes to be reviewed are issues that already exist on other rulings but we are still using the bunker to review them.
soapit
Roar Guru
nah you could pass it quite a way forward doing that, think of chip kicks
soapit
Roar Guru
tim currently every close forward pass call would be seen to e wrong by a significant proportion of viewers. its just not understood well and i think its more than the nrl broadcast could overcome to educate them (or at least would take a big effort).
Zalera
Roar Rookie
While the issue of forward passes is a very real one that needs to be discussed, why is this so controversial in comparison to the other times the Warriors have been on the other end? Other teams have forward pass complaints against them every week but now we need a rule change because this game pushed the issue over the edge? Why? Also why is Ricky so reluctant to acknowledge that the Warriors out played his team in the second half regardless of the pass?
Kerry Hanson
Guest
You remind me of an ex of mine Sheepie. Ya not the cat with the sharpest claws , and you’re obsessed with having the last word. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Do you really think I don’t know the forward pass rule and whether the actual rule is changing? Rather than writing “changing the way the rule is adjudicated by the bunker in a lead in to a try” I’m using the shorthand of “changing the rule”. So yeah, it’s 100% semantics that doesn’t add any value to the discussion Your idea on how it works sounds fine in theory, but it’s this line that is the problem “If there is conclusive evidence that it is a forward pass” That all sounds well and good but the problem is that part about the evidence being conclusive. How conclusive is conclusive? How far forward does a pass have to be in order to be conclusive? If the bunker ref thinks it was forward, but just a bit forward, does he let it go? How can you have a rule adjudicated that? As I’ve said, this isn’t a guess on how things will work out. It’s been done before and it was a hot mess This is being promoted as “use the technology”. It’s not technology. It’s a ref watching a TV. It’s adding another layer of officiating with no evidence that we’ll get better results - especially when we start speaking about things like “only if it’s conclusive”