LBW would be considerably less complicated. A cricket ball will only travel at most 2 metres up and down, 1 metre side to side, and the 22 yards along the pitch. The Hawkeye cameras have to only watch a small volume, while some computers can then calculate the trajectories and where the ball would most likely end up had it not hit the leg pad.

In rugby you would have to increase the volume that hawkeye-style cameras must watch by a factor of a thousand. And then it would have to figure out loads of other things like how fast the player was moving when he passed it, the exact moment of the passing action, whether wind affected the ball after it was inflight, in what direction the player was passing it...
Doing all this while the cameras probably can't even see the ball due to the mass of players around it would make it a tough job. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think the specific technology currently exists to do this as accurately as is wanted by most spectators. Or at least it would be hugely financially unviable.

It's not as simple as you're making out. In a textbook situation, yes, it is basic geometry. But there are so many variables. Using some technology to superimpose digital lines on the pitch could be done, but that's no help when players can pass foward relative to the pitch due to them imparting their own forward velocity onto the ball

Please explain in relation to....

a) where you are sat/stood when said forward pass is given

b) where the touch judge is.

c) where the refereee is.

d) wether the match is on TV or not.

e) where the cameras, if there, are in relationship to said forward pass.

and finally

when you last had an eye test



Forward passes are probably , at times, some of the hardest decisions to make within a split second whilst a game is in progess.

Isn't that then an argument to check by video ref if it was a forward pass?

Why not just rule that, for televised games, given the available information (existing footage) if a pass [ulooks[/u forward in the build up to a try, then it is. That might rule out some pass which in reality might not have been but also allow the video ref to rule on the many more passes which clearly are. Instead of the current situation where the video ref cannot even rule on obvious forward passes.

The main reason many passes "clearly are" forward to so many punters is that they have no idea what a forward pass is (cf Saddened and his belief that putting lines on the pitch would in any way be relevant).

It was a digustingly forward pass and the fact that Hicks, a Super League referee was the linesman makes it all the worse. It's beyond a joke now

Bollocks.

My idea would work. If you had a line going perpendicular to the touchlines at the point the pass is made you could calculate the angle it departs the hands. Don't tell me they couldnt do it with the technology they have today. One of the things used in hawkeye is the angle it departs the hand for example.

People understand forward passes. It's not the fans that are in the wrong. The pass everyone is talking about leaves the hand at about a 40 degree angle. It's so clearly forward.

Warrington's 2nd try last week was more clearly forward IMO, and none of the commentary team batted an eyelid.

If the video ref can rule on offside at the kick, they can rule on forward passes. The same arguments apply.

Class




I know your serious as well.

Scathing self-critique. But, I suppose, fair comment


But if you could, that wouldn't help. At all.


There is a lot of truth in that. Many passes are called forward by the crowd for the sake of it, but every week there are blatant forward passes, which instinctively half the crowd instantly sees and calls, yet the officials ignore. It puzzles me. I have to assume this is done on instructions as I don;ty believe the officials are the only people in the ground who don't see it.