It is a good example, as in that case Tadulala batted the ball behind him and it passed backwards over his head, but still was not deemed to be a "pass". I think the argument there, though was whether he passed the ball or not. I.e. was his action a "throw" or wasn't it? You CAN throw a ball by cupping it in the palm of your hand and propelling it - that's how cricket fielders operate all day long, for example. The VR obviously decided there was no "throw" to make it a pass within the rules. So therefore as it did still move forward relative to the pitch, it had to be a knock on. Which sort of reinforces what a just said, that if it ain't a pass, then it don't matter what else it is, if it goes forward it's a knock on.

No, I wasn't happy with it at all, but if you ask the simple question, "Was what he did a 'throw' of the ball?" - then in the cold light of day, it probably wasn't.

It was completely different to JJB though. JJB just made a slight play at the ball, which struck his arm, whereas Tadulala deliberately and successfully went to bat the ball back infield.

Indeed he did, he batted it, IMO (and the refs) he didnt 'throw' it and either way it went forward, a clear knock on, as was JJB's.

Why is a forward pass not offside - surely the player receiving the ball is in front of the player playing the ball when he receives it?

But not always when the ball is released.

a player can be offside & penalty awarded if he is intentionlly stood in front of the player when it's passed to him. You see these sometimes from acting half back plays. Otherwise it's accidental offside most of the time if he's a little infront of the player passing the ball.

Technically it is offside but because it is deemed to be unintentional then there is just a scrum but no penalty. It does state in the rules that at the referees discretion he can award a penalty. Can`t say I`ve ever seen it happen though.

...no it isn't...not in most cases anyway, as offside is judged at time of pass not the catch.

I like TA`s answer but to me it`s much more simple. whether it was passed, batted, slapped or tipped the initial movement from Tadulala was backwards, yes the ball did what rugby balls have always done and, on hitting the ground, changed direction and bounced forward but the impetus from Tadulala was definitely backwards.

I also believe you can be penalised for a deliberate forward pass??

I`m not so sure about that Bob. You`re right about when the offside is judged but If a passer throws the ball to a player who isn`t in front of him it isn`t a forward pass. I`d say the vast majority of forward passes are thrown because the receiver has overrun the passer ie. is offside.

That's not correct, the player receiving the ball may be behind that passer but have to run forward to catch the ball.

your point is clear and has already been addressed, for no reason at all you ate defining a 'knock' as any action which isn't a 'throw' you are also deciding there is a ruling where a pass is judged relative to the player and a knock is judged relative to the ground, yet there is nothing in the rules to describe that as being the case, a forward pass is where the ball has been passed forward and a knock is where the ball has been knocked forward, the momentum ruling is simply added clarification, it doest change anything and if I were to be removed the rules would be exactly the same as they are now. Both describe a action (the knock or the pass) causing an effect (the ball going forward) for an offence to be committed the action has to cause the effect, if it doesn't it isn't an offence as described in the rules. In both the tadulala and jjb incidents the action(the knock) wasn't the cause of the effect (the ball going forward) and as per the rules should have been given!

That's one problem with the rule, not even addressing the fact jjb no more ' knocked it than he did pass it, nor does it address whether pass and throw are interchangeable

If we are going to referee it your way, fine, let's put it in the rules, there is no reason not to, just as there is no reason for us to collectively pretend it's in there