Afraid you're the one who's wrong there. Players have everything to do with it. Just read the RFL definition if you don't believe me.

I wouldn't bother looking at the hands because that only works if the player is running parallel with the touchline (which is rare). I can tell whether a pass is forward by simply looking at it. If it was borderline I would ignore it but I would be able to call all the blatant ones that the refs miss.

Forward pass rule is always a tough one. Though there are many arguments for or against, I think we should keep it down to a referee decision. Yes they may not always spot it and it can have an influence on a game. But we have got on fine without it so far and though we get annoyed, all teams will have it their way at some point.

Carry on moaning as we are and we will have the VR judging the actual refs decisions. I think we should just get on with it, as annoying as it may be.

Don't know where you got that from, as I see no mention of tackled or not on that page. It talks about the relative positions of the passer and receiver only.

The bit I have issue with is this bit

The use of "invariably" (i.e. "always"icon_wink.gif for one option, and "rarely" for the other option means that there must be some occasions when a pass is both misjudgement and a deliberate offence! "Usually" or "normally" would be a better choice than "invariably" in that context.

Isn't it rightthatForward position.

i.e.

if the player that eventually catches the ball was behind/level with the player passing the ball when the ball was thrown it is not a forward pass. (Stevo's momentum rule)

It is in fact the position of the players and not the flight of the ball that matters.

Because of the ambiguity in that definition.

Is it the relative positions of the players when the ball is released, in which case a player can pass the ball forward and the player 'behind on release' may run on to the forward pass. So clearly that cannot be it.

If it is the relative positions of the players on catching the pass, then a player passing a ball backwards who is tackled after release can end up behind the ball they passed when the second player catches. Thus the relative position on catching cannot be used properly (hence my classic example, first video on a well known video sharing website for "Forward Pass" @2.36).

If it is the relative positions of [iwhere the players would have been had each carried on running at the same speed etc[/i** then you may as well ignore the players and work with the velocity that the ball already has, and if it's forward velocity is reduced* by the passing motion. The relative positions of the players could easily be ignored in this interpretation, which is the one I have always understood it as. Hence the requirement to "pass backwards".

EDITS
* Or more accurately not increased.
** This is equivalent to saying the pass is only taken relative to the passer (catcher ignored) and that they have passed behind them (heading relatively backwards at the instant of release, ignoring any other factors after release).

The "definition" part of that page is this

All the rest of it, including mention of the receiver, is just illustration. Quite simply, the passer must throw the ball backwards relative to him/herself. Nothing else matters. It really is that simple, and all mention of players speeding up, slowing down or getting tackled or not, is just confusing the issue.

If you turn to face your own sticks then, wherever you hurl the ball 'forwards' ie towards the oppositions try line, must by definition not be a forward pass eh?

After all this debate I'm starting to feel a modicum of sympathy for referees.

I know what you mean, I always thought that if a player who passed the ball passed it on the attacking 10 metre line and the recieving player recieved it 10.1metres away from the line it was a good pass, likewise if he recieved it 9.9 metres away from the try line it was a forward pass. But after a discussion on another board although technically correct if the passing player is stood still it is completely different when players are moving. And my conclusion is what you came out with.

But I don't why we can't have VR on forward passes, as it isn't the direction of the ball but the players hands that is the critical thing.

It's simple really - do away with the momentum rule and all this goes away. I am sure that all teams take advantage of the fact that the referee/linesman has to make an instant decision and that if he doesn't make that decision instantly there is no way in the rules to overrule any subsequent score. It is clear from video playbacks that some tries which rely upon the momentum rule are clearly forward passes. So if the rule was simply stated to be that the ball must travel backwards relative to the ground all this goes away.

Either that or stay as we are because any talk of micro chips and video analysis of the position of the hands etc., etc is nonsense.

Electronics in the ball is going to be trialled in Australia. The "chip" identifies whether a ball is released in a backwards direction. If it does a light/alarm will be triggered in the VR booth/4th Official area. They will then notify the referee. Advising the referee directly was deemed unacceptable as the syetm will "always be on" and a player throwing the ball forward to the scrumhalf for a scrum will activate it. gpsports.com/gpsports_website/?c ... ws&item=52

Electronics in the ball is going to be trialled in Australia. The "chip" identifies whether a ball is released in a backwards direction. If it does a light/alarm will be triggered in the VR booth/4th Official area. They will then notify the referee. Advising the referee directly was deemed unacceptable as the syetm will "always be on" and a player throwing the ball forward to the scrumhalf for a scrum will activate it. gpsports.com/gpsports_website/?c ... ws&item=52