RugbyRebels

Could this be used to good effect if you advise the ref of your intent prior to the game? Just a thought...

Similarly; as a re-gathered forward fumble is not a knock-on, I've often wondered if there's anything in the laws which says you can't chuck the ball up in the air and catch it again to avoid a tackle..?

Sourdust wrote:Similarly; as a re-gathered forward fumble is not a knock-on, I've often wondered if there's anything in the laws which says you can't chuck the ball up in the air and catch it again to avoid a tackle..?

I'm sure there is. I think it counts as a forward pass (described in the Laws as a "throw forward")

Lizard wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Similarly; as a re-gathered forward fumble is not a knock-on, I've often wondered if there's anything in the laws which says you can't chuck the ball up in the air and catch it again to avoid a tackle..?

I'm sure there is. I think it counts as a forward pass (described in the Laws as a "throw forward")

But by definition it's not a "throw forward" - if it was, you'd have to accelerate in order to catch it. A player running at a steady pace would have to throw the ball vertically, not forwards, for this to work.

I remember years ago watching a game involving two Aussie teams. Where at a penalty or free kick a few metres from the try line the person with the ball started play and then headed it over the onrushing defence for a team mate running on to dot down. The try was awarded.

Sourdust wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Similarly; as a re-gathered forward fumble is not a knock-on, I've often wondered if there's anything in the laws which says you can't chuck the ball up in the air and catch it again to avoid a tackle..?

I'm sure there is. I think it counts as a forward pass (described in the Laws as a "throw forward")

But by definition it's not a "throw forward" - if it was, you'd have to accelerate in order to catch it. A player running at a steady pace would have to throw the ball vertically, not forwards, for this to work.

I understand the physics of what you are talking about, but in real life I would suggest that you could not actually throw the ball up and still beat a tackler without throwing it forward. Otherwise you would need to throw it so early that the tackler could pull out and go for the ball.

Sourdust wrote:Similarly; as a re-gathered forward fumble is not a knock-on, I've often wondered if there's anything in the laws which says you can't chuck the ball up in the air and catch it again to avoid a tackle..?

I'm sure Chris Ashton has tried that when trying to mix up his falling over before taking contact skillz.

Lizard wrote:

Sourdust wrote:

Lizard wrote: I'm sure there is. I think it counts as a forward pass (described in the Laws as a "throw forward")

But by definition it's not a "throw forward" - if it was, you'd have to accelerate in order to catch it. A player running at a steady pace would have to throw the ball vertically, not forwards, for this to work.

I understand the physics of what you are talking about, but in real life I would suggest that you could not actually throw the ball up and still beat a tackler without throwing it forward. Otherwise you would need to throw it so early that the tackler could pull out and go for the ball.

I hadn't thought of that, and you may be right. I'd love to see someone try it, and the tackler get pinged for deliberate knock-on!

Sourdust wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Sourdust wrote:
But by definition it's not a "throw forward" - if it was, you'd have to accelerate in order to catch it. A player running at a steady pace would have to throw the ball vertically, not forwards, for this to work.

I understand the physics of what you are talking about, but in real life I would suggest that you could not actually throw the ball up and still beat a tackler without throwing it forward. Otherwise you would need to throw it so early that the tackler could pull out and go for the ball.

I hadn't thought of that, and you may be right. I'd love to see someone try it, and the tackler get pinged for deliberate knock-on!

plus the tackler is still allowed to tackle you

cymroo wrote:

Sourdust wrote:

Lizard wrote: I understand the physics of what you are talking about, but in real life I would suggest that you could not actually throw the ball up and still beat a tackler without throwing it forward. Otherwise you would need to throw it so early that the tackler could pull out and go for the ball.

I hadn't thought of that, and you may be right. I'd love to see someone try it, and the tackler get pinged for deliberate knock-on!

plus the tackler is still allowed to tackle you

Eh? Really? Without the ball?

Sourdust wrote:

cymroo wrote:

Sourdust wrote:
I hadn't thought of that, and you may be right. I'd love to see someone try it, and the tackler get pinged for deliberate knock-on!

plus the tackler is still allowed to tackle you

Eh? Really? Without the ball?

Aye, if you are trying to control the ball you can be tackled, you can't deliberately throw the ball in the air forwards and catch it, you can, however, move the ball forwards when trying to gain control of it and regather before it touches the floor without being penalised.

That's what I'm getting at. If you can lose fumble the ball forwards and re-gather, why can't you deliberately throw it upwards (NOT forwards) and re-gather? There would be an appreciable time without the ball where a would-be tackler could (should?) pull out.

Leaving aside the physics of the throw for a moment, I'm simply wondering how the laws justify making the latter move illegal (or if indeed they do), while allowing the former.

Sourdust wrote:That's what I'm getting at. If you can lose fumble the ball forwards and re-gather, why can't you deliberately throw it upwards (NOT forwards) and re-gather? There would be an appreciable time without the ball where a would-be tackler could (should?) pull out.

Leaving aside the physics of the throw for a moment, I'm simply wondering how the laws justify making the latter move illegal (or if indeed they do), while allowing the former.

I think you can do this (as long as it's not forwards), and I don't think you could be tackled while the ball was in mid air. It's the throwing it forward which makes it fall foul of Law 12, because that makes it a "throw forward" as per the rules. Why anyone would throw the ball straight up though, I don't know!

(Let's not get into whether it's forward relative to the player's motion or relative to the pitch here.... hmmmm, although it's a new board, maybe we should have another 100 page thread to christen it )

I know, the physics winds people up, but it is very simple, and crucial.

If you throw the ball STRAIGHT UP, while running FORWARDS at a constant speed, you and the ball will reach the same spot at the same time. I'm not asking if it would work - it would definitely work. What I'm asking is why it's illegal. If it's because the throw is "forward", then that specifically contradicts the law for any other pass.

I refer m'learned gentlemen to the case of Stimpson vs Cheating Saffer Basterds, 1990-something.

Tim Stimpson was tackled while juggling, but not actually holding, the ball and on the verge of regaining control and scoring. The tackle was judged fair, as he was judged to be in control of the ball, even if not holding it at that instant, and plans to introduce specialist jugglers into the game were shelved.

I seem to remember that in the same match Joost van der Westhuizen did something unspeakable and ungentlemanly that resulted in a score for them and we wuz robbed.

Edit. Done a bit of research I think it was 2000, not 1990 something, at Loftus Versfeld and England lost 18-13. Tim Stimpson tackled by Andre Vos. The dodgy JvdW try was in the preceding match at Blomfontein, which England won. In searching for details I came across this discussion, which may be of interest:
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-16353.html

Sourdust wrote:That's what I'm getting at. If you can lose fumble the ball forwards and re-gather, why can't you deliberately throw it upwards (NOT forwards) and re-gather? There would be an appreciable time without the ball where a would-be tackler could (should?) pull out.

Leaving aside the physics of the throw for a moment, I'm simply wondering how the laws justify making the latter move illegal (or if indeed they do), while allowing the former.

It's what the Laws specifically say:

Law 12:

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it

...

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward, i.e, if the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Note there is nothing about the ball touching the ground or another player in the definition of throw forward, whereas there is in the definition of knock-on. (This was not always the case and a regathered fumble forward used to be classed as a knock-on. I'm not sure when the Law changed but I think in the 19th or early 20th C)

Sorry everyone, move along!

We're obviously going around in circles here. The move I'm positing involves throwing the ball vertically, relative to his body. Not forward. His arms do not "move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line" , but 90 degrees straight up. The ball describes a parabola, the player maintains his speed, rounds his opponent, and catches the ball again. If he's running fast enough, he could even throw it slightly BACKWARDS relative to his body, and then still catch it by slowing slightly.

I think I'm going to go with "it's just too darned tricky to do" as an explanation!

Sourdust wrote:Sorry everyone, move along!

We're obviously going around in circles here. The move I'm positing involves throwing the ball vertically, relative to his body. Not forward. His arms do not "move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line" , but 90 degrees straight up. The ball describes a parabola, the player maintains his speed, rounds his opponent, and catches the ball again. If he's running fast enough, he could even throw it slightly BACKWARDS relative to his body, and then still catch it by slowing slightly.

I think I'm going to go with "it's just too darned tricky to do" as an explanation!

Technically, that would be legal but I can't see it working in real life. Even if a player was adept enough to physically perform the manoeuvre within the laws, 99/100 refs would blow it up. If the ball was adjudged to have been deliberately thrown forward then the sanction would be a penalty, so the risk is high. Also, 99/100 tacklers would still put the hit in or at least a block, similar to how payers who fumble ahead of a tackle are treated. In fact, I would argue that a player who throws the ball (straight up or backwards) with the intention of immediately regathering it is still a "ball carrier" and thus able to lawfully be tackled (similar to a player who makes a dinky "dummy pass" Carlos Spencer-style in which the ball is actually briefly released and then grabbed again - no one would suggest that a tackle made in the brief period when the ball is not in hand would be unlawful)

As a matter of fact, I have seen a similar thing attempted. When I was at school we often played touch rugby at lunchtimes (usually trending from "touch" to "held" to full tackle league). One of my mates (now a physiotherapist, I believe) used to throw the ball over a defender, regather and claim "no -touch" because he didn't have the ball. He would have actually been throwing forward but in any case, dickhead moves like that merely tended to accelerate the transition from "touch" to "tackle."

Good thoughts, thanks.

Yes, I'd thought about the notion of still being technically the "ball-carrier", although I'm imagining a throw high enough for the ball to be in the air for perhaps 2 seconds. I'm sure you're right that a modern ref would blow up anyway whatever the technicalities. But I'd still be interested in how one would react if, for example, a player warned him of his intent to try this before kick-off...

If my high school physics is intact, 2 sec "hang" time would need a throw some 5m in the air. A tackler could also predict exactly where the regathering would take place and smash him.

As for what a referee would do, I would hope he would warn the player about only communicating with the ref through his captain, and then remind the captain that the sanction for a deliberate throw forward is a penalty. He should promise to watch for the arms going backwards (quite difficult when throwing upwards unless you actually slow down after throwing it.

Like I said - technically legal but almost impossible in reality.

Isn't there a catch-all law as well; for anything the ref doesn't like?
Something like, "conduct unbecoming of a rugby player"? not quite disrepute or anything, more a "never thought of that" or "don't be too much of a twat"

Sourdust wrote:Sorry everyone, move along!

We're obviously going around in circles here. The move I'm positing involves throwing the ball vertically, relative to his body. Not forward. His arms do not "move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line" , but 90 degrees straight up. The ball describes a parabola, the player maintains his speed, rounds his opponent, and catches the ball again. If he's running fast enough, he could even throw it slightly BACKWARDS relative to his body, and then still catch it by slowing slightly.

I think I'm going to go with "it's just too darned tricky to do" as an explanation!

As long as the ball doesn't go forwards then it would be fine, Bod passed the ball to himself on one occassion:

It looked a bit forward to me mind

The Story Of Spedegue's Dropper. Legal.

Which Tyler wrote:Isn't there a catch-all law as well; for anything the ref doesn't like?
Something like, "conduct unbecoming of a rugby player"? not quite disrepute or anything, more a "never thought of that" or "don't be too much of a twat"

'minoring the ball'...?. I'd give 'Forward pass', on the basis the player's trying to be a clever b*stard.