France XV for AB game
Donnie
Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal -
Marconnet, Servat, Barcella
Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
Half a surprise with Traille at full back. M�dard, the usual FB, at the
wing.
Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled
out because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire
and Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille
audience to prove the difference once again.
D.
Matua
"Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
news:4b0bb5dc$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
Mm, I wonder where you're from Donnie???
All Blacks will ream you!!!!
Matua.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
> "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b0bb5dc$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal - Marconnet,
> > Servat, Barcella
>
> > Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
>
> > wing.
>
> > Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled out
> > because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire and
> > Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>
> > France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille audience
> > to prove the difference once again.
>
> > D.
>
> Mm, I wonder where you're from Donnie???
> All Blacks will ream you!!!!
>
> Matua.
he is FRENCH you dopey nob jockey
Donnie
>
> Mm, I wonder where you're from Donnie???
> All Blacks will ream you!!!!
>
> Matua.
Your latent homosexuality is perhaps hard to stand for you. But please
have a try for good now. You'll feel... relieved boy.
D.
davy
Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
D
Paul
no...@home.net says...
...
>
> Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
> the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
> D
>
He played at no. 8 for Stade Francais last weekend - they lost 18-20 to
Racing.
As for his getting back into the French team, I don't hold out much hope.
Paul
Klitty
You hope he does?
He was made to do community service and was ruled out of the
Internationals by the coach as a smack on the hand.
,----
| The coach added that Bastareaud would certainly not be part of the
| France team that plays three Test matches this November but that he
| would not be out of the equation in future.
`----
I kind of feel sorry for the dolt. Why NZrs take it so personally I
don't know. He got pissed up, fell over, shit himself he would be sent
home and shamed and being a dumb forward concocted that silly story. At
least he came clean.
Personally I think he should be sent on a creative writing course.
Matua
"Herman van Rumpy (President)" <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b053e02e-5289-4c96...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 12:05 pm, "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote:
> "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b0bb5dc$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal -
> > Marconnet,
> > Servat, Barcella
>
> > Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
>
> > wing.
>
> > Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled
> > out
> > because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire and
> > Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>
> > France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille
> > audience
> > to prove the difference once again.
>
> > D.
>
> Mm, I wonder where you're from Donnie???
> All Blacks will ream you!!!!
>
> Matua.
he is FRENCH you dopey nob jockey
Hey cocksmoker!!!! is he really french ????
Fuck me, wae that a big whoosh.
How did MWM go NEWPORT??????????????????
Matua
What in the fuck are you on you slimey snail eater???
You should know all about being releieved, check with your father.
All Blacks will rip you a new one, FAGGOT!!!
coo...@nospamverizon.net
>>
>> D.
>
> Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
> the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
> D
Nah, he's working at customs at DeGaulle Airport - extra checks of Kiwi
handbags.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
> "Herman van Rumpy (President)" <michaelnewp...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b053e02e-5289-4c96...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 12:05 pm, "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4b0bb5dc$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
> > > Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal -
> > > Marconnet,
> > > Servat, Barcella
>
> > > Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
>
> > > wing.
>
> > > Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled
> > > out
> > > because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire and
> > > Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>
> > > France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille
> > > audience
> > > to prove the difference once again.
>
> > > D.
>
> > Mm, I wonder where you're from Donnie???
> > All Blacks will ream you!!!!
>
> > Matua.
>
> he is FRENCH you dopey nob jockey
>
> Hey cocksmoker!!!! is he really french ????
> Fuck me, wae that a big whoosh.
> How did MWM go NEWPORT??????????????????
Matua Wanks Monkeys ?
Donnie
> What in the fuck are you on you slimey snail eater???
> You should know all about being releieved, check with your father.
> All Blacks will rip you a new one, FAGGOT!!!
No no no, All Blacks won't rip anything to anyone, naughty boy. Go see
your parents now and tell them your fantasies about men. Your dad knows
something about that for sure ;-)
D.
Matua
Change hands bonkbreath, if the ABs get through without squashed
testicles,eye gouges, punches, hair pulling, and having their heads stomped
on, we'll smack you.
Then your whole team can go downtown and get beaten up by 5 kiwis. You bunch
of lying pretenders.
Get some original lines about dad will you fucknuckle!!
I bet you run around in little shorts like your faggot french hooker
Szarzewski, eh rimboy ??
Bobs
> Traille - Clerc, Marty, Jauzion, Médard - (o) Trinh-Duc, (m) Dupuy -
> Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal -
> Marconnet, Servat, Barcella
>
> Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
>
> wing.
>
> Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled
> out because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire
> and Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>
> France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille
> audience to prove the difference once again.
>
> D.
A weak backrow means the game is lost before it starts.
Backrow is the most important combo in the game
NZ by 40 points.
Klitty
Pfft. Someones been on the moonshine again.
Q: how many of the current AB squad were playing the last two times France
beat them?
Andrew Dunford
"Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
news:4b0bb5dc$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
I'm really looking forward to it. It's very nice of you to play the match
at night so that I don't have to get out of bed early on Sunday morning to
watch it.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hei0ht$tkv$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
2009 Dunedin: 15 of the 22 who played that day are on the current tour
2007 Cardiff: 10 of the 22 are on the current tour
Probably be more interesting to look at the 22 who are selected for the
match.
Let's also look at the last two times it actually was 'NZ by 40 points' in
France:
2006 Lyon: 11 of the 22 are on this tour
2004 Paris: 7 of the 22 are on this tour
So, the conclusion we reach by looking at the 2006 and 2007 results is that
New Zealand could either win by 40 points, or lose.
Andrew
Osbourne Ruddock
news:09bd0597-5072-4a69...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>> Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy
>> ruled out because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But
>> Bonnaire and Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>>
>> France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille
>> audience to prove the difference once again.
>>
>> D.
>
> A weak backrow means the game is lost before it starts.
>
> Backrow is the most important combo in the game
>
> NZ by 40 points.
Jaysus Bobs, we've averaged 1 try per test this year. How are you
expecting this jackpot of points to arrive?
--
Cheers, Os
Ian Jennings
> "Klitty" <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Is there some way you could put money on that?
Ian
didgerman
Forward pass? /walks of whistling
Osbourne Ruddock
september.org:
>>>
>>> NZ by 40 points.
>>
>> Jaysus Bobs, we've averaged 1 try per test this year. How are you
>> expecting this jackpot of points to arrive?
>>
>
> Forward pass? /walks of whistling
We're not playing clever enough to score any of those at the moment
Didge.
--
Cheers, Os
Andrew Dunford
"didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
news:heiq2m$3vc$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
I was thinking more ten penalties and five drop goals.
Andrew
didgerman
I dunno, last pass for the AB's first try last weekend looked, er,
questionable to me.
Brent Hadley
> Osbourne Ruddock wrote:
> > didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote innews:heiq2m$3vc$2...@news.eternal-
> > september.org:
>
> >>>> NZ by 40 points.
> >>> Jaysus Bobs, we've averaged 1 try per test this year. How are you
> >>> expecting this jackpot of points to arrive?
>
> >> Forward pass? /walks of whistling
>
> > We're not playing clever enough to score any of those at the moment
> > Didge.
>
> I dunno, last pass for the AB's first try last weekend looked, er,
> questionable to me.
Of course it did.
Cheers
Brent
didgerman
And according to two match reports it was forward. One of those was in a
Scottish newspaper, which just about proves it was tbh.....
For the record, it was forward, but it was the good work of forwards and
Sivivatu that got you there. McCaw potentially butchered the whole thing.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brent
Andrew Dunford
"didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
news:heisi4$ktc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
But not as dodgy as the professional foul which Thompson committed to
prevent the second.
Andrew
couchpotatoe
> I dunno, last pass for the AB's first try last weekend looked, er,
> questionable to me.
Well it would to you.
Is that all you have got?
didgerman
Happens all the time, as does chucking it forward.
>
> Andrew
Brent Hadley
One wonders if either of those newspapers saw the side on replay on
the Sky coverage, which was very clear and showed a legal pass.
One suspects not - Sunday journos usually don't have the luxury of
much reflection before pumping out their match reports. Of course,
one might say that given that lack, an intelligent person would not
comment on the issue rather than saying something stupid; after all,
it's not like they're ideally placed to assess the nature of the pass
from either their place in the stand or the oblique angle of the
standard match camera. But there you go - journos gotta eat I guess.
Facts are just so boring, and don't always sell papers.
Cheers
Brent
didgerman
> On Nov 25, 10:14 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>
>> I dunno, last pass for the AB's first try last weekend looked, er,
>> questionable to me.
>
>
>
> Well it would to you.
Yes, and why is that?
>
> Is that all you have got?
No.
Matua
Fuck off you moaning grizzling pommie fuck, go neck yourself camperboy.
Massive Generalisation
"Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
news:FS8Pm.57453$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
lol
didgerman
Ok, just watched it in super slow mo, Sky footage, it was forward. McCaw
passed the ball forward, end of story.
Donnie
> I bet you run around in little shorts like your faggot french hooker
> Szarzewski, eh rimboy ??
Don't get carried away boyo... Watching rugby is obviously not healthy
for you. You mum's sick and tired washing your creamie pants day after day.
But, 'cause I'm a good person with fragile mind guys, please have a look
on this :
http://images.google.fr/images?hl=fr&safe=off&um=1&q=dieux+du+stade&revid=195458884&ei=PSMNS93FH9ad-AaevuirCA&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&start=0
Oulala, Matua's mama already yelling...
D.
Brent Hadley
You're just delightful sometimes didge.
Cheers
Brent
didgerman
It was forward, I can see it, the Guardian sees it, the Scotsman sees
it, it looked forward in real time, other posters on other forums saw
it. It was a forward pass, we don't need to discuss this.
Klitty
That's strange. You seem willing to discuss some forward passes and not
others. In this case the forward pass benefited your lads and you're
supporting it like Jocks would their last bottle.
BrritSki
> On Nov 25, 9:38 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>> Brent Hadley wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 9:14 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>>>> Osbourne Ruddock wrote:
>>>>> didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote innews:heiq2m$3vc$2...@news.eternal-
>>>>> september.org:
>>>>>>>> NZ by 40 points.
>>>>>>> Jaysus Bobs, we've averaged 1 try per test this year. How are you
>>>>>>> expecting this jackpot of points to arrive?
>>>>>> Forward pass? /walks of whistling
>>>>> We're not playing clever enough to score any of those at the moment
>>>>> Didge.
>>>> I dunno, last pass for the AB's first try last weekend looked, er,
>>>> questionable to me.
>>> Of course it did.
>> And according to two match reports it was forward. One of those was in a
>> Scottish newspaper, which just about proves it was tbh.....
>> For the record, it was forward, but it was the good work of forwards and
>> Sivivatu that got you there. McCaw potentially butchered the whole thing.
>
> One wonders if either of those newspapers saw the side on replay on
> the Sky coverage, which was very clear and showed a legal pass.
>
Brent Hadley
You have a fine career ahead of you as some sort of Minister of
Information somewhere. "Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"
Cheers
Brent
didgerman
And we're arrogant.....
I don't understand why you're making a tit of yourself: anybody who
played that back can see it's forward, you only have to look at McCaw's
feet and the lines on the grass. He threw it forward. You may as well
walk around saying your hair is green as say that was a legal pass.
Odd.
Charles
wrote:
It is apparent that your tired repetitive repertoire could do with
some fresh material. Whereas you have been somewhat amusing in the
past, you have become latterly, a real boring dreary predictable old
fool.
Klitty
Anyone that disagrees with Brend is a troll. So stop trolling him. And
that forward pass in RWC was easily spotted and Barnes is clearly a
cheat.
Matua
"Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
news:4b0d252f$0$962$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
I knew you were a fag "Donnie Dung Dipper"
Here Covey sent this clip of you in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu7K1qYju0A&feature=related
ABs will kick your butts.
JD
> passed the ball forward, end of story.
Troll, troll, troll your boat...
Brent Hadley
> Brent Hadley wrote:
> > You have a fine career ahead of you as some sort of Minister of
> > Information somewhere. "Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"
>
> And we're arrogant.....
> I don't understand why you're making a tit of yourself:
> You may as well
> walk around saying your hair is green as say that was a legal pass.
Cognitive dissonance, ahoy. Sorry, but it's not arrogance to tell
someone they're wrong when they are, in fact, wrong. It's called
being right.
I'm probably going to regret getting sucked into this, but hey. So,
let me break this down for you didge. Check out the replay that's
shown at 59:20 (couple of minutes after the try). It's a side on
view, from just behind the players. There's no lines on the ground or
anything like that (and that you even talk about lines on the ground
shows that you don't understand the momentum rule for forward passes,
but hey, whatever, let's just skip past that for the moment). The
camera is behind the players slightly, and McCaw throws the pass
towards the camera. There's no way that pass can go towards the
camera unless it's backwards. If it was forwards then it'd look like
McCaw had thrown it towards the goalline from that angle, given where
the camera is.
As far as using lines on the field to judge forward passes, let's just
say that the rulebook and senior international referees don't agree
with you, but it's no wonder you think everything is forward if you
think the laws work like that.
The laws do not work like that.
Cheers
Brent
clegg
<snip>
> view, from just behind the players. There's no lines on the ground or
> anything like that (and that you even talk about lines on the ground
> shows that you don't understand the momentum rule for forward passes,
Can you point to this momentum rule, please? Cannot find anything in the
laws about it.
New Model Clegg
BrritSki
must pass backwards, but if a player is running forward he can pass
backwards from his frame of reference, but because of the momentum that
the ball has from being carried forwards, it will travel forwards from
the point of release.
However this only applies if the player is actually moving forwards, but
not if he is stationary, moving sideways or just flips the ball on as so
many of the claimed momentum FPs are.
Brent Hadley
The law says 'THROWN forward'.
A pass can be THROWN backwards but still TRAVEL forward due to physics
(i.e. ballcarrier not at rest when passing). People have posted here
in the past that referees have confirmed that this is the directive as
to how the law is applied.
You may say that this is a fine distinction, but any law is full of
distinctions. Obviously the rugby league rule, which explicitly
states the momentum rule, is preferable. But hey.
Cheers
Brent
Klitty
Consider you are on a train. You throw an apple up in the
air. It does not suddenly vanish backwards taking the head off the
people behind you ...
etc etc etc
Brent mentioning momentum is probably thinking of "worst case" (though
rare) that someone passes at the point he is totally 100% stopped. It
appears (to the casual observer) that ball was passed forward because
the ball travels further forward than the player .. that is very rare
indeed.
Don't ask NZers about forward passes. They think its a hemisphere thing
....
didgerman
Hmmm, I was talking about the lines in the grass where the mower had
been. Still think it's questionable, but hey ho, it was that marginal
that it probably didn't matter, a bit like *that* pass.....
Anyway, the worst thing about this is having to listen to Stuart Barnes
over and over again: Can you hit reply again and confirm that he makes
some kind of 'release' noise as NZ score? It's almost like he does a
little sex wee in his pants. Why does he have to keep saying 'Richie
McCaw' and 'Daniel Carter'? He only uses surnames for everyone else.
Just give him a NZ passport for god's sake.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brent
clegg
> On Nov 26, 3:09 pm, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>> clegg wrote:
>>> Brent Hadley wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> view, from just behind the players. There's no lines on the ground or
>>>> anything like that (and that you even talk about lines on the ground
>>>> shows that you don't understand the momentum rule for forward passes,
>>> Can you point to this momentum rule, please? Cannot find anything in the
>>> laws about it.
>> Probably not, but it's inherent in the physics. The law just says you
>> must pass backwards, but if a player is running forward he can pass
>> backwards from his frame of reference, but because of the momentum that
>> the ball has from being carried forwards, it will travel forwards from
>> the point of release.
>>
>> However this only applies if the player is actually moving forwards, but
>> not if he is stationary, moving sideways or just flips the ball on as so
>> many of the claimed momentum FPs are.
>
> The law says 'THROWN forward'.
>
> A pass can be THROWN backwards but still TRAVEL forward due to physics
> (i.e. ballcarrier not at rest when passing). People have posted here
> in the past that referees have confirmed that this is the directive as
> to how the law is applied.
Anecdotal. Is there a clear formal statement that direction of the pass
rather than the travel of the ball is the criterion for determining a
throw forward?
Speaking from a refereeing perspective, the problem is one of judgement;
it is much more difficult for the ref. to judge the direction the hands
were moving at the point the ball was released, than to judge the actual
travel of the ball. Practically, therefore, the momentum effect is
largely academic - while I have seen the carefully-staged referee
coaching video, it seems that the vast majority of argument over forward
passes concentrates on whether the ball physically moved forward, not
how the player's hands travelled.
To put it another way, hand movement is relative, ball travel is
absolute; the latter is much easier to judge.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of typical ball speed at the
pass versus typical player speed; anyone know of anything like this?
Personally, I am fairly certain that the ball can travel faster than the
player, but that does not mean it
> You may say that this is a fine distinction, but any law is full of
> distinctions. Obviously the rugby league rule, which explicitly
> states the momentum rule, is preferable. But hey.
Rugby league preferable? Naughty - go wash out your keyboard.
New Model Clegg
Neilsons
"clegg" <mynameh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yYWdneaeAaH-BZPW...@bt.com...
There is a pretty good referees video of it on Youtube somewhere that has
been touted around plenty times before during these types of discussions.
cheers, aMtt
Matua
"Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hem9ab$h5c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Forward passes still wouldn't help your team Klitty!!
clegg
Probably this one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s
I made reference to that earlier; does not convince me as a formal
statement of how the laws are to be interpreted.
Gregg
Apteryx
There is certainly a formal statement to that effect - Law 12. How clear
it is is perhaps a matter for debate. The definition of a forward pass
(or actually of a "throw foward") is "when a player throws or passes the
ball forward". I would day that focuses more on what the player does to
the ball than on what inicidentally happens to the ball, but there is no
doubt it could have been more clearly expressed
> Speaking from a refereeing perspective, the problem is one of judgement;
> it is much more difficult for the ref. to judge the direction the hands
> were moving at the point the ball was released, than to judge the actual
> travel of the ball.
I don't think so. In the ideal (and admitedly rarely fully realised)
situation the ref would be running forward at the same speed as the
players. He is in the same frame of reference as them. To him, they are
relatively stationary. If the ball is thrown foward, it will appear to
him to go foward out of the frame of reference, more obviously than it
would to a stationary person. Conversely, if it doesn't appear to move
foward out of their mutual frame of reference, it can't have been thrown
foward. It is only the armchair ref who is disadvantaged.
Practically, therefore, the momentum effect is
> largely academic - while I have seen the carefully-staged referee
> coaching video, it seems that the vast majority of argument over forward
> passes concentrates on whether the ball physically moved forward, not
> how the player's hands travelled.
>
> To put it another way, hand movement is relative, ball travel is
> absolute; the latter is much easier to judge.
From a stationary perspective. A good ref ought not be stationary.
> It would be interesting to see an analysis of typical ball speed at the
> pass versus typical player speed; anyone know of anything like this?
> Personally, I am fairly certain that the ball can travel faster than the
> player, but that does not mean it
Newton knew something about it. And no, the ball cannot travel foward
faster than the player unless the player throws it forward (or a wind
strong enough to overcome the normal air resistance to the ball carries,
it, or it has little rockets attached to it). While the player carries
the ball, it naturally travels at the same speed as the player. When he
passes it, Newtonian physics dictates that it will continue foward at
the same speed unless a force is applied to it (in fact a backwards
force - air resistance - is always applied to it, so if nothing else is
happening it will slow down). It can accelerate to a faster foward speed
only if a foward force is applied to it - ie, if it is thrown forward,
the wind carries it, or those little rockets.
Apteryx
Geoff Muldoon
> Brent Hadley wrote:
> >> Probably not, but it's inherent in the physics. The law just says you
> >> must pass backwards, but if a player is running forward he can pass
> >> backwards from his frame of reference, but because of the momentum that
> >> the ball has from being carried forwards, it will travel forwards from
> >> the point of release.
> > A pass can be THROWN backwards but still TRAVEL forward due to physics
> > (i.e. ballcarrier not at rest when passing). People have posted here
> > in the past that referees have confirmed that this is the directive as
> > to how the law is applied.
>
> Anecdotal. Is there a clear formal statement that direction of the pass
> rather than the travel of the ball is the criterion for determining a
> throw forward?
I admit to being one of the people referred to by Brent in the above
posting. I received back in 2006 email correspondence from Bruce Cook,
the IRB Match Official Technical Support Officer confirming that the
interpretation of the law in the way Brent describes it is indeed correct.
Geoff M
Brent Hadley
wrote:
> clegg says...
>
> > Brent Hadley wrote:
> > >> Probably not, but it's inherent in the physics. The law just says you
> > >> must pass backwards, but if a player is running forward he can pass
> > >> backwards from his frame of reference, but because of the momentum that
> > >> the ball has from being carried forwards, it will travel forwards from
> > >> the point of release.
> > > A pass can be THROWN backwards but still TRAVEL forward due to physics
> > > (i.e. ballcarrier not at rest when passing). People have posted here
> > > in the past that referees have confirmed that this is the directive as
> > > to how the law is applied.
>
> > Anecdotal. Is there a clear formal statement that direction of the pass
> > rather than the travel of the ball is the criterion for determining a
> > throw forward?
>
> I admit to being one of the people referred to by Brent in the above
> posting.
Man, you don't have to sound like it's so painful to agree with me.
Cheers
Brent
Geoff Muldoon
> > > > A pass can be THROWN backwards but still TRAVEL forward due to physics
> > > > (i.e. ballcarrier not at rest when passing). People have posted here
> > > > in the past that referees have confirmed that this is the directive as
> > > > to how the law is applied.
> > I admit to being one of the people referred to by Brent in the above
> > posting.
>
> Man, you don't have to sound like it's so painful to agree with me.
The pain is in the recurrence of the topic and the inability of some to
understand basic physics and logic.
GM
northshoreguynz
Is it a good or bad thing that Rick Boyd no longer contributes. He
really loved this stuff.
Cheers
Stephen
BrritSki
BrritSki
sounded like you were disagreeing ! ;)
(yes, yes, I know I said pass backwards rather than thrown, but I wasn't
claiming to quote the law, only its intent).
clegg
Thanks Geoff - useful information. Still, there should be a
publically-available statement somewhere to this effect; this is not a
trivial interpretation, after all - apparently it can even decide the
outcome of the RWC.
http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/lawsrulings/index.html
New Model Clegg
clegg
Heh! I am aware of this pain, and I am trying to palliate it, not
exacerbate it. It is not the physics that I am questioning - I agree
that is painfully obvious - but the official position on interpretation
of the law. If this was clear, perhaps debate would be much less frequent.
I am not sure logic comes into it much; while we can agree on the
physics, the crux of the question is how that can be practically judged
in play.
New Model Clegg
clegg
Good point, although "incidentally" is a little disingenuous; what
happens to the ball is largely dependent on the passer.
> but there is no
> doubt it could have been more clearly expressed
Precisely.
>> Speaking from a refereeing perspective, the problem is one of
>> judgement; it is much more difficult for the ref. to judge the
>> direction the hands were moving at the point the ball was released,
>> than to judge the actual travel of the ball.
>
> I don't think so. In the ideal (and admitedly rarely fully realised)
> situation the ref would be running forward at the same speed as the
> players. He is in the same frame of reference as them. To him, they are
> relatively stationary. If the ball is thrown foward, it will appear to
> him to go foward out of the frame of reference, more obviously than it
> would to a stationary person. Conversely, if it doesn't appear to move
> foward out of their mutual frame of reference, it can't have been thrown
> foward. It is only the armchair ref who is disadvantaged.
I understand the argument, but it is indeed ideal and even simplistic;
the ref. will rarely be at the same speed as the passer, and as soon as
the ball is released it will decelerate - or even accelerate in a strong
following wind. There's another wrinkle!
> Practically, therefore, the momentum effect is
>> largely academic - while I have seen the carefully-staged referee
>> coaching video, it seems that the vast majority of argument over
>> forward passes concentrates on whether the ball physically moved
>> forward, not how the player's hands travelled.
>>
>> To put it another way, hand movement is relative, ball travel is
>> absolute; the latter is much easier to judge.
>
> From a stationary perspective. A good ref ought not be stationary.
Well, yes, but see above; in addition, he does not really have the time
to focus on the movement of the passer's hands at the instant of
release. He may, for instance, be too busy watching Payne elbowing Hore.
>> It would be interesting to see an analysis of typical ball speed at
>> the pass versus typical player speed; anyone know of anything like
>> this? Personally, I am fairly certain that the ball can travel faster
>> than the player, but that does not mean it
Should have completed "...always does".
> Newton knew something about it. And no, the ball cannot travel foward
> faster than the player unless the player throws it forward (or a wind
> strong enough to overcome the normal air resistance to the ball carries,
> it, or it has little rockets attached to it). While the player carries
> the ball, it naturally travels at the same speed as the player. When he
> passes it, Newtonian physics dictates that it will continue foward at
> the same speed unless a force is applied to it (in fact a backwards
> force - air resistance - is always applied to it, so if nothing else is
> happening it will slow down). It can accelerate to a faster foward speed
> only if a foward force is applied to it - ie, if it is thrown forward,
> the wind carries it, or those little rockets.
Sorry, did not make myself clear about the relative speed analysis : I
was wondering how probable it is that a fast-moving passer would be able
to throw the ball backwards with enough force to counteract the forward
speed of momentum - i.e. so that the ball would travel backwards (or at
least laterally) in an absolute frame of reference.
Gregg
Brent Hadley
> Sorry, did not make myself clear about the relative speed analysis : I
> was wondering how probable it is that a fast-moving passer would be able
> to throw the ball backwards with enough force to counteract the forward
> speed of momentum - i.e. so that the ball would travel backwards (or at
> least laterally) in an absolute frame of reference.
Well yeah, it is. If the recipient is stationary or sufficiently far
behind the passer the the ball will have to travel backwards in order
to be caught.
The issue arises when you have a relatively flat line of receivers
running on to the ball. Unfortunately, that's quite an effective
attacking formation.
Cheers
Brent
Chris Parslow
> On Nov 27, 9:36 am, clegg <mynamehere_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, did not make myself clear about the relative speed analysis : I
> > was wondering how probable it is that a fast-moving passer would be able
> > to throw the ball backwards with enough force to counteract the forward
> > speed of momentum - i.e. so that the ball would travel backwards (or at
> > least laterally) in an absolute frame of reference.
>
> Well yeah, it is. If the recipient is stationary or sufficiently far
> behind the passer the the ball will have to travel backwards in order
> to be caught.
Think this through Brent and you'll realise it is not so.
CP
CP
Brent Hadley
Not getting your point.
Cheers
Brent
Mark (newsgroups)
The receiver could be stationary and in front of the ball carrier when
the ball is passed, the ball would be passed backwards but still
travel forward and he'd receive it.
Brent Hadley
wrote:
Sure, but Ben was talking about a case where the pass would travel
backwards in an absolute frame of reference.
No pass could ever travel backwards in an absolute frame of reference
if the passer was behind the receiver at the time they threw the
pass. I think we're talking about different things.
Cheers
Brent
SHUSSBAR
> "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b0c5512$0$961$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
> > Matua a écrit :
>
> >> What in the fuck are you on you slimey snail eater???
> >> You should know all about being releieved, check with your father.
> >> All Blacks will rip you a new one, FAGGOT!!!
>
> > No no no, All Blacks won't rip anything to anyone, naughty boy. Go see
> > your parents now and tell them your fantasies about men. Your dad knows
> > something about that for sure ;-)
>
> > Dunce
>
> Change hands bonkbreath, if the ABs get through without squashed
> testicles,eye gouges, punches, hair pulling, and having their heads stomped
> on, we'll smack you.
>
> Lame excuses already, bit early
SHUSSBAR
> "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Traille - Clerc, Marty, Jauzion, Médard - (o) Trinh-Duc, (m) Dupuy -
> > Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal - Marconnet,
> > Servat, Barcella
>
> > Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
>
> > Half a surprise with Traille at full back. Médard, the usual FB, at the
> > wing.
>
> > Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled out
> > because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire and
> > Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>
> > France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille audience
> > to prove the difference once again.
>
> I'm really looking forward to it. It's very nice of you to play the match
> at night so that I don't have to get out of bed early on Sunday morning to
> watch it.
>
> Andrew
What time would that be in NZ? We like to accommodate our guests the
best way possible :-)
Good game.
Matua
"SHUSSBAR" <shus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c1ab88c-27bb-4aef...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 5:51 pm, "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote:
> "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b0c5512$0$961$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>
> >> What in the fuck are you on you slimey snail eater???
> >> You should know all about being releieved, check with your father.
> >> All Blacks will rip you a new one, FAGGOT!!!
>
> > No no no, All Blacks won't rip anything to anyone, naughty boy. Go see
> > your parents now and tell them your fantasies about men. Your dad knows
> > something about that for sure ;-)
>
> > Dunce
>
> Change hands bonkbreath, if the ABs get through without squashed
> testicles,eye gouges, punches, hair pulling, and having their heads
> stomped
> on, we'll smack you.
>
> Lame excuses already, bit early
We'll see foggy!!!!
Chris Parslow
This is easier to illustrate than explain, but...
stationary receiver - A player running at pace throws not-too-quick
pass directed slightly backward relative to himself, releasing the
ball just *before* the stationary player. If he is running quickly
enough and his judgement of pass width and pass speed is OK, the ball
will be catchable by the intended recipient.
recipient well behind passer - This is all about relative speed of
the players and the speed of the ball through the air. If the
intended recipient is already travelling faster than the fella with
the ball or has good acceleration, a longish floater directed backward
relative to the passer may hang long enough for the intended recipient
to run onto it. A pass floated backward by a fella travelling
reasonably quickly will still travel forward relative to the
ground.
CP
Charles
That's easy enough to understand Chris but for practicality's sake
it's meaningless.
Take the case of the team bus travelling to the game. A ball is thrown
'backwards' down the length of the bus at 30 mph, while the bus is
travelling forward at 60mph.
The ball in those circumstances, despite be thrown backwards, is in
fact travelling forward at 30 mph.
Thus the great Rick Boyd conundrum is exploded, again, for the
nonsensical sham it always was.
Have a great weekend mate - you know I intend to!! ;o)
Andrew Dunford
"SHUSSBAR" <shus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:22279419-e468-4e6d...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 7:34 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>> "Donnie" <bla...@bla.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4b0bb5dc$0$967$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>>
>> > Traille - Clerc, Marty, Jauzion, M�dard - (o) Trinh-Duc, (m) Dupuy -
>> > Bonnaire, Dusautoir (cap), Ouedraogo - Millo-Chlusky, Chabal -
>> > Marconnet,
>> > Servat, Barcella
>>
>> > Subs : Mas, Szarzewski, Nallet, Puricelli, Parra, David, Heymans
>>
>> > Half a surprise with Traille at full back. M�dard, the usual FB, at the
>> > wing.
>>
>> > Weakened link should be the back row. Picamoles and Harinordoquy ruled
>> > out
>> > because of injury. They were clearly the best options. But Bonnaire and
>> > Ouedraogo are two clever guys.
>>
>> > France by 8 points and a thrilling game. 3 tries to 2. Marseille
>> > audience
>> > to prove the difference once again.
>>
>> I'm really looking forward to it. It's very nice of you to play the match
>> at night so that I don't have to get out of bed early on Sunday morning
>> to
>> watch it.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> What time would that be in NZ? We like to accommodate our guests the
> best way possible :-)
> Good game.
I think it starts at 8.45am. Plenty of time to get the bacon and eggs on.
Andrew
Klitty
Jesus H, Did no one here study applied Math?
It's relative to the passer of the ball. End of subject.
didgerman
Go easy: when Charles was born cars had men walking in front with red
flags. Soon after, it was thought that the human body would break up
above 30mph. Hence his child like amazement at games on buses.
Charles
The passer of the ball had no close family members present so
relativity doesn't come into it, let alone applied "Math" (Yank
apologist) which has no relative application unless you take away the
first number you thought of, and add your favourite Aunt's age.
The Jaapies played like pratts - well done the Paddies.
Have a great weekend Walter - you know I am!! ;o)
Charles
wrote:
Same old same old eh Didge, you boring old arsehole!
Do you ever have an original thought other than where your next drink
is coming from, you Janner faced prick!
HAGW!! ;o)
Greig Blanchett
[,,,]
>
>Take the case of the team bus travelling to the game. A ball is thrown
>'backwards' down the length of the bus at 30 mph, while the bus is
>travelling forward at 60mph.
>
>The ball in those circumstances, despite be thrown backwards, is in
>fact travelling forward at 30 mph.
Yes, that's the momentum thing.
>
>Thus the great Rick Boyd conundrum is exploded, again, for the
>nonsensical sham it always was.
Err ,,, no. You've just explained it quite clearly. The ball was
thrown BACKWARDS. And that's exactly how the refs whistle it. The
ball's relative motion to the ground is irrelevant. It went backwards
so play on.
--
greig
Charles
<gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:07:22 +0000, Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>[,,,]
>>
>>Take the case of the team bus travelling to the game. A ball is thrown
>>'backwards' down the length of the bus at 30 mph, while the bus is
>>travelling forward at 60mph.
>>
>>The ball in those circumstances, despite be thrown backwards, is in
>>fact travelling forward at 30 mph.
>
>Yes, that's the momentum thing.
>>
>>Thus the great Rick Boyd conundrum is exploded, again, for the
>>nonsensical sham it always was.
>
>Err ,,, no. You've just explained it quite clearly.
That was my intention!!
>The ball was thrown BACKWARDS. And that's exactly how the refs whistle it. The
>ball's relative motion to the ground is irrelevant.
Whoosh! ;o)
>It went backwards so play on.
Er... ok ... thank you!
QED!
HAGW!
Paul
says...
> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
>
> > In article <4b0bcc32$0$5421$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> > no...@home.net says...
> > ...
> >>
> >> Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
> >> the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
> >> D
> >>
> >
> > He played at no. 8 for Stade Francais last weekend - they lost 18-20 to
> > Racing.
> >
> > As for his getting back into the French team, I don't hold out much hope.
> >
> > Paul
>
> You hope he does?
I hope he doesn't. His behaviour in NZ should rule him out of the team.
Incidentally he was back at centre for Stade on Friday and they lost 18-
22 to Toulon. Stade's regular no. 8, Parisse, will be out for several
months because of injury.
Paul
Klitty
> In article <heh9ih$2jk$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, mitt...@gmail.com
> says...
>> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
>>
>> > In article <4b0bcc32$0$5421$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
>> > no...@home.net says...
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
>> >> the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
>> >> D
>> >>
>> >
>> > He played at no. 8 for Stade Francais last weekend - they lost 18-20 to
>> > Racing.
>> >
>> > As for his getting back into the French team, I don't hold out much hope.
>> >
>> > Paul
>>
>> You hope he does?
>
> I hope he doesn't. His behaviour in NZ should rule him out of the
> team.
Why? He git pissed up and made a mistake. You don't forgive people for
mistakes?
He's a rugby player, Not a particle physicist.
> Incidentally he was back at centre for Stade on Friday and they lost 18-
> 22 to Toulon. Stade's regular no. 8, Parisse, will be out for several
> months because of injury.
>
> Paul
--
Two Dogs
> >>>>>>>> Osbourne Ruddock wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote innews:heiq2m$3vc$2...@news.eternal-
> >>>>>>>>> september.org:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> NZ by 40 points.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jaysus Bobs, we've averaged 1 try per test this year. How are you
> >>>>>>>>>>> expecting this jackpot of points to arrive?
> >>>>>>>>>> Forward pass? /walks of whistling
> >>>>>>>>> We're not playing clever enough to score any of those at the moment
> >>>>>>>>> Didge.
> >>>>>>>> I dunno, last pass for the AB's first try last weekend looked, er,
> >>>>>>>> questionable to me.
> >>>>>>> Of course it did.
> >>>>>> And according to two match reports it was forward. One of those was in a
> >>>>>> Scottish newspaper, which just about proves it was tbh.....
> >>>>>> For the record, it was forward, but it was the good work of forwards and
> >>>>>> Sivivatu that got you there. McCaw potentially butchered the whole thing.
> >>>>> One wonders if either of those newspapers saw the side on replay on
> >>>>> the Sky coverage, which was very clear and showed a legal pass.
> >>>>> One suspects not - Sunday journos usually don't have the luxury of
> >>>>> much reflection before pumping out their match reports. Of course,
> >>>>> one might say that given that lack, an intelligent person would not
> >>>>> comment on the issue rather than saying something stupid; after all,
> >>>>> it's not like they're ideally placed to assess the nature of the pass
> >>>>> from either their place in the stand or the oblique angle of the
> >>>>> standard match camera. But there you go - journos gotta eat I guess.
> >>>>> Facts are just so boring, and don't always sell papers.
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>> Brent
> >>>> Ok, just watched it in super slow mo, Sky footage, it was forward. McCaw
> >>>> passed the ball forward, end of story.
> >>> You're just delightful sometimes didge.
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Brent
> >> It was forward, I can see it, the Guardian sees it, the Scotsman sees
> >> it, it looked forward in real time, other posters on other forums saw
> >> it. It was a forward pass, we don't need to discuss this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You have a fine career ahead of you as some sort of Minister of
> > Information somewhere. "Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Brent
>
> And we're arrogant.....
> I don't understand why you're making a tit of yourself: anybody who
> played that back can see it's forward, you only have to look at McCaw's
> feet and the lines on the grass. He threw it forward. You may as well
> walk around saying your hair is green as say that was a legal pass.
> Odd.
Didge, me old mate, I won't argue forward passes with you but I
can't help noticing it's one fairly relaxed Kiwi and three of your own
countrymen calling you on your assertion. Was it worth cutting the
bait?
Two Dogs
didgerman
Fine, *that* French pass wasn't forward either then, momentum you see......
>
> Two Dogs
Two Dogs
The record book says it wasn't. I've always argued we lost the game
elsewhere.
Two Dogs
Paul
> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
>
> > In article <heh9ih$2jk$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, mitt...@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <4b0bcc32$0$5421$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> >> > no...@home.net says...
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
> >> >> the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
> >> >> D
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > He played at no. 8 for Stade Francais last weekend - they lost 18-20 to
> >> > Racing.
> >> >
> >> > As for his getting back into the French team, I don't hold out much hope.
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >>
> >> You hope he does?
> >
> > I hope he doesn't. His behaviour in NZ should rule him out of the
> > team.
>
> Why? He git pissed up and made a mistake. You don't forgive people for
> mistakes?
>
> He's a rugby player, Not a particle physicist.
Do higher standards of behaviour apply to particle physicists?
Bastareau was in New Zealand representing his country, and what he did
was an embarrassment to France. Probably I should have said "should rule
him out of the team for a certain time". It depends on how long the
French selectors (and the New Zealanders perhaps) bear grudges. And the
French can be unpredictable.
Do you mean "you" as in me, or "you" as in people in general? Do _you_
think he should be back in the national team?
Paul
Klitty
> In article <hetu58$je2$4...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
> mitt...@gmail.com says...
>> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
>>
>> > In article <heh9ih$2jk$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, mitt...@gmail.com
>> > says...
>> >> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <4b0bcc32$0$5421$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
>> >> > no...@home.net says...
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wheres that bastard Bastardreux - or is he prowling the streets after
>> >> >> the game hoping that 5 NZers will beat him up?
>> >> >> D
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > He played at no. 8 for Stade Francais last weekend - they lost 18-20 to
>> >> > Racing.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for his getting back into the French team, I don't hold out much hope.
>> >> >
>> >> > Paul
>> >>
>> >> You hope he does?
>> >
>> > I hope he doesn't. His behaviour in NZ should rule him out of the
>> > team.
>>
>> Why? He git pissed up and made a mistake. You don't forgive people for
>> mistakes?
>>
>> He's a rugby player, Not a particle physicist.
>
> Do higher standards of behaviour apply to particle physicists?
>
No. But someone a bit smarter might have figured his concocted story
would have a huge fallout and be discovered as a lie.
> Bastareau was in New Zealand representing his country, and what he did
> was an embarrassment to France. Probably I should have said "should
> rule
Yes, we know .....
> him out of the team for a certain time". It depends on how long the
> French selectors (and the New Zealanders perhaps) bear grudges. And the
> French can be unpredictable.
He was dropped from this series of SH Tests.
>
> Do you mean "you" as in me, or "you" as in people in general? Do _you_
> think he should be back in the national team?
Yes he should. All red faced and contrite if his performances warrant a
call up.
>
> Paul
--