The incredible 'backwards out the hands' rule

The receiver should be behind the passer when the ball is passed...and the"out of the hands backward" thing is just the existing interpretation of the " not throwing the ball towards the opposing goal line. "

It is a difficult thing to judge. Physics isn't for everyone, especially New Zeelanders 

If the ball travels forward, no matter the momentum, it's a forward pass.

Anyone can pass the ball forward with the hand action going backward. It's all to do with timing. I use it in tennis all the time. 

OK ,if I throw an apple out of my moving car .I fling it sideways out of my drivers window for 10m.It has forward momentum before I threw it so it should end up in front of the point that I threw it from.(if I drew an imaginary line from the point where I threw it)

Therefore most flat passes are technically forward passes,unless one standing still or running backwards whilst passing.

In places like Dunedin and Cape Town and others the wind can play a part...yes I'm being a spoilsport to this technically, in cricket an off spin can be disguised as a leg spin and vica versa (sic), yeah that's intentional.

With respect, the only way around this issue is to judge whether the ball left the passers hand level or backwards...that's the easiest way to adjudicate, anything more complicated adds another dimension to a host of other complexities that now bedevils the game...the old adage, kiss, in other words... keep it simple stupid should apply and yes Moz you also get NW and SE blasts in Cape Town...ofcourse you know that

How would it change things if the the rule was that the ball had to stay behind the player that passed it?

Pass forward if you want, but just make sure you're faster than the ball.

Say the ball was traveling at 20 degrees.

Would the passer be able to cover the forward progress that the ball makes in relation to the field?

Probably would make any difference. Might be easier to call though.

"Draw a little picture that might help you get over the obvious."

Kaboom !

I cannot understand how one of the oldest laws in the rugby law book has become such a contentious subject. I have a number of years’ law books downloaded on my laptop and it has been pretty straight forward. 

In the 2019 version it simply says something to the effect that you are not allowed to THROW the ball forward. In earlier versions it said that you are not allowed to THROW the ball towards the opposition try line. 

Now have a look at the  hand written 1871 proposed laws of the game. Check law 27. 

1871 Laws of Rugby

“Knocking on, ie deliberately hitting the ball with the hand and Throwing forward, ie throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents goal line are not lawful.”

I am sure that all this hairsplitting and replays and arguments about drifting and, and, and.... was never the intention of the law makers. 

The decisive issue, IMO, is that you have to go and have a look at what the law addresses. It says nothing about the “reaction” of the ball and it only addresses the actions of the player. It says nothing about the path or the travel or direction or whatever of the ball. In the following video the so-called drifting of the ball is explained in detail. The narrator do, however make the same mistake as many commentators, pundits, armchair experts, etc, make. He also talks about a forward pass being when the ball travels forward. BS. That is not in the laws and never has been. 

Good post Cera but just remember that in the old days rugby balls were heavier and made out of leather so drifts were not common if they happened at all but strong gusts of wind were, those winds in Newlands and Kings Park were very strong and were big factors not so much for passing but kicking and other aspects of the game such as playing against the wind in the first half and playing with in the second half. But yes I cannot ever recall any controversy relating to passing.

Marius Jonker is a plonker and is either deliberately biase or is ignorant of these rules and misunderstands the interpretation thereof. .

I hear what you are saying about the new balls and the wind and, and, and, but that just serves to confirm the fact that this entire forward pass debate is an overrated nothing burger. 

Once again, the law is not about the reactions of the ball, ie the ball drifting forward due to the weight and/or construction of the ball or the speed of the runner or whatever “foreign force” we want to bring into the argument. 

The law, like all the laws of the game of rugby, addresses the  actions/reactions of the players. In this case it addresses the action (by the player) of throwing the ball foreword or not. In no way and nowhere does it say anything about the flight or the travel, etc, in other words, the reaction of the ball. It simply says that a player must not throw (action by player) the ball forward. It does not say that the ball is not allowed to travel (reaction of the ball) forward in the action (throwing of the ball) by the player. 

Agree we are making issues of common sense but tmo Jonker erred grossly when he abused assumed authority. He had no authority at all, he was just a check up authority which the on field ref can call up  to verify a certain suspected oversight...certainly out of line but what made it even worse was that he was wrong. It was a breach of duty function and abuse and disrespect for the on field ref. One suspects there is a pecking order in refs decisions and influence...this should not be abused and tolerated.

Marius Jonker should be struck from the roll of RWC refs. He is not fit and proper.