The only time you'll need to know is when the ball goes forward, and you'll be able to tell this if the ball increases in velocity.



The time of the video and the time of the velocity change will be measured, so if it's not clear then you can easily cross-reference the incident.

And how easy is that to look at?! If anything, that's more difficult than guessing the velocity! It will look completely different from different view points.

But surely if a player is running with the ball at say 5m/s and he moves the ball forward ready to pass then the velocity of the ball will increase also.



IMO this is already too complicated to work out. You need maybe them hawkeye guys to come up with something concrete before we even attempt to pass it to a VR

That is correct. It would come down to how you'd interpret "the players velocity" (not momentum, as it pointlessly says in the rules). The player moving the ball from his body to in front of him and then releasing the ball would increase the ball's velocity. Is this because of his own velocity? Or because he's propelling the ball? Personally, I'd go with the latter, but ultimately you'd be looking at the velocity at its release and comparing it to the player's velocity with the ball before he starts the passing motion.





I reckon HawkEye could definitely come up with something (if they haven't already). Whether it'd be cheap, or the game sees a value for money is another issue. However, I still think the VR could rule on it with various camera angles more effectively than the on field ref with just one view. It should be trialled.

Who is all? We have no idea how much effort it would take and how much it would cost. For all we know, they're already looking into it.





I do know what you're getting at, but I completely disagree. The rules of play are exactly the same. Teams aren't getting an advantage if the video ref is there. They just get a fairer result. A team will likely be on the back end of just as many disadvantageous decisions as advantageous. This is why it does my head in when people think that it's an advantage to have the VR on more occasions.





Breaks happen in the game. If a defending team would really want a sustained break, just fake a head injury in the tackle.





I think it would be ideally quicker, but not essential. Definitely not as essential as trying to get the correct decision.

With micro electronics its quite easy have a built into the ball a very small Gyroscope/GPS device that will determine flight of ball with respect to initial and final velocity.

With an XYZ coordinate configuration, X would be length of the pitch, Y would be across the pitch, Z would be rise and fall. Basically if someone releases the ball running at 5 metres per sec, if the release velocity from hand means the time to receiver is 1 second then, then forward momentum would be just less than 5 metres due to air resistance.

If the ball GPS records 7 metres to an off field transceiver then it is obviously a forward pass. The GPS in the ball would be subject to impact and shock forces of approximately 80 g, so the device would have to be tested 40% beyond that figure.

Am I the only person who thinks this whole debate is WAAAAY OTT? 99% of passes are not contentious. You get the odd forward pass which is missed, a reasonable percentage of which have no impact on the scoreboard (and which as a result hardly anyone remembers). You also probably get a few flat passes mistakenly called forward. As far as I'm concerned the refs etc tend to get it right most of the time when players are in motion, and when wrong its only marginal at best.



The only circumstances where I find it annoying are nothing to do with players in motion, but static players clearly sending the ball a bit forward and not being pinged.



Attempting to use technology to solve all these problems would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Its simply not needed. There will always be contentious decisions, and the ref and VR will continue to make mistakes, regardless of how well-trained or highly paid they are. That's one of the peculiarities which makes sport what it is.

I disagree. I don't think we should accept mediocrity in sport, whether that be in coaching, playing or reffing. Coaches use all sorts of technology these days to assess players. Why shouldn't the refs use all sorts of technology to assess the game?



If referees are getting black and white decisions wrong, they need something that can help them make it.

Dear me ,it's not hard for FFS,refer to a video ref,if he thinks it's a forward pass after looking at it slow motion,the try scoring pass is ruled out,if he can't decide the attacking side gets the advantage,the try is allowed,just use common sense for FFs sake.

The one thing I would not miss in our game is all the techno babble and constant replays and slow motion analysis at every Sky game, let the man in the middle make the decision and live with the errors. I am the first to whinge about refereeing cockups, but would accept them in a heartbeat if we got rid of all the garbage we have to listen to from Wells, Clarke and co.

Really? You'd accept errors on the field just so you didn't have to listen to some presenters talking? Seems an odd logic to me.



Personally I like the reviews from Jon Wells. They're very inciteful and he isn't annoying or controversial like the others. Clarke, I like his stats, but he's just an awful presenter. But still, even if I didn't like them, I don't see what they have to do with what goes on on the pitch!