Nick Cain: Referees must be told to cut out the forward pass

Here is a message to all the referees, assistant referees, and television match officials confirmed this week for the 2026 Six Nations: Put an end to awarding tries from forward passes.

These have not been allowed in rugby union since the laws were framed, and unless those laws are changed, you have no remit to overrule them.

We are getting to the stage where there is barely a match in international and leading club competitions where refereeing teams and television commentators do not collude in waving through touchdowns in which the ball has clearly travelled forward from a passer’s hands during the attack.

Last weekend, we had numerous examples in the European Cup, but one which stood out because of the close score was when Toulon winger Gael Drean was awarded a second-half try despite a blatant forward pass from lock Brian Alainu’uese to Kyle Sinckler, whose surging run contributed to the scoring move.

Suspect

What is notable is that neither the referee, Nika Amashukeli, nor either of the assistant referees, nor the TMO, questioned it despite very few bodies obscuring the view.

Alainu’uese was a metre inside the Bath 10m line when he passed, yet Sinckler caught the ball, which came forward out of the lock’s hands, when he was on the 10m line.

The referee was in close proximity, and, although his view might have been partially blocked by Alainu’uese, the 10m line was a solid marker that the pass was suspect enough to be checked.

There was a brief mention in the Premier Sports match commentary that it looked forward, but it was not revisited by either Amashukeli or TMO Ben Whitehouse, and the Stade Mayol scoreboard clicked from 21-20 to 28-20 to the home team.

It was an advantage Toulon did not relinquish, eventually winning 45-34.

Entertainment is king

It’s fair to assume that the instigators of the leeway for forward passes are embedded in the laws apparatus of World Rugby, whether in its High Performance 15s Match Official section, which is managed by the former French international panel referee, Joel Jutge, or its endlessly tinkering committees.

We have already seen the worst of their works. It’s there in the incessant undermining of the scrum as a contest for possession through law changes that have allowed crooked put-ins, and promoted penalties as the solution to the multiple resets and collapses encouraged by its convoluted stages of engagement.

Their latest ruse is to guarantee possession by making scrum-halves virtually untouchable around scrums, rucks, and mauls.

This craving for continuity, and guaranteed possession, is part of a hopeless misconception in the corridors of World Rugby that it will make the game more entertaining.

For them, entertainment is king, and it links directly with the concept that if tries are the fount of entertainment, then forward passes that are any less than 1.2 metres (4ft) in front are permissible.

Flaw

The fundamental flaw in this thinking is that the laws that govern how a sport is played can be bent and moulded to satisfy a commercial concept of entertainment.

What this does is debase the skills which make a sport what it is, and breaks down the culture on which it is built.

It begs the question, what is the point of a sport with no laws, or one in which they are so elastic they can be stretched to suit the whim of referees, players, or administrators?

Passing is one of the core skills in rugby union, and the ability to judge the weight of a pass, its timing, its direction, its speed and trajectory, and to make the physical adjustments, whether at full speed, changing pace, or almost stationary, takes dedication.

It requires great skill in terms of coordination, dexterity, accuracy, communication, and adaptability from both the passer and the receiver – the latter especially in terms of not getting ahead of the carrier, but instead accelerating onto the pass to have maximum impact.

A forward pass does not require anything close to the same levels of skill and precision.

Cheats

Furthermore, to generations of former players and fans of the game, a try scored from a squint pass is instantly devalued.

The forward pass is a cheats charter, and the problem here is that it is top-tier match officials who are giving the green light to rugby union being twisted out of shape.

The worst example of it so far this season was the ‘try’ awarded to Australian winger Filipo Daugunu in their second Rugby Championship Test against Argentina in Sydney when a pass more than a metre forward was overlooked despite a TMO review, and therefore given by referee Christophe Ridley.

The forward pass debate has had the waters muddied by the “relative velocity” argument, which applies very rarely to the short forward passes which riddle the modern pro game.

“Relative velocity” is a factor in a small minority of cases, usually with long passes.

This argues that even if the ball leaves a passer’s hands going backwards, the speed with which they are travelling forward will move the ball forward.

This is a fine judgement, and can be countered with the argument that if the passer and receiver are travelling at warp-speed, they decelerate momentarily – especially the receiver – to ensure the pass goes backwards, or at worst, flat.

Scrutiny

You see this skill exhibited constantly in footage of teams like the 1971 and 1974 Lions, whereas in the modern game, support runners are habitually level with the carrier, or even in front.

It is crucial that international panel referees appointed to the 2026 Six Nations headed by Amashukeli, Ridley, Karl Dickson, Ben O’Keefe, Pierre Brousset, Hollie Davidson, James Doleman, Andrea Piardi, Matthew Carley, Andrew Brace, Angus Gardner, Luc Ramos, Luke Pearce and Nic Berry understand that scrutiny of forward passes will intensify if they continue to confuse the forward pass issue, and alter the course of matches, by ignoring the law book.

If their boss, M. Jutge, or anyone else in the World Rugby hierarchy, wishes to see a change to the laws regarding forward passes, they should make their position public and clear, and let debate and votes decide the matter.

Otherwise, instead of undermining existing laws – and with it undermining the culture of rugby union – they should instruct leading referees to apply the laws as they stand.