Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:39 pm  

We had to defend bloody hard to keep you to one score! Cas are a good team and when you have a full team you will always be tough to beat.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:02 pm  

dboy wrote:

Shame that Rangi "The Crab" Chase was runnin g sideways then!

you need to put your specs on he straightened up when he went to pass thus drawing a defender

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:05 pm  

Pieman wrote:

you need to put your specs on he straightened up when he went to pass thus drawing a defender

Yes, but he was not moving forward with any significant impulse, to affect the flight of the ball - the ball went forward because Chase threw it forward, not because of any momentum imparted from his forward movement.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:08 pm  

dboy wrote:

Yes, but he was not moving forward with any significant impulse, to affect the flight of the ball - the ball went forward because Chase threw it forward, not because of any momentum imparted from his forward movement.

wrong again, he was ahead of both the ball and the player who caught the ball...hence momentum. Can you get it yet?

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:10 pm  

sgtwilko wrote:

We had to defend bloody hard to keep you to one score! Cas are a good team and when you have a full team you will always be tough to beat.

Thanks for that. Hopefully we'll be at full strength soon though I wasn't too hopeful we could beat you tonight.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:12 pm  

Pieman wrote:

wrong again, he was ahead of both the ball and the player who caught the ball...hence momentum. Can you get it yet?

Dear oh dear!

The passer being in front of the catcher at the moment of the catch does not determine the effect of momentum!

If Chase was running forward at 8m/s, it would be reasonable for the ball to also travel forward at 8m/s, if passed directly sideways (we can discuss the effects of resistance later).

He wasn't, it did = forward pass.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:14 pm  

dboy wrote:

Dear oh dear!

The passer being in front of the catcher at the moment of the catch does not determine the effect of momentum!

If Chase was running forward at 8m/s, it would be reasonable for the ball to also travel forward at 8m/s, if passed directly sideways (we can discuss the effects of resistance later).

He wasn't, it did = forward pass.

no, if he is running and passes and the ball ends up behind its a backwards pass as the ball has travelled backwards in relevance to the player passing....dont have to bring in times, its common sense.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:19 pm  

No.

If a player is stationary when passing, then simply put the pass can be judged relative to the ground as there is no momentum imparted on the direction of the ball.

If moving forward, a squarely passed ball, will carry the same forward momentum. This is not a forward pass, as, relative to the passer, the ball has not travelled foward.

What you describe is a player sending a pass forward, but running in front of it before it is caught.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:21 pm  

dboy wrote:

No.

If a player is stationary when passing, then simply put the pass can be judged relative to the ground as there is no momentum imparted on the direction of the ball.

If moving forward, a squarely passed ball, will carry the same forward momentum. This is not a forward pass, as, relative to the passer, the ball has not travelled foward.

What you describe is a player sending a pass forward, but running in front of it before it is caught.

he was already running forward, and yes he run past the balls line thus making it backwards in relativity to the player passing the ball once received. Which is the rule.

Re: They let us down tonight. : Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:22 pm  

And by the way, it is not about times and common sense, it's about velocity and Physics (Newton's First Law).