I certainly don't "know best", but I do comment on what I do know.



Your comment on players being "coached properly" back then is what prompted my reply. That to me seems a "it was proper back then" type comment.



I know that a perfect pass isn't to the bread basket. A perfect pass is to the hands that are in front of the player because there is less time taken to adjust to make the next pass.



I know that players are full time now as opposed to the past, where they train more, are fitter and stronger than before and can do things that players in the past couldn't do physiologically. This, on top of better technology and investment into training techniques and sports practices.



I've seen a fair few old games. Not as many as the 60 years+ fans on here, but a fair few for a guy in his early 20s. I've seen how fast it goes along the line, which is not what I'm commenting on. It's more to do with how far forward they're moving at the time. Most of the passing moves I've seen in the old games were very static, which is why the ball wouldn't travel forward, which is what the basis of my argument is. I've also seen some old games where the ball travels forward due to momentum. when running down the wings ala today's game, so it did happen then also.



The game has moved on so much since the old days it is unreal.

From runners stood still, to runners running at half speed, at a defensive line that isn't moving. The game has moved on.

I'm not sure that's fair, he just has a strong opinion and isn't reticent about expressing it!



I think you're on safe ground in thinking that the modern players are, on average, stronger and better conditioned than the semi-pro days and that allows them to maintain the tempo in defence for longer. On top of that, I think the play the balls were referee'd differently, and the modern game has less messing about for right or wrong.



But I'm not convinced the modern player is [ifaster[/i or a better ball handler in such a significant way.

Very appreciative comments there for someone who has an opposing view. Makes a great change from the "I'm right, you're wrong, so we must hate each other and bicker" kind of attitude that is has become more than the norm on here.



I would say the modern player IS faster due to the training techniques, etc. But only faster in the body. Cognitive wise, and I wouldn't say there is much of a difference, if any. I don't think players can think faster now than they used to be able to. I think they just need to due to the increased speed of the game.

I also think that the majority of players are better ball handlers now than back in the day, but the standards of the best ball handlers is not that much different. It's just the worst players aren't as bad as they used to be, which means the best players don't look as good as they used to. I think this is one of the reasons why people constantly look back and think there were "better" teams in earlier days, when really it's just a case of the worst teams are getting better and making the best teams look poorer.

No probs - I have a sneaking suspicion that you're better equipped than I am to comment on many of the aspects we've discussed with authority.







While I know that the additional strength in a modern player can certainly add more power, which obviously helps speed in specific cases (look at the size of olympic sprinters, for example), I think the additional bulk may cut into that a bit.



I think "natural pace" may well be reasonably constant in the general sporting population, with only the very elite (who only run, nothing else) being significantly faster now than, say, 20 years ago. I certainly don't think the difference is as marked as it is with raw power and stamina, at least.







Seems fair enough to me - but I feel honour bound to mention the 5m rule at this point, even though defences are faster and better organised now.

Great argument this.

Im with Wellsy though 100%, im just not as good as explaining it



You dont have to have done a coaching course to realise the bread basket isnt where a ball should go! I figured that out by age 8

I wouldn't know if I was better equipped, but I have just done a PE degree which had a biomechanics part to it, which is why I'm very vocal in the forward pass/momentum argument. It also had an elite sports preparation and training module, but without being an elite athlete or being involved in an elite set-up, I can only know so much about that!





Seems fair enough, but I would certainly say that the slower players are faster than they used to be. The faster players may not be much faster, if at all, but the slower ones aren't as slow.







Well that's just opening up a totally new can of worms!



But to stick on topic, you'd totally change the whole foundation of the game if you got rid of the rule that allows for momentum. I think more needs to be done in order to catch out forward passes though. In a day an age that we have hawk-eye technology, etc, surely there must be something that could be used?

Assuming we all accept the players momentum effects the eventual trajectory of the ball, who is best placed to judge the direction of the players hands, the ref(who could be at any angle) or touch judge(who should be parallel)?

Think you pretty much answer your own question there...

Could we please stop talking about the 'momentum' rule. The player's momentum is irrelevant. The quantity that affects the trajectory of the ball is his velocity.

Momentum cannot be ignored when passing a ball whilst on the run. It's simple physics.



If two players passed a ball in the same direction from the same point at the same velocity, but one player was running and the other was static, they wouldn't end up in the same place.

Momentum is mass times velocity - for the purposes of the discussion, they're pretty interchangable.