Winnipeg Fury Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Canadian men's soccer team to play World Cup qualifier on artificial turf By NEIL DAVIDSON TORONTO (CP) - Canada will have to handle more than just heat and hostile fans when it travels to Costa Rica in September for a World Cup qualifying soccer game. The Canadian men will have to adjust to playing on an artificial surface. World soccer's playing field has been radically altered by an amendment to the "laws of the game" that officially permits matches to be played on artificial surfaces providing they meet certain standards. The amendment reads: "As of Thursday, 1 July 2004, matches may be played on natural or artificial surfaces if permitted by the applicable competition regulations." In other words if the artificial surface is FIFA-approved, it's "completely equivalent to natural grass," said Kevan Pipe, chief operating officer of the Canadian Soccer Association. The amendment has allowed the Costa Ricans to schedule their Sept. 8 game against Canada on the artificial grass of Ricardo Saprisse Stadium in San Jose. That game "is certainly going to change the situation for future events in World Cup qualifying for the entire confederation," Pipe predicted. The Costa Ricans had tried to schedule a June 20 World Cup qualifying game against Cuba at the same stadium, but was turned down by FIFA. Until the amendment, artificial surfaces essentially could only be used under special circumstances. A case had to be made why the game could only be played on artificial grass and then FIFA had to decide whether to allow it. "All of that has now been taken out of the equation," said Pipe, "as long as the surface has a FIFA-recommended certificate attached to it, then bingo it's there. It's now treated as the equivalent. You don't have to ask for permission." FIFA's website lists 73 approved artificial surfaces including 12 in CONCACAF, which covers North and Central America and the Caribbean. And it is encouraging more. "Playing on artificial surfaces, that is the future of football," FIFA president Sepp Blatter said recently in Singapore. Artificial surfaces have come a long way since the days of rock-like carpet. Today's brands look and feel like grass, although the natural stuff still dominates the sport. In Canada, Ottawa's Frank Clair Stadium and Montreal's Molson Stadium both feature FieldTurf surfaces that are approved by FIFA. The CSA, however, has yet to take advantage of the amendment for men's matches. In the semifinal round of CONCACAF World Cup qualifying, Canada's home matches are scheduled for Burnaby, B.C. (Swangard Stadium), Edmonton (Commonwealth Stadium) and one other site yet to be announced. The CSA has until Aug. 13 to decide on the site for the third home game (Oct. 13 against Costa Rica). Pipe says it's unlikely that game will be held on an artificial surface because of a scheduling conflict with the Ottawa stadium that week and the conversion costs at Molson Stadium. The new amendment refers to "applicable competition regulations," a loophole that seemingly allows confederations to insist on natural turf. But Pipe said there are no such CONCACAF regulations. The change is also good news for Canada's bid to host the 2007 world under-20 soccer championships. Winning that bid - FIFA will announce the host country in late October - is key to securing government funding for a new venue on the site of Varsity Stadium in Toronto. "We've been told unequivocally, natural grass or artificial grass is not an issue," Pipe said of the tournament bid. "If you wanted the entire championships on one surface or the other surface or a mixture of both, that's fine." Ten matches, including the final, of the world under-17 championships in 2003 held in Finland took place on artificial surfaces. While there has been no official word on the surface at the planned new Toronto stadium, Pipe says "there's no question, that in the end, it will in fact be artificial grass, no question. "The economics of a brand-new sporting facility in this country dictate that it really must be." That's because of the climate and crowded stadium schedules. However, Pipe says there is the option of going with a natural grass surface through the conclusion of the world under-20 tournament "to ensure we have some natural grass in the event." Despite the recent proliferation of new, improved artificial surfaces, there is still a learning curve. Montreal's Molson Stadium has a FieldTurf surface that features CFL line measurements and it has proved costly painting them over to convert the field for soccer. The Canadian women's team has already played on the artificial surfaces in Montreal and Ottawa. Men's coach Frank Yallop acknowledges "it's a different game on turf" but adds: "Whatever surface we're put on, we don't mind. We've just got to make sure that we try and get the right result." But while Yallop speaks diplomatically about artificial surfaces, his face tells a very different story. Pipe says the players will see for themselves what it's like on Sept. 8. "Everybody in a perfect world would love to be playing on a perfect natural grass surface. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it. But the reality in this country . . . is eventually most if not almost all stadiums will probably be looking at artificial grass in the long term." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Wow, what sudden reversal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 What caught a lot by suprise is the fact (not mentioned in the article) that the relevant competition regulations, for WC 2006, were apparently changed without announcement. It was done quietly in Zurich, and the CSA was apparently not aware until the schedule was announced (I note that a Costa Rican is on the FIFA executive). This is why the CSA needs a crafty full-time liason responsible for dealing with FIFA and CONCACAF, who would regularly go to Zurich and New York, and poke around the offices to see what is happening, and then help CSA plan strategy. We were outflanked by Costa Rica. Had we known of the changes before announcing the venues of Vancouver and Edmonton in the third week of June and had we known of Costa Rica's desire to play on the new FieldTurf of Saprissa (which would have been evidenced by the fact of thier application to play the match against Cuba there) , we could have had an advantage by electing to play Guatemala August 18 at Molson in Montreal and Honduras September 4 at Ottawa. We then could have played Costa Rica in the cold and grass of Commonwealth on the evening of October 13, after they had played their match with Guatemala on October 10 on FieldTurf. Now, we have to play at Saprissa after two matches here on grass, including one on September 4, after which we have to leave for Costa Rica at least by the Monday. Our only chance to "practice" on FieldTurf before arriving in CR would be on Sunday at Lister Field in Edmonton. On Sportsnet in February, Pipe said that he would go ahead and apply at the end of June to play in Montreal and Ottawa on FieldTurf. He may have discarded those plans because he thought that FieldTurf was no longer an option. He should have known and reacted by mid-June. If he hadn't known, he should have went ahead and did it anyway for tactical reasons (as the situation was at least grey), as was suggested in this forum last winter. Another area where CSA has to get its act together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 What caught a lot by suprise is the fact (not mentioned in the article) that the relevant competition regulations, for WC 2006, were apparently changed without announcement. It was done quietly in Zurich, and the CSA was apparently not aware until the schedule was announced (I note that a Costa Rican is on the FIFA executive). This is why the CSA needs a crafty full-time liason responsible for dealing with FIFA and CONCACAF, who would regularly go to Zurich and New York, and poke around the offices to see what is happening, and then help CSA plan strategy. We were outflanked by Costa Rica. Had we known of the changes before announcing the venues of Vancouver and Edmonton in the third week of June and had we known of Costa Rica's desire to play on the new FieldTurf of Saprissa (which would have been evidenced by the fact of thier application to play the match against Cuba there) , we could have had an advantage by electing to play Guatemala August 18 at Molson in Montreal and Honduras September 4 at Ottawa. We then could have played Costa Rica in the cold and grass of Commonwealth on the evening of October 13, after they had played their match with Guatemala on October 10 on FieldTurf. Now, we have to play at Saprissa after two matches here on grass, including one on September 4, after which we have to leave for Costa Rica at least by the Monday. Our only chance to "practice" on FieldTurf before arriving in CR would be on Sunday at Lister Field in Edmonton. On Sportsnet in February, Pipe said that he would go ahead and apply at the end of June to play in Montreal and Ottawa on FieldTurf. He may have discarded those plans because he thought that FieldTurf was no longer an option. He should have known and reacted by mid-June. If he hadn't known, he should have went ahead and did it anyway for tactical reasons (as the situation was at least grey), as was suggested in this forum last winter. Another area where CSA has to get its act together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Yes, we suddenly have a handful of world class stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Yes, we suddenly have a handful of world class stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jarrek Wow, what sudden reversal Not that sudden...everybody in Zurich and Costa Rica knew of this by late May. http://www.unafut.com/asp/Noticias/detallenoticia.asp?id=3279 As is usual, Ottawa is the last to find out.[xx(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jarrek Wow, what sudden reversal Not that sudden...everybody in Zurich and Costa Rica knew of this by late May. http://www.unafut.com/asp/Noticias/detallenoticia.asp?id=3279 As is usual, Ottawa is the last to find out.[xx(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Neil Davidson's info is a bit out of date - according to Toronto Mayor David Miller, in a conversation with myself and several others on this board (Ryan & Sean Keay, Torontosupport.com, and Jayway among them) at the Lynx-Mustangs match on Sunday, he indicated that the clause that the government funding for the Toronto stadium is conditional upon Canada getting the U20 WC for 2007 was removed about a week ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Canada can now host international competition matches (instead of just friendlies) in Ottawa, Montreal and (in a couple of years) Toronto and people are complaining? Shocking. In terms of the so-called disadvantage of playing on FieldTurf - we'd be at a bigger disadvantage at Richardson Stadium, where the field just barely meets the minimum width allowed in the Laws of the Game. Playing on a narrow pitch (or an overly wide pitch like the Queen's Park Oval in Port of Spain, T&T) changes the game a lot more than playing on FieldTurf. FieldTurf also changes the game less than if we play on long grass (as Hearts and Millwall will tell you) or a bumpy pitch (like that horrible thing we were forced to play on in the Jamaican National Stadium in France '98 qualifying). In other words, going into this FieldTurf stadium in San Jose will be no worse, in terms of field conditions, than going into Port of Spain to play T&T or Kingston, Jamaica. I'm not worried about the FieldTurf - I'm worried about the Costa Ricans players! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury . The CSA has until Aug. 13 to decide on the site for the third home game (Oct. 13 against Costa Rica). Pipe says it's unlikely that game will be held on an artificial surface because of a scheduling conflict with the Ottawa stadium that week and the conversion costs at Molson Stadium. Nice try! [V][V] What conversion costs could there possibly be? How would they be any different than the conversion cost at Commonwealth or Richardson stadium? Also, He didn't mention what the conflict are with Frank Clair. The game is on a Wednesday evening and don't the CFL teams play on weekends during the fall? Same for the CIAU. Who could possibly be using Frank Clair on a wednesday night on October 13 Here is the events schedule from ticketmaster for Frank Clair: http://www.ticketmaster.ca/venue/131210 Sat, 09/11/04 03:00 PM Ottawa Renegades vs. B C Lions Find Tickets on sale now Sat, 10/09/04 07:00 PM Ottawa Renegades vs. Saskatchewan Roughriders Find Tickets on sale now Sat, 10/30/04 03:00 PM Ottawa Renegades vs. Hamilton Tiger Cats Find Tickets on sale now Sun, 11/21/04 2004 Grey Cup Find Tickets on sale now Found a CIAU football game scheduled there for the 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckham Jr. Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 I kind of have mixed feelings over the matter. Having played on FieldTurf a fair bit there is no arguing that it is quite a realistic surface. But, there is also no arguing the fact that it is not natural turf. Personally I don't at all mind playing on the stuff, in fact its much better than most local Canadian pitches. As an Easterner I'm left salivating at the possibility of a WCQualifier within reasonable distance. I think Frank Clair and Molson Stadium could provide a great atmosphere for the nats. It kind of sucks that more CFL Stadiums went forth in selfish ingnorance and installed similar surfaces that are not FIFA approved. Imagine the possibilites with SkyDome, Ivor Wynne and Winnipeg Stadium thrown into the mix, we'd be laughing! Despite the positives, there is no doubt that this will only add Canadian soccer's lack of credibility in the general public. Much of the world's more elite footballing community would certainly frown upon our National Team playing a qualifier on it. And I don't see any major European power being too intinced to cross the Atlantic to play a friendly on FieldTurf, which is too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote:Nice try! What conversion costs could there possibly be? Umm, removing CFL lines and sponsors ads that are painted all over the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead Umm, removing CFL lines and sponsors ads that are painted all over the field? How expensive could that be? and how would it be any different than, say, commonwealth. Is the CSA suggesting that these kind of costs are beyond their means? If they are that cash strapped, then we are in real trouble. Plus they went to great lenghts lobbying the allouettes to get field turf, or ensuring that Frank Clair has an approved turf, what was the point of the whole exercise if the conversion costs are so astronomical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca he indicated that the clause that the government funding for the Toronto stadium is conditional upon Canada getting the U20 WC for 2007 was removed about a week ago. I don't know. Maybe I am just too sceptical today. But that sounds like bad news to me as far as 2007 is concerned. Wasn't it mentioned here about a week ago as well the stories about the Korean bid and then the US bid for the same tournamnent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote: How expensive could that be? and how would it be any different than, say, commonwealth. Is the CSA suggesting that these kind of costs are beyond their means? If they are that cash strapped, then we are in real trouble. Plus they went to great lenghts lobbying the allouettes to get field turf, or ensuring that Frank Clair has an approved turf, what was the point of the whole exercise if the conversion costs are so astronomical! Go to Top of Page Well I don't know about the different costs associated with removing lines from a grass pitch rather than a field turf pitch, but I do know there are about three many times the ads painted on the fieldturf in Montreal than there is on the grass in Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote:Originally posted by beachesl we could have had an advantage by electing to play Guatemala August 18 at Molson in Montreal and Honduras September 4 at Ottawa. We then could have played Costa Rica in the cold and grass of Commonwealth on the evening of October 13, after they had played their match with Guatemala on October 10 on FieldTurf. Now, we have to play at Saprissa after two matches here on grass, including one on September 4, after which we have to leave for Costa Rica at least by the Monday. Our only chance to "practice" on FieldTurf before arriving in CR would be on Sunday at Lister Field in Edmonton. On Sportsnet in February, Pipe said that he would go ahead and apply at the end of June to play in Montreal and Ottawa on FieldTurf. He may have discarded those plans because he thought that FieldTurf was no longer an option. He should have known and reacted by mid-June. If he hadn't known, he should have went ahead and did it anyway for tactical reasons (as the situation was at least grey), as was suggested in this forum last winter. Another area where CSA has to get its act together. Interesting theory. Except that I don't think that the CSA is interested to play WCQ games in Montreal. They never have in the past yet the facilities are not that big an issue when you consider Claude Robillard Centre. Who knows, but there has never been ( that I know of ) any WCQ matches ever played there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtlfan Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Free kick How expensive could that be? and how would it be any different than, say, commonwealth. Is the CSA suggesting that these kind of costs are beyond their means? If they are that cash strapped, then we are in real trouble. Plus they went to great lenghts lobbying the allouettes to get field turf, or ensuring that Frank Clair has an approved turf, what was the point of the whole exercise if the conversion costs are so astronomical! The Als were crafty with their deal with McGill. The football lines are embeded in the turf and the logos. Molson's logo which is in red makes it very expensive. I was told it coast more than $12,000. It is even more complicated as was proven at the CONCACAF tournament when rain washed off the paint. It was just good luck that they managed to re-paint the surface in time for the Friday night double header. Of course the cost had to be absorded by the CSA. In addition with McGill using the facility for their own purposes it is very difficult to have the field available at least two days before the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 artificial turf sucks....so does pat onstad. we all know it...it seems like there is nothing we can do about either, and i am tired of reading about both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 quote:Originally posted by trueviking artificial turf sucks....so does pat onstad. we all know it...it seems like there is nothing we can do about either, and i am tired of reading about both. I'm tired of hearing people say that Onstad sucks, especially in a thread that isn't even about Onstad. If people want to argue that somebody else is better than Onstad and should be playing goal for Canada instead of Onstad (Hirschfeld, Sutton, Stamatopoulos, etc...), that's fine and dandy. I myself would have a tough time choosing between the four if I were in Yallop's shoes. But to say that Onstad "sucks" is just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 oh man...maybe switch to decaf...it was just a joke...i was only suggesting we talk about both subjects too often...its like arguing the merits of mosquitoes...obviously nobody likes them, but there ain't much we can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Gee, what a hilarious joke... Hey, I know, if you're tired of reading about artifical turf don't read the threads on those subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 geez relax man....i'm sorry i offended you.... onstad still sucks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstackho Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Bit of an odd article, since it appears that artificial surfaces already have the go-ahead. Perhaps they are referring to federations other than CONCACAF, since we're mentioned in the article. FIFA to consider artificial pitches for 2006 qualifiers LIMA, July 24 (Reuters) - FIFA are to consider allowing artificial pitches to be used for 2006 World Cup qualifiers, president Sepp Blatter said on Saturday. Speaking at the Copa America, Blatter said that the matter would be studied at the next meeting of the International Board, the committee which decides on changes in the rules of the game, in October. He said that all matches at the 2006 finals in Germany would be held on natural pitches. "This is not a revolution, it's just part of the normal evolution of football," he told reporters. "CONCACAF has been playing games on artificial pitches with a lot of success and without problems. "Nowadays, artificial turf has practically the same structure as the natural variety." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.