Players Retain Legal Counsel in Fight Against Artificial Turf at 2015 Women’s World Cup

[Guest ClaytonA]

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Place+turf+time+FIFA+Women+World/10738704/story.html

 

 

...

The height of the upright synthetic blades — known as pile height — has to be a minimum of 60mm for World Rugby-sanctioned events. The existing B.C. Place turf is only 40mm, which is more common for soccer.

...

Turf maintenance and watering techniques are far more crucial for quality of play, experts say, and B.C. Place has recently invested in a Zamboni-like watering machine, as well as a higher-end cover system to protect the field from the weight of so many non-sporting events at the Dome.

...

The changeover is likely slated for mid-to-late May.

The Whitecaps are home to Seattle on May 16 and then hit the road before hosting Salt Lake on May 30.

...

 

 

Steps in the right direction as the field will likely play more like a grass field. Maintenance is the most important part due to the multi-use nature of B.C. Place

[rob.notenboom]

Just read a few tweets announcing that the human rights complaint has been dropped.

[shermanator]

Neil Davidson tweeted that they want to "put the sport of soccer first". Which is funny, because they did the exact opposite of that with the lawsuit....

[Lord Bob]

Just read a few tweets announcing that the human rights complaint has been dropped.

[rob.notenboom]

Something more official than what I posted above - http://trib.al/k9dgTu8

[The Ref]

Hopefully this will be the only and last time a World Cup is played on artificial turf.  I don't have many more to go.

[Soro17]

Just to be clear, they are quitting because they know they have no chance of winning this ridiculous challenge. But not before spewing forth a whole bunch of sour grapes, which is of course "putting the sport of soccer first", as was making a Human Rights challenge leading up to the event. The only thing those players have put first from day one of this shameful saga is their own personal agenda.

 

From the story linked by Rob above:

 

The turf war is over, with a group of elite women’s players withdrawing its human rights complaint over artificial turf at this summer’s Women’s World Cup in Canada.

The women did not exit quietly, however. Their lawyer slammed FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association, saying both governing bodies had behaved badly in the face of the challenge before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

 

Lawyer Hampton Dellinger accused the soccer authorities of threatening players with suspension, delaying legal tactics and rejecting the players’ “undeniably fair settlement offer.”

“In the face of such irresponsible actions by FIFA and CSA, the players have elected to end their legal fight,” Dellinger said in a statement Wednesday. “The players are doing what FIFA and CSA have proven incapable of — putting the sport of soccer first.”

This was the inevitable outcome. Too bad the CSA had to waste scarce funds and resources on this. The $100k in legal fees (a somewhat educated estimate) would have been better deployed elsewhere. I would love to see the CSA try and stick them for costs, but I don't think that is possible at the HRTO.  

[rkomar]

Perhaps the new artificial turf going into BC Place helped smooth things over a bit.  Most of the complaints were about the current carpet there.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

Perhaps the new artificial turf going into BC Place helped smooth things over a bit.  Most of the complaints were about the current carpet there.

 

Ya, I hope it was this. Isn't this the reason that Edmonton has hosted CMNT games since witching to turf (Costa Rica in May 2013), but BC place has not?

[Admin]

Turf is getting better and better. One day it will be better than grass and ALL World Cups will be played on it, IMHO!

 

In the meantime, the choices for this one were: on turf in Canada; on grass somewhere else (can't remember which other country bid); no World Cup. Call me biased and you will be right, but I think the first option was by far the best one!

 

It's just not possible.

 

Only if the game changes, which is entirely possible, or the artificial turf deforms and tears like grass.

 

There is a limit to how good it can get without one of those two things happening.

[Cheeta]

...

 

The turf war is over, with a group of elite women’s players withdrawing its human rights complaint over artificial turf at this summer’s Women’s World Cup in Canada.

The women did not exit quietly, however. Their lawyer slammed FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association, saying both governing bodies had behaved badly in the face of the challenge before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

 

....

 

Well now, they would say that wouldn't they?

 

Don't get me wrong.  I think the optics aren't exactly good for soccer in Canada or the CSA.  When the whole of the tourney is to be done from start to finish on fake grass that doesn't exactly paint a picture of footie as a mature and serious sport here, and I guess in part at least that was the point of the lawsuit.  I'm just saying.

[Cheeta]

It's just not possible.

 

Only if the game changes, which is entirely possible, or the artificial turf deforms and tears like grass.

 

There is a limit to how good it can get without one of those two things happening.

 

Yeah.  I love the stuff at the amateur level but only because for the most part it's superior than most natural turf pitches in this city and it does add a couple of months to an already short season but that's it.  A lesser of two evils.  You get on to a good pitch and it just feels and plays wonderful. But alas, too far and too few inbetween those.

 

Not to be overly harsh but Artificle Turf is to Astro-turf what Oilsands is to Tarsands. 

 

A marketing phrase.

 

* Duck!!*

[Vic]

When the whole of the tourney is to be done from start to finish on fake grass that doesn't exactly paint a picture of footie as a mature and serious sport here

 

When they ran the first 100m sprint on artificial they may have been seen as not mature and serious but they changed track and field forever.

 

Perception:  the proceedings were dropped because of the greater good of the game

Reality:  the Americans no longer had any chance of being awarded relief hosting

[The Ref]

When they ran the first 100m sprint on artificial they may have been seen as not mature and serious but they changed track and field forever.

 

Perception:  the proceedings were dropped because of the greater good of the game

Reality:  the Americans no longer had any chance of being awarded relief hosting

Did the Americans ask for relief hosting? I don't remember reading that in any of the publications.  I do remember reading there were other nationals signing the claim beside Americans.

[Vic]

They never publicly asked for it because unlike China and SARS it never made it to the point were it was required.  The proceedings were originated in the U.S. 

[Admin]

When they ran the first 100m sprint on artificial they may have been seen as not mature and serious but they changed track and field forever.

 

 

This is not the same.  You don't change direction in track like you do in soccer. The last time I checked no one slide tackles the other people in a race, at least they are not supposed to.....

 

You can play soccer on artificial turf, it's subtly not the same game.  If you play the same way you did on grass you will pay a price.

[Lord Bob]

Of course, soccer is "not the same game" under all sorts of conditions. You can play the same way in 35-degree weather with 100% humidity, or in near-freezing conditions, and you will pay a price. That's part of the game.

[Admin]

Of course, soccer is "not the same game" under all sorts of conditions. You can play the same way in 35-degree weather with 100% humidity, or in near-freezing conditions, and you will pay a price. That's part of the game.

 

No, those are variations. This is different as the change is permanent.

 

This is not an anti turf rant.  It doesn't mean you can't play pro soccer on AT.

 

Let's say you internalize a certain action, specifically direction changes ect.  It is different on turf than grass. That is gone, it's not coming back when the weather changes.

 

It's the people saying it's the same. It's not. It involves a permanent change in the game. It's subtle, but I can see it in the way people play.  If you grew up playing on grass, you have to un-train certain subtle things and until you do run the risk of injuries. The injury studies that say it's the same do not take into account the adaptation of the players, and yes you would need to adapt to a hard dry surface, a frozen one or wet one too.

It's ok to adapt, change and move on. But a good grass field will always be better, whether they are viable or not is a different question.

[Cheeta]

When they ran the first 100m sprint on artificial they may have been seen as not mature and serious but they changed track and field forever.

 

....

 

Eh?

 

I've really no idea but I'm going to guess that they were seen as being incredible progressive, what with the advantages being clear and all.  Kind of like when FIFA went to a multi-ball system.  Changed the game forever but you won't find one sane person who'll say the move wasn't a no-brainer, a real improvement to the game.    I'm not getting that sort of vibe here with fake turf, at least within the football community.

 

It is what it is.  Both teams will be tested by the same pitch, in the same weather and by the same referee.  Whether the green under their feet is organic or plastic and I think most North American's are way more comfortable with that than most foreigners.  And that's just it.  This is world event and to a lot of footie fans all that plastic just makes things look like they're being done on the cheap.

 

Here's a question.  If the USA hosted would the tourney be exclusively on plastic?  Would one minute of it be done on plastic?  I've my doubts.

[Admin]

How on earth do you know it's not possible?! You pontificate like an oracle!

 

In the early 20th Century a lot of oracles said it wasn't possible to fly to the moon. Well, if we can do that we can certainly make turf that plays as well as grass and isn't subject to the same deterioration!

 

Oh, for sure!

 

I hope it happens, and it may.  I am saying it's not possible with the current turf as it is. It simply isn't because it lacks the ability to deform. If it's going to be as good as grass it's going to be something new. I'm not saying something else isn't possible.

 

I was saying that it's not possible with the current turf.   I am responding to the people who seem hell bent on saying there is no difference when there is.

 

I think the benefits of a good AT field outweigh the negatives in many respects.  I have stated over and over it's not an anti turf rant.  People have these highly polarized positions, of which I think there are explanations for both, namely the drop in injuries is due to adaption and not that AT is the same as grass.

 

I wish we were playing on AT in WCQ in many of our games where we play on horrible grass surfaces.  This would be a real benefit to us.

 

If we can make a deformable AT field that can be reset easily, that would be it. That could rival a good grass field.

[Admin]

Ah, I think we understand each other now. I am just saying that at some point in the future we will have an artificial surface that is better than grass; it may very well be a completely different design from the turf of today.

 

I do agree that today's turf is not as good as grass, based purely on what I have read because I've never played on it. However, it is nevertheless a good surface now; I have seen many grass pitches that I'm sure were much worse surfaces than turf. And I will say that having watched football for many years I, as a spectator, could hardly detect any difference from grass in the bounce of the ball at Investors Group field at the Canada vs. USA match.

 

Given that the WWC was awarded to "Canada on Artificial Turf", it seems ridiculous to complain about it long after the announcement. It may not be as good as grass, but it is a perfectly good surface for an international tournament.

 

I shudder with horror to think about some of the grass pitches I have played on.  Stuff of nightmares. AT wins every time hands down forever in all of these cases.

 

If you have never played on it, then consider this.  If the AT you play on is obviously horrible your sense of self preservation will kick in.  If it's really good and it's your first time, you have to remember it's not grass, particularly in race conditions say where you and an opponent are both going for a ball, and especially if that ball is going out.

[Vic]

Eh?

 

I've really no idea but I'm going to guess that they were seen as being incredible progressive, what with the advantages being clear and all.  Kind of like when FIFA went to a multi-ball system.  Changed the game forever but you won't find one sane person who'll say the move wasn't a no-brainer, a real improvement to the game.    I'm not getting that sort of vibe here with fake turf, at least within the football community.

 

It is what it is.  Both teams will be tested by the same pitch, in the same weather and by the same referee.  Whether the green under their feet is organic or plastic and I think most North American's are way more comfortable with that than most foreigners.  And that's just it.  This is world event and to a lot of footie fans all that plastic just makes things look like they're being done on the cheap.

 

Here's a question.  If the USA hosted would the tourney be exclusively on plastic?  Would one minute of it be done on plastic?  I've my doubts.

 

There is nothing in the rules which defines natural organics as purity, sacrosanct or necessary.  If there was it would define grass, or rather Kentucky bluegrass (or Bermuda or Zoysia in warmer climates), as opposed to other grasses and other natural elements like dirt, crushed gravel, all-weather fields, etc.

 

Man being opposed to change I have no doubt most people who were raised on grass prefer it, but how does one do a value-judgement claiming certain types of grass are best for the game of soccer?  The evolution of the game to this point has been derived as a result of the surface.  But evolution is not design.  Now that science and economics can produce custom-designed composite alternative surfaces, who is to say they're not superior?  Are they different?  Of course.  Do they bring about changes to the game?  Of course, no different than grass does.

 

Surfaces impact the game, but no surface has license.  The game is a set of rules applied to an area and governing conduct within that area.  Turf is seen as inferior because it doesn't play like grass.  But that's a false argument.  You could conversely say grass doesn't play like turf.  Had we all been raised on turf and Canada 2015 was hosted on grass, the protests would be as loud.

[The Ref]

Money for more turf but not for grass.  http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/women-s-world-cup-canadian-stadiums-set-for-new-artificial-turf-1.3008183

[Vic]

The article say's the cost is being handled by the CSA, the city of Edmonton and BCPavco, however they've conveniently left out if the CSA contribution is pennies or millions in each case.  There is also interestingly no mention of Montreal's contribution if any for their new pad and turf use.

 

Host cities had to contribute funds to be included but part of that process was a claim of no risk and no incremental investment.  I doubt any of the maneuvers we'll see on the field come anywhere even remotely close to the stickhandling on all this.

 

Moncton Stadium's $1.5MM turf installation last spring was paid for by FIFA according to the CBC last year.

[Vic]

Piece in the Sun yesterday.  PavCo was due to replace the turf in 2016 and are kicking in $825k, the CSA and Rugby Canada $500k.  There is a leg of the Rugby Sevens there next year which will fill Vancouver with a horde of rugby fans.  The main benefactor of the new turf would be the Vancouver Whitecaps, no record of any contribution on their behalf though.