Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply

First of all, "turf" is the same as "sod", a matted network of soil and the roots of grass and other plants.  It's natural.  They call the stuff being played on "artificial turf" because it's artificial.  "Turf" is what all the _other_ World Cups have been played on.

 

Secondly, artificial turf is just going to get better as the companies continue to improve it.  I would say that it's currently about on par with temporary sod, because it doesn't tear apart like the temporary sod did in South Africa.  And if global warming continues, it's going to be harder and harder to maintain natural turf in many parts of the world.  So, I'm skeptical that this will be the last such World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ 1 ]  For a comments board about soccer,  the word " turf " can be used and understood colloquially to mean artificial turf.

 

[ 2 ]  Turf has been around since 1965, fifty years, half a century. It's longevity suggests that it's here to stay and that soccer is a de facto two-surface game much in the manner that hockey can be played on NHL-sized ice or on  Olympic-size ice. To me, it's the nature of competitors to embrace the challenges that both surfaces bring.

 

[ 3 ]  Overall Canada 2015 is a successful WWC, but for the record not every world cup tourist was happy with the host city of Winnipeg:

 

        http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-disappoints-fifa-fans-in-world-spotlight-1.3110832

 

         http://www.shekicks.net/flog/blogs/post/1290

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind if someone lazily uses "turf" to mean artificial turf, but it bugs me when they say "turf" to distinguish it from, well, turf.  I know it's pedantic, but in my defense, I waited months and months before finally snapping ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game is on turf, in soccer land means artificial turf. 

 

"It's a turf field",  for people playing and going to games and coaching means artificial turf. 

 

When all the fields were grass there was no need for a distinction unless you had an unfortunate encounter with a gravel field.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be remembered for record attendances, entertaining matches, excellent stadiums and host cities, a successful step up to 24 teams, record TV viewing audiences, and another significant step forward for women's football. In years to come, the artificial turf will be an insignificant afterthought.

 

I fully agree. Barring a major injury of a superstar, which can be proven without a doubt to be the fault of the turf (which I can't conceive happening with modern turf) it will be an afterthought, or an example to be used by those who advocate the use of artificial turf for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science and technology improve sport all the time.  For playing surfaces it has happened in things like field hockey, basketball, track and field, American football, cycling, gymnastics, etc.  Another example is the Zamboni in hockey, it improved and changed the game of in a revolutionary way (below).

 

In some ways turf is better than grass, in some way's grass is better than turf.  It depends on your strong suits as an athlete and how you play the game.  But there is nothing in the LOTG about grass.  

 

Most of the opinion I've read about turf is based on personal experience/patterning and there is surprisingly little discussion outside that at all.  If you've played on grass all your life and a player who's a better athlete is able to recover on you quicker, or you can't do things like you did on the surface you're used to, it's a witch.  Same as someone used to a greasy gym floor in basketball when they brought out varnished parquet flooring, or perhaps a gymnast not as powerful enough to maximize a soft rubber floor.  Which was first sand and hay, then cotton stuffed pads and mattresses, and then carpets and wood.

 

Turf is not grass.  And turf was implemented first for women.  That is what people object to.  And after the entire conversation became gender-based it went so off the rails that even with Google I doubt you can find much if anything about the actual merits of each surface.

 

Off tangent but did anyone watch the program on TV where one of the broadcasters (I think it was TSN) interviewed the American players about turf?  First they interview Alex Morgan who say's she can list off the 100 reasons she hates it.  I'm pretty sure signing for three straight teams that play on it year-round isn't near the top of the list.  Then it's Hope Solo who puts on her best angry, too angry to say she's signed for multiple teams that play on it every day either.

 

 

 

------

 

Just Let the Ice Get Bad: Before 1910, hockey games were played in two 30-minute halves. ESPNsays "By the end of each half, the ice was full of ruts and covered in snow, and the game slowed to a walk." So eventually they switched to three 20-minute periods, allowing an extra opportunity to clean the ice, even though this severely slowed down the pace of the game. Even today, NHL hockey has longer stoppages of play than other professional sports, with two 18-minute intermissions as compared to a 12 minute halftime in NFL football and a 15 minute halftime in NBA basketball and FIFA Football. 

 

Cheap Labor: To resurface a rank, you need to clear the snow. This could be done by handing out a lot of shovels. For example, at the UND Barn"Young fans (in exchange for game admission) prepared for resurfacing by shoveling shavings and snow off the ice from the preceding period's action."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further get off this topic (and it surely needs it) I would say technology greatly affected the pole vault.  First bamboo poles, then aluminum and then fibreglass.  Also the landing pits changed from sawdust to foam which allowed vaulters to go over the bar with their back nearest the bar and land on their back instead of their feet using a technique that would result in greater heights achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science and technology improve sport all the time.  For playing surfaces it has happened in things like field hockey, basketball, track and field, American football, cycling, gymnastics, etc.  Another example is the Zamboni in hockey, it improved and changed the game of in a revolutionary way (below).

 

In some ways turf is better than grass, in some way's grass is better than turf.  It depends on your strong suits as an athlete and how you play the game.  But there is nothing in the LOTG about grass.  

 

Most of the opinion I've read about turf is based on personal experience/patterning and there is surprisingly little discussion outside that at all.  If you've played on grass all your life and a player who's a better athlete is able to recover on you quicker, or you can't do things like you did on the surface you're used to, it's a witch.  Same as someone used to a greasy gym floor in basketball when they brought out varnished parquet flooring, or perhaps a gymnast not as powerful enough to maximize a soft rubber floor.  Which was first sand and hay, then cotton stuffed pads and mattresses, and then carpets and wood.

 

Turf is not grass.  And turf was implemented first for women.  That is what people object to.  And after the entire conversation became gender-based it went so off the rails that even with Google I doubt you can find much if anything about the actual merits of each surface.

 

Off tangent but did anyone watch the program on TV where one of the broadcasters (I think it was TSN) interviewed the American players about turf?  First they interview Alex Morgan who say's she can list off the 100 reasons she hates it.  I'm pretty sure signing for three straight teams that play on it year-round isn't near the top of the list.  Then it's Hope Solo who puts on her best angry, too angry to say she's signed for multiple teams that play on it every day either.

 

 

 

------

 

Just Let the Ice Get Bad: Before 1910, hockey games were played in two 30-minute halves. ESPNsays "By the end of each half, the ice was full of ruts and covered in snow, and the game slowed to a walk." So eventually they switched to three 20-minute periods, allowing an extra opportunity to clean the ice, even though this severely slowed down the pace of the game. Even today, NHL hockey has longer stoppages of play than other professional sports, with two 18-minute intermissions as compared to a 12 minute halftime in NFL football and a 15 minute halftime in NBA basketball and FIFA Football. 

 

Cheap Labor: To resurface a rank, you need to clear the snow. This could be done by handing out a lot of shovels. For example, at the UND Barn"Young fans (in exchange for game admission) prepared for resurfacing by shoveling shavings and snow off the ice from the preceding period's action."

Yes, science and technology have improved many things, artificial turf may have maintenance benefits and extend outdoor use, but how has artificial turf improved the soccer game itself? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, science and technology have improved many things, artificial turf may have maintenance benefits and extend outdoor use, but how has artificial turf improved the soccer game itself? 

 

In game, it eliminates any possibility of ruts that can be left by akward tackles, and generally stays more uniform as play goes on. You also always know what you are going to get, regardless of the weeks of weather before or the finances of the stadium owner, leaving no possibility of a Cuban pitch issue or a post Wembly mudpit (regardless of cause). It also has created greater inclusion in the game, as said maintenance benefits mean places where climate and finances that make grass impractical, can service more decent fields (see Scotland).

 

There is also correlation to increased scoring, if the Women's U-20 World Cup was to believed. However that correlation is about as weak as the increased injury correlation on modern turf. In that it is highly arguable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sort of been of two mind on this, like many others, seen the good and bad of both sides but not anymore.

 

RANT ALERT

 

While I think everyone agrees that modern (and evolving) plastic pitches are an improvement over many of the grass pitches which may be available in certain locations (for a variety of reasons, not just the environment) for premier events, you know, like World Cup Finals, there isn't EVER any question as to the quality of the pitches which will be made available. 

 

Unless of course you're planing on playing the tourney during the summer in Qatar.  Or maybe Canada, where the summer climate isn't the issue, economics is.

 

Hands up.  Who tuned into the EUROs this past week?  I watched both England and Scotland play.  Anyone suggesting the natural grass pitches they played on weren't vastly superior in appearance (and that's important) and play than anything offered at the WWC this month is off their head.

 

Artifical turf has a place in football, a real God Send in some instances to be honest with you, but it's place isn't at a World Cup Finals.

 

Next finals will be in France and not ONE second of ONE match will be played on plastic. 

 

Please let some magic come from this tourney because using these ladies as lab rats isn't, hasn't, and won't flatter the efforts Canada has made to host a world football tournement. 

 

I dont' write that in any was as to disrespect those who've worked day and night to make this the best tourney it could be, I just suggest that those who have contributed did the best with what they had and unfortunately, the best they had wasn't the best.  Full stop.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone suggesting the natural grass pitches they played on weren't vastly superior in appearance (and that's important) and play than anything offered at the WWC this month is off their head.

 

That's not a rant at all.  Not even a polite Canadian rant.

 

First time I've heard anyone talk about a difference in appearance and I've read an embarrassing amount on it.  Maybe fourth gen fieldturf will take note and add gold sparkles, but what's more likely is fibre optic threads that light up,  I actually seem to remember hearing something about that a couple years ago, fields that could switch the lines.

 

If you rephrase the rest of that as "grass is vastly superior in play to players who grew up on and prefer it," I'll agree with you 100%.  But anything more than that is personal preference.  Don't get me wrong, I prefer grass.  But that's because the rhythm is more suited to my game.  If I was a better athlete I would rather play on turf.  Each surface has it's pros and cons.  I have zero problem or issue with anyone saying they prefer either, but just the same as if someone said turf was a better, I'd tell them it's not something you can make a universally declarative statement on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty well the only negative comment I have heard from Spanish announcers and Eurosport in Eng and Spanish.

 

They say it is hotter, but we are not in heat waves so it is acceptable. 

 

I also have a sense some balls run fast, perhaps players are not used to the ball not being held up in the grass, a problem of weighting passes.

 

That is about it, not a bad bounce seen, the play has been very technical. The pitches, if  you have noticed, are also on the large side, lots of room long and wide. 

 

I prefer grass and can understand those who do, but I don't think it will be a problem in this tournament until the US gets knocked out before the final and they churn it up as an excuse once more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I have noticed about the ball is that women are striking the ball a lot harder to net then I've ever seen them do when the planets are in alignment for them to get fully behind it.  I can't remember what German player is was but from 30m she almost knocked a goalkeeper right into the net.  You could see the keeper's entire body go back a foot on stopping it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I have noticed about the ball is that women are striking the ball a lot harder to net then I've ever seen them do when the planets are in alignment for them to get fully behind it.  I can't remember what German player is was but from 30m she almost knocked a goalkeeper right into the net.  You could see the keeper's entire body go back a foot on stopping it.

 

I spoke of the mild scoring correlation on turf earlier, which given it was the U-20 squad, who likely don't kick with as much force as the WNTs may be the explanation as to why. It also certainly explains why so many crossbars or over the net kicks have been happening on this tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I have noticed about the ball is that women are striking the ball a lot harder to net then I've ever seen them do when the planets are in alignment for them to get fully behind it.  I can't remember what German player is was but from 30m she almost knocked a goalkeeper right into the net.  You could see the keeper's entire body go back a foot on stopping it.

 

Love the HD slow motion, those impacts are great fun to watch.

 

Seen a few times with the high clearances where the english on the ball just gets grabbed by the turf and the resulting deflection seems to get exaggerated.  It's weird because it only the odd one, not really that many (and I've watched more of this tourney than I care to admit) but it sure stands out when it does happen.

 

All in all though the fields have played quit well.  Aside from clouds of pellets flying and some road rash for the players.  Get longer socks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This biased and inaccurate article is written by  Hampton Dellinger  --the lead attorney  in the human rights tribunal complaint against the CSA and FIFA for staging the 2015  WWC on turf. In other words, Abby Wambach's lawyer.  It's over. They withdrew their complaint in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the big irony I pointed out in the beginning.  Because the Americans were raised on it, played their college on it, and play most of their year-long league on it - they had a big advantage which worked out great for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should leave comments to the article at the site if there are inaccuracies in the article or comments (haven't read it yet)  Just reading some of it, what a f'# a$#@!^&* the author is.

 

"And rather than staging games in the densely populated soccer hotbed of Toronto, Canadian officials opted for the remote town of Moncton where few fans showed up at the stadium and the ones who did had trouble getting in. Moreover, the attendance records that Montagliani and his CSA sidekick Peter Montopoli have been crowing about are due in large part to American fans crossing the border to cheer on the U.S.A. The bottom line is that Canada had a golden opportunity to show the world how a first-class World Cup is run, and it blew it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...