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

[Joe MacCarthy]

Maybe because they wear all kinds of protective gear!

Over their nose and mouth?  Their list of cases has about as much validity as "suspicious" JFK assassination deaths.

[The Ref]

Over their nose and mouth? 

But they wear a face mask, chin strap and mouth guard.

[Admin]

You have something like 18 million kids playing soccer in the US in one form or another.

 

If you pick your data cluster first, and then go looking in a data pool that size, you will find whatever you want.

 

It's like spraying the side of a barn with a sub machine gun blind folded, then going up to it and circling a few holes that are close together and showing everyone what a good shot you are.

 

EDIT: This is not to say this is an illegitimate question. It's excellent that someone notices these things and looks, and I applaud Griffin's efforts to keep looking until someone can give her a conclusive answer.  Hunches like this can be right, and it's important that people do this.. 

[terpfan68]

I think some of the US matches should be scheduled for a grass field in Morden, MB that has (had) several gopher holes on it. The referee pointed out the holes to my 18 year old son and team mates and told them they would be wise not to play the ball in hat part of the field. The worst fields I have ever seen were grass fields and they seem to be fine for our youth. Winnipeg is getting two new turf fields in preparation for the WC and I wish we were getting more. We will have 4 areas of the city with 3 season fields. Winter requires a dome.

[Joe MacCarthy]

But they wear a face mask, chin strap and mouth guard.

So they can't breathe, or swallow? 

 

I'd advise you to get some perspective on this, start with reading socceronly's post and then eliminate your built in anti-CSA bias and move from there.

[The Ref]

So they can't breathe, or swallow? 

 

I'd advise you to get some perspective on this, start with reading socceronly's post and then eliminate your built in anti-CSA bias and move from there.

Amazing how a discussion thread about the women request for grass fields rather than turf for next World Cup, has turned into personal sarcasm from you. 

[Cheeta]

I think some of the US matches should be scheduled for a grass field in Morden, MB that has (had) several gopher holes on it. The referee pointed out the holes to my 18 year old son and team mates and told them they would be wise not to play the ball in hat part of the field. The worst fields I have ever seen were grass fields and they seem to be fine for our youth. Winnipeg is getting two new turf fields in preparation for the WC and I wish we were getting more. We will have 4 areas of the city with 3 season fields. Winter requires a dome.

 

Geezus I remember hoofing it about on pitches which were as much gravel parking lot as crab grass pitch.  We weren't concerned about wee black pellets invading our socks and boots, we were concerned about the gravel buckshot embedded in our knees and elbows.  Great fun prying that shit out of your flesh every evening.

 

And cancer from old tires?  Don't know anything about that but how about sending the kiddies out for a bit of footie in the "green space" build under the high voltage power lines or on a reclaimed land fill?  Who's the Einstein that though this was a good idea back in the 80s?  Tell me so I can punch him in the face. 

 

Excuse me whilst I shake my head.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Amazing how a discussion thread about the women request for grass fields rather than turf for next World Cup, has turned into personal sarcasm from you. 

So, in other words, you absolve the CSA from any wrong doing?

[The Ref]

That's not fair. The sarcasm was related to the post and was not personal. Furthermore, it was well deserved! (Again, for the content of the post, not personally.)

I clearly saw the words "you" and "yours".

[Joe MacCarthy]

I clearly saw the words "you" and "yours".

Ok, let's make it personal.  Is your interest in this just another thinly veiled shot to support your long standing anti-CSA agenda.

 

Again I ask, do you absolve the CSA from any wrong doing?

[The Ref]

It's hard to take you seriously

You don't have to take me anything.  Just leave me alone.

[The Ref]

"It's really more an issue of indifference toward the women's game. And I think that symbolism is what really bothers," said Collis, the attorney.  http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20141026-story.html

[Joe MacCarthy]

del

[shermanator]

So the request to have the HRTO speed up the hearing was rejected. Basically stating that if they wanted this sped up, they should have acted a lot quicker than they did. A quote from the HRTO is as follows (as per the11.ca):

 

“As significant as this case may be for the applicants, I do not find it appropriate to expedite an application where the applicants have not themselves acted expeditiously. I do not find it appropriate to expedite an application where the applicants did not file their application until 18 months or more after they reasonably would have been aware of the fact that gave rise to the application.”

 

http://the11.ca/2014/11/08/round-one-to-the-csa-human-rights-tribunal-co-chair-wont-rush-the-turfgate-case/

 

And you'll note this gem in the response from the CSA

 

Canada now has 19 FIF A approved 2-Star turf fields and 67 FIFA approved I-Star turf fields. A list of FIFA approved fields by location throughout the world is attached as Exhibit "L" to Victor Montagliani's affidavit. A review of this list demonstrates that Canada is a leader in developing high quality turf fields. For example, in contrast to Canada, the USA has only approximately 6

FIFA approved 2-Star and approximately 21 FIFA approved I-Star fields. National games may still be played in the USA on turf fields which do not meet FIFA's quality standards. Thus, games in a match organized by the US Association may be played on turf which is lower quality than will be used in the Competition. All of the venues for the Competition, however, will have FIFA approved 2-Star fields."

 

http://www.canadasoccer.com/files/2014_10_09_Response_to_Request_to_Expedite_Proceedings.pdf

[Joe MacCarthy]

Thanks shermantor for posting this, I have to hand it to the CSA, this is a great response effectively showing what a bullshit action that Wombat has crusaded for and sucked others into.
 
I went through it and have taken out most of the pertinent bits.  Our historians should definitely save this document as I'm sure what it concerns will come up again and again.

The complaint alleges that because the Competition will be played on fields with artificial turf ("turf'), the CSA and FIFA have discriminated against the players who intend to be playing on teams competing in the Competition.

The use of high quality turf is integral to soccer in Canada, and the CSA's bid on behalf of Canada to host the Competition was always premised on the use of turf in accordance with the rules relating to the Competition. The applicants have been aware of this for at least a year and half, and probably for three years, since Canada was awarded the right to hold the Competition in 2011. Since that time, cities across Canada, and the respondents, have continued to prepare for the Competition.
The assertion that turf fields are "second class" is highly contentious and will be subject of extensive expert evidence.

The applicants cannot seriously contend that the CSA's decision to bid on the Competition, proposing to use Canada's best available facilities, constitutes discrimination. The applicants' real concern is not with any conduct by the CSA, but with the decision of FIFA to permit the Competition to be held in a country where turf is a common playing surface in our premier stadiums. That is a decision which is not subject to review by this Tribunal and one which the applicants are out of time to challenge in any event. They appear to have brought the complaint largely as means of publicizing their dissatisfaction with FIFA's decision made in Zurich in 2011, to allow the CSA to host the Competition.

It has been clear since 2004 that World Cup competitions could be held on either natural or artificial turf provided the turf met approved standards. With respect to the playing fields in the Competition, since 2011, and certainly no later than March 2013, the applicants knew or should have known that the Competition would be played, at least in part, on artificial turf. As a result of its climate and culture, the use of high quality turf is an integral feature of Canadian soccer. Advances in the quality of turf over the past decade have been very significant, and Canada has expended significant resources to increase the number of its stadiums and playing fields with high quality turf.

Canada now has 19 FIFA approved 2-Star turf fields and 67 FIFA approved I-Star turf fields. A list of FIFA approved fields by location throughout the world is attached as Exhibit "L" to Victor Montagliani's affidavit. A review of this list demonstrates that Canada is a leader in developing high quality turf fields. For example, in contrast to Canada, the USA has only approximately 6 FIFA approved 2-Star and approximately 21 FIFA approved I-Star fields. National games may still be played in the USA on turf fields which do not meet FIFA's quality standards. Thus, games in a match organized by the US Association may be played on turf which is lower quality than will be used in the Competition. All of the venues for the Competition, however, will have FIFA approved 2-Star fields.

In 2012, Canada hosted the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football
("CONCACAF") Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Vancouver, which was played on a turf field. Of note is the fact that the US players mentioned in the application played at that tournament without complaint.

Most elite players spend a significant amount of their playing time on turf. This is particularly the case in Canada. If the complaint proceeds, the CSA will demonstrate that there is no increased risk to players from the use of turf rather than grass. This is supported by numerous studies. The topic of playing patterns has also been extensively researched in order to ensure that the game is not changed because of the surface. A string of studies has repeatedly confirmed with scientific evidence that there is no difference between the way the game of soccer is played on grass and turf.

FIFA accepted the CSA's bid for the Competition in March 2011. While no official host cities were announced at that time, it would have been clear to anyone familiar with Canada's facilities that turf would be used for some or all of the games.

On March 21,2013, over 18 months prior to the complaint in this matter being filed, the match schedule for the Competition was announced indicating the stadiums to be used. After this time, there could have been no confusion that the Competition, including the final championship game, would be played on turf. Indeed, that very day, Abby Wambach, one of the players listed in the complaint and a major international soccer star, began tweeting about her opposition to the matches being played on turf and media articles were published about Ms. Wambach's views.

Despite likely being aware for three years, but in any event at least eighteen months, of the circumstances which they say give rise to discrimination, the applicants have now filed a complaint which is incomplete in various ways. In addition to failing to properly identify the applicants, the complaint also lists no documents supporting the complaint other than a memorandum of fact and law drafted by lawyers. Despite the length of time the applicants have been aware of the salient acts, and their assertion that the matter is urgent, no expert reports have been delivered supporting the bald assertions about the dangers of using turf or the purported feasibility of installing grass fields at this late date in the locations at which the Competition is to be held.

Indeed, the applicants have provided no evidence to support their assertion that there is a practical remedy available to them now that will not be available if the hearing is not expedited. There are not enough grass fields in existence in suitable Canadian stadiums to host the Competition. It is clearly impractical to reconstruct the various venues, including three CFL stadiums, to include grass playing fields of sufficient quality. While the applicants suggest that grass fields could be temporarily laid over the turf fields, the results of using temporary grass fields have been very mixed. The applicants have not provided any evidence that a temporary grass surface would be a superior playing surface to the existing turf fields, or that this is a practical solution that can be adopted in all six host cities for all the needed fields.

Should the complaint proceed to be heard on its merits, the complaint is factually contentious. Turf is not a "second class" playing surface. The CSA will prove this by obtaining and filing qualitative and statistical expert evidence about player health and safety on turf, the quality and style of play on turf, the extent of the use of turf fields around the world, the lack of feasibility of the remedies proposed by the applicants and historical evidence about the 2004 decision to allow play on turf in support of the international expansion of the game. This evidence takes time to gather and present in an orderly and comprehensive manner. The complainants have narrowly framed their remedy to target the Competition and thereby create the urgency from their own lack of timeliness.

If the application is, as it appears, primarily an effort by certain players to highlight a disagreement they have with FIFA, the governing body of the soccer Associations to which each player belongs, that is not an appropriate basis on which to demand that this Tribunal modify its procedures and deprive the Respondents of a full and timely opportunity to respond to the legal and factual issues raised by the complaint. The way in which the complaint has been assembled, including the imprecision with respect to the identity of the parties, the lack of evidentiary or documentary support and the lack of clarity with respect to the remedies sought, suggests that the applicants are seeking a symbolic victory, not a practical outcome.

[shermanator]

This sums up my feelings on the subject perfectly:

 

Elizabeth C. ‏@LaDiavolina  11m11 minutes agoMontréal, Québec

What this 'lawsuit' really amounts to is a public, protracted temper tantrum by grown women upset they're not getting what they want.

[Joe MacCarthy]

^That's about the size of it

[The Ref]

The best is yet to come.

[The Ref]

Women not alone now...  http://www.brandonsun.com/sports/breaking-news/players-on-us-national-team-add-their-voice-to-womens-world-cup-turf-war-282193331.html?path=/sports/breaking-news&id=282193331&sortBy=oldest&viewAllComments=y

[baulderdash77]

It doesn't matter that someone chimes in.  The case has no validity. 

 

If Abby Wambach doesn't want to play in the World Cup there's nothing stopping her.  Otherwise she should shut her mouth and be happy that Canada wanted the WWC; no other country did.

[Joe MacCarthy]

It doesn't matter that someone chimes in.  The case has no validity. 

Which was pretty much admitted in that story. 

 

"It's not as much about the legal challenge. It's about the importance of the World Cup and the Women's World Cup is a World Cup," Mark Levinstein, acting executive director and general counsel of the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association, said in an interview. "

 

"We have all played on artificial turf and we know there are circumstances where it is appropriate or conditions require its use, but the World Cup is not one of those circumstances."

 

So all that crap about discrimination and safety is bullshit and it's looking more and more like Crabby Wambitch's temper tantrum.

 

We ought to just forget about this dog's breakfast and get out now before it becomes a total cluster**** with protests and the like.  Our country just doesn't need that kind of garbage right now.  If the Americans want it and can host at the last minute, let them have it.

[terpfan68]

I think the US team should just boycott the WC if they feel so strongly about the matter.

[Joe MacCarthy]

I think the US team should just boycott the WC if they feel so strongly about the matter.

That too would be a good solution

[The Ref]

I have made my position clear on this matter.  I support women players on their quest.

[rkomar]

I'm not satisfied with either side on this.  One side is saying "It's the World Cup so it should be grass".  The other is saying "There is no such rule and you can't make us".  Both are right.  It should be grass, but there are probably very good reasons why it won't be.  Bringing in the courts is just suppressing any open exchange.  We'll just be left with a bad taste in our mouths for an event that should be a celebration.