Ball advice/review/bouncing/feeling thread [2]

[kaback99]

i would like to know about this too. ive never seen a ball that was $100 or more that was not FIFA approved. maybe someone is trying to pull a fast one?

[thebigman]

maybe hes looking at spaldings? lol

[Kenntak]

The Brine Championship ball does not appear to be FIFA approved, at least by descriptions that I have read, but it is by the NCAA. I could be wrong.

My question really is why a company would not seek to obtain or ensure FIFA approval with respect to one of its more expensive balls in its line, say $50+.

[Skizz]

I don't know why they wouldn't, it is a bit strange. Also bear in mind that "FIFA Approved" branding tends to be given to top level balls used in FIFA competition, but also that the "FIFA Inspected" branding can be given to balls suitable for use in lower level competition.

[Pkauffma]

I think it is because Brine soccer balls are terrible.

[kumazou]

The FIFA Approved/Inspected certification just means the ball adhears to a certain specification. Its possible that the NCAA certification is different than the FIFA Approved certification and perhaps this ball doesnt meet all of the specifications. Also, getting something certified usually costs a good chunk of change. Perhaps Brine thought it was more worthwhile getting the NCAA certification considering the market they are targetting.

More info on fifa approval: http://www.soccerballworld.com/FIFA_Approvals.htm

[Skizz]

The FIFA Approved/Inspected certification just means the ball adhears to a certain specification.

Yep, most balls will adhere to this if they call themselves match balls but the companies might not want to pay FIFA for the trouble of testing the ball and allowing them to use that trademark "FIFA Approved" or "FIFA Inspected" on their ball.

[Pkauffma]

Yep, most balls will adhere to this if they call themselves match balls but the companies might not want to pay FIFA for the trouble of testing the ball and allowing them to use that trademark "FIFA Approved" or "FIFA Inspected" on their ball.

That is exactly it, the NCAA Soccer market isn't that big but just right for Brine. They probably don't have much of an international focus and don't need to. To me it seems to be a niche company, but I could be way off base.

[Kenntak]

Thanks guys, interesting discussion.

[Piciocco]

i have a couple questions for all you ball experts. recently soccer.com released the soccadelic beach soccer ball and i was wondering if anyone had any input on it. also i was wondering if anyone had some info on the calle street soccer ball. and as far as expensive balls go hows the new diadora rete pro ball(its not 100 but its close, and it doesnt have a fifa approved but i think thats as close as it gets.)

[Kenntak]

i have a couple questions for all you ball experts. [excerpt] . . . and as far as expensive balls go hows the new diadora rete pro ball(its not 100 but its close, and it doesnt have a fifa approved but i think thats as close as it gets.)

With regard to the Diadora Rete Pro ball, it is indeed FIFA approved. See the following link: http://www.diadoraamerica.com/store_product_1039.html

As for performance, check out the comments by Craig Gordon regarding a game in which I believe the ball was used: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/2008/03/27/craig-gordon-blasts-new-ball-for-costing-him-clean-sheet-on-george-burley-s-debut-86908-20364250/
Gordon indicates the ball is definitely made for shooters in the way it swerves. I saw a video of the goal which Gordon is talking about, and it does appear that the ball starts swerving one way then turns the other way, quite amazing. I plan to get this ball when I have the money.

[Piciocco]

i thought it wasnt approved because i was reading the reviews for it on soccer.com and normally all their approved balls have it posted at the bottom but this one didn't. and also i got the calle street and the soccadelic beach balls toady and i'll say that the calle ball has alot i mean ALOT of grip its so easy for freestyle its a little lopsided but its starting to even out. also the biggest it gets is a size four but i think its a quality street ball. As for the soccadelic ball it feelis like and other training ball but then again i havent used it on the beach yet so hopefully its got something special.. all in all calle ball is worth the money the soccadelic one i think your better off getting a training ball for 20 dollars rahter then spend 35 on this one.

P.S. its great to see another Roma fan.

[actusreus13]

Can't speak as to the performance of this new Diadora ball, but I can say that the scuff factor must be off the charts...

http://www.soccer.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=1379&pcount=&Product_Id=299804

[PVancouver]

I think it is pretty obvious that artificial surfaces are here to stay.

For outdoor, as well as of course, indoor soccer.

For me the two main differences between playing soccer on an artificial field versus a well-maintained natural grass field is that a) the ball rolls much farther , and b) the ball bounces much higher. Both of these make the ball more difficult to control.

Hard natural surfaces exhibit similar (or worse) characteristics to artificial ones.

So I wonder, if an artificial surface cannot be created that perfectly mimics a well-maintained natural grass field (and apparently it hasn't been so far), why haven't more efforts and research haven't gone into creating a ball that in combination with an artificial field in plays more like a standard ball plays on a natural field?

For example, if a standard ball were covered with a non-adhesive velcro-like surface (and please, spare me the jokes), wouldn't it not roll as far?

Admittedly, doing anything to reduce the distance a ball rolls or bounces will also reduce the distance it will travel in flight, but perhaps some trade-offs are worthwhile.

A ball could be pimpled like a basketball or softened like a tennis ball. Drawbacks to be minimized would be the absorption of water and the increase in pain suffered when hit by the ball. The water absorption issue could be side-stepped by limiting the use of the ball to dry fields only.

Have all possible designs already been considered and rejected, or has no one really taken a hard look at the issue?

A not really related link (but at least some research is being done)...
Football and Surfaces, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2007) (http://www.jssm.org/suppls/10/Suppl.10.p47-52.pdf)

[MassachusettsRef]

I'm pretty certain this has nothing to do with refereeing.

[andymoss]

You must be a comedy character. You simply must....

[Piciocco]

i think that scuff marks gives the ball character

[law5guy]

a well-maintained natural grass field

And then need to make a ball for the sandy fields, the muddy fields, the hard packed dirt ground fields, the fields with tall grass, and the other such non-well-maintained natural grass fields that I typically see when I go out refereeing. Sheesh.

[campbed]

How about a ball that won't break my car window when it hits it? ;)

http://www.winterson.com/pics/nooddibmw.jpg

[Ref Flunkie]

Basically you would need to increase the coefficient of friction for the ball in order to have it roll slower and less far, which shouldn't be that hard (your idea basically accomplishes this). I think the trickier part is making a ball that doesn't bounce as high, but still behaves similar to a standard soccer ball when it comes to shots and other more forceful kicks.