Confirmed: 2015 World Cup to be played on artificial surface

OK, I guess you are just reading the link from a pro turf view. I'm not playing on it, so it doesn't matter to me..... But clearly due to previous knee injuries the staff wanted to hold some players out to avoid "possible" further injury.........

FACT injuries happen on grass. No one is disputing that....... That doesn't change the idea that the staff probably wouldn't have had the same apprehension had the game been held on grass.

FACT this is what came out of the head coaches mouth:

I posted a link about Herc's knee injury that happened in June....

Many in the field of sports still feel turf is not as forgiving of a surface as grass. No one is saying turf is the only cause for field injuries. Or that turf is to blame for their previous injuries. But if you are looking to avoid possibly further injuring you legs in their opinion turf was not an ideal surface.

 

I'm saying that in Gomez' case you should be honest. his being held out is because he is not cleared to play on any surface. is is effectively off the team until he is cleared to play. he got hurt on grass, was held out for Honduras and panama and still doesnt have a doctor's OK to play.
period.

was off the team as of June 10 and hasnt been reinstated.

http://www.starsandstripesfc.com/wo.../herculez-gomez-injury-usa-vs-panama-honduras

the FACT is Gomez isn't cleared to play on a down comforter.
the FACT is Gomez played on a pretty bad Turf field in Seattle for a year and said he loved it, even though he broke a foot when he was kicked on a grass field.
and the FACT is he then played indoors on Turf for a year after that without injury.
and finally, the FACT is he has played four games against the Sounders in CCL games (two on on Turf) and scored every time and says he loves Turf. Not mentioned is that he hates SIGI for how he was treated with the Galaxy. he even talked smack about joining the Timbers some day.

i'd rather deal with fact than apprehension, which Klinsmann claims he doesn't have.

You must mean the injury I linked to that happened on GRASS. (sheesh)

coaches say a lot of things, including this out of Jurgie's mouth.
"Playing the game on turf is no problem at all"

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...en-klinsmann-playing-game-turf-no-problem-all

a lot of the answer has to do with the agenda of the person asking the question.

so whatever apprehension he has is about PLAYERS BEING USED TO TURF. not the turf.

How many FIFA two star fields are there in the usa to compare? I'll tell you... in stadiums there are three. until earlier this month there was only Jeld Wen. and I think Jeld Wen is the only one with a foam pad under it. so whatever these people in the field of sports feel, maybe they should insist on top quality fields of any sort. and learn the difference between types of Turf. There are some pretty rock hard fields that are grass, ask anybody who has played in Texas on Bermuda grass in mid summer.

Beasly called the Turf at Jeld Wen soft, intimating that maybe it was so soft it would slow him down. His ringing endorsement on local TV of the Seattle temporary sod was " it wasn"t that bad. they rolled it a lot". He fell on a seam up there, I recall, as did several players on both sides.

I also remember when they put sod down for a qualifier in the mid 90's at Jeld Wen (then Civic Stadium). Lets not mince words. it sucked.

blaming the three (two, really, Holden played on Turf and scored a goal) players held out to Turf was a bogus made up story on a slow news night before the match, and its a forgotten story now.


I wonder if Abby, who started this, will be held out "Just to be safe" on Sunday?

I'm betting not.

 

So if the quote comes from another source, it's legit?!? But since the original link I posted had a angle that was not pro-turf, all the comments are to be thrown out, and the story as a whole is now not credible?!? You keep mentioning injuries that occurred on grass. And I don't understand why. Nowhere did I claim turf was the cause of the injuries.... I alluded to the link stating that the coach felt better about keeping his leg injury players off the pitch due to it being turf. He may in fact love the stuff, it didn't stop him from holding his players out... And the more you talk about Gomez and his not being cleared because of concussion related issues. For some reason I can't find a single article talking about his concussion. I think you have him confused with J. Jones....

Gomez didn't even play against Jamaica: http://www.ussoccer.com/news/mens-national-team/2013/06/us-mnt-vs-jamaica-match-report.aspx

http://www.ussoccer.com/teams/us-men/lineups/2013-lineups.aspx

" Herculez Gomez is unlikely to play on Tuesday due to a knee injury that he picked up at the end of the Liga MX season." That tues is June 11th 2013 The Panama game.

So in short Gomez being held out has nothing to do with a concussion as has been claimed multiple times. And more to do with not wanting to subject his knee to turf. Had this been the WC final, for sure he'd have been out there. Again, I understand you are pro-turf. I'm not pro-grass, or anti-turf. I posted a link that reminded me of this thread and posted it for discussion purposes. I have no agenda here. And I kept my information factual. I don't know any mind readers, so I won't claim to know what people were thinking in their heads, just what came out of their mouths.

 

Interesting report:
Incidence, Mechanisms, and Severity of Match-Related Collegiate Women’s Soccer Injuries on FieldTurf and Natural Grass Surfaces - A 5-Year Prospective Study

(Just to note, this is about the FieldTurf brand specifically and partially funded by FieldTurf Inc)

 

possible lawsuit:

http://womens.soccerly.com/2014/08/...-fight-artificial-turf-2015-womens-world-cup/

 

There's a separate thread on the possible lawsuit: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/top-players-sue-fifa-against-the-use-of-turf-for-wwc.2009439/

 

Round one to the CSA: Human Rights Tribunal co-chair won’t rush the turfgate case
Steven Sandor 11/08/2014

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has rejected a plea to expedite its hearing of the grass vs. turf case.

A group of women’s players, including Americans Alex Morgan and Abby Wambach, Germany’s Nadine Angerer and Japan’s Yuki Ogimi had petitioned the HRTO to hear their plea against the use of artificial turf fields at the 2015 Women’s World Cup. The Canadian Soccer Association and FIFA have defended the use of the artificial-turf fields, while the women’s players named in the suit (a total of 15 on the document) wanted to speed the case forward in hopes of getting a ruling in favour of grass in time for it to have an impact on the WWC.

The CSA’s lawyers have stated that they don’t feel the HRTO has the jurisdiction to rule on a Women’s World Cup, as five of the six venues being used in the tournament are located outside of the province of Ontario.

On Friday, HRTO co-chair Jo-Anne Pickel rejected the players’ plea to expedite the case, basically killing any chance to have it heard in time to have a meaningful impact on the WWC.

She wrote that, as expedited cases put all other matters before the HRTO on the back burner, it would be unfair to all the other applicants. It would be unfair of the HRTO to delay other cases of racial, workplace and/or gender discrimination to accommodate the players.

And, Pickel said it would be even harder to expedite the case, when the players themselves waited till 2014 to file, even though the World Cup was awarded to Canada in 2011 — and it was common knowledge turf would be used.

“Another key factor weighing against the applicants’ request is their failure to proceed expeditiously in filing their application once they became aware of the alleged breach of the Code,” Pickel wrote.

Basically — if you take your sweet time to bring it to the tribunal, why should the tribunal then rush itself for you?

“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.”

Pickel has now given the CSA and the applicants seven days to confirm or deny that they want to go into an early mediation process. According to Pickel’s paperwork, the CSA and the applicants agreed to take part in mediation. Now, the question is, would they take part in early mediation? (These look to be two separate things).

The applicants have applied for an “interim remedy” – think of it as an injunction — and the HRTO says it will rule on that in the coming weeks.

 

Tks to shermanator at Vs for headsup for above and below links

The CSA's Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings

Some tidbits from the document:

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.

 

I read that a month ago...

http://www.thestar.com/sports/socce...upport_of_real_grass_at_womens_world_cup.html

 

The expedition decision was yesterday

 

Your lengthy post above mine was a document I read a month ago.

From the TorStar piece yesterday:

But “given the jurisdictional complexity of the case,” [Adjudicator Jo-Anne ] Pickel said she doubted whether even an expedited hearing might result in a timely decision.

“It must be remembered that an expedited application is given priority for Tribunal resources over all other matters currently before the Tribunal,” she wrote. “What the applicants are in effect requesting is that the Tribunal give their application priority over all the many other applications that have been filed with the Tribunal alleging violations of the (Human Rights) Code.”

 

One of the brightest statements ever on bigsoccer.com

 

It's like everytime I hear that song on the radio Im feeling reminded of Canada2015.

"and the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake....."

 

Kind of like your avatar, reminds me of the old sieg heil salute.

 

Thank you. I will gladly stop the childish shots myself when the other poster stops the non stop hate Canada trolling. Canada has gone through a not very pleasant time in this past few months and I personally am not in the mood to put up with the Canada trolling, when we are down.

 

Let's keep the turf wars thing here. Im curious if this is more than just a feint by FIFA.

 

While it's nice they r talking I dont really see any reason for FIFA to have suddenly changed their position. This seems to be more like Hey, we tried to work it out type thing.

 

Yes, that's the most likely scenario. Maybe they're jsut trying to figure out how serious the players are about this issue. What is very unlikely but Im hoping for is Valcke, and given what he has said about FIFAs reputation recently, coming to the conclusion theyve gone too far in various areas(Qatar etc) trying to solve this problem in favor of the players. Surely would be positive publicity. Something they havent had in the last two years or so.

 

With the draw and their big year end awards coming up this helps shift focus away from Turf and back where it should be in FIFA opinion.

 

On the back of an era of us being able to clearly witness the most blatant cases of corporate corruption seen in world football, FIFA are now able to cream off millions/billions of $ for the next two male WC. But in this same time frame of a massive non profit organisation.. bringing in all this new crazy level of revenue to help develop the game of football globally.., were also about to witness a women's world cup headed into it's 7th event under the banner of FIFA, having to use the infrastructure of a youth tournament, all because of it's 1st world host nations claims of unavoidable and unfortunate financial constraints...