So with your calculations how short was it? a yard or two? Is it possible to take the only known on the field that is very difficult to change (the goal) 8 yards divided by 2 and calculate out from there. Or is that what you did? Its also very difficult to do an appropriate ratio to have the penalty area in proportion to how narrow to make it. So with those assumptions the goal, the 6 yard, the 18 would most likely be accurate. The easiest way to make a narrow field is from the 18 to the sideline. So with 8/2=4+6+12=22 plus the wings. There is no way that from the hash to penalty area is 3 yards. It looks in proportion from 1.5 to 2 yards not 3. If we take 17.1 +10.75 =27.85/2 =13.925px then take 26px/13.925px would equal 1.86 yards. Is that too simplistic or mathematically viable? So it would definately be short on each side of the field by 1.14 or short 2.28 yards.
I don't see too much of a need to go all Zapruter. If you watch European footie, you know what the game looks like on a 74 to 75 yard pitch. This pitch was not 74 yards. Do I think it was 70? Personally, no. My best guess, assuming the 6 yard box was drawn correctly, is around 66 to 68. Either way, whether it was short by 12 or 20 feet, it is a different game on a pitch that narrow. Even 12 feet makes a significant difference. 70 feet is not sufficient for international soccer. Pitch lengh is not as crucial. However, and this is a big however, when the pitch is shortened, it exponentially exascerbates the width problem. Sortening to 110 or even a little less is not a huge difference if the width is 74 yards. Shortening a 68 or 70 yard pitch below 115 makes it unreasonably narrow in the corners. For countries that have single existing facilities that cannot accomodate a 115x74 pitch, fine. Make the pitch as large as the facility safely will allow. For everyone else, the pitch should never be less than 72 yards unless the pitch is 115 yards long, in which case dropping down to 70 is ok.
I haven't calculated it since it's not really relevant what the exact dimensions were. But I would say the gap was one or two yards. Making the field 2 to 4 yards too narrow. My theory is that since in the Laws of the Game they haven't determined a minimum length of "the gap", FIFA officials don't measure the gap. Making it easy for the home team to steal a couple of yards, knowing it would be impossible for the visiting team to do anything about it. I believe the visiting team has to file a written complaint before the start of the game, and then what? Postpone the game? That would've been 'impossible'.
Details are what I love. I guess I am a nerd, eventhough I don't think figuring out and discussing specifcs makes me one. Oh well, I'll nerd away today and order pizza and calculate the bill and tip with specific detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_-_AFC_Fourth_Round describes how Uzbekistan defeated Bahrain 1-0, protested, and then played a 1-1 draw after FIFA had the game be replayed. Uzbekistan was then eliminated on away goals after a scoreless draw in the second leg at Bahrain. Bahrain advanced to the interconfederational playoff where they lost to Trinidad and Tobago. The moral is that since we won we shouldn't protest.
I am at a loss as to how everyone knows this and yet curses Klinsi for how poorly the team looked. Yes, they looked poor, but it was not possible to play soccer on that field. And for a physical battle, A&B were quite capable of that.
Don't postpone the game. Redraw the lines to make them legal. If there had been no room to do so, then there would have been a problem, but it sounds like there was plenty of room. Also, do FIFA regulations still allow an undersized field to be used if both federations agree to it? I know that this was done with a WC qualifier between the United States and Canada in Baltimore in 1972.
It is the responsibility of the host nation to insure that the stadium and field are appropriate for the match. (page 29, article 20). http://pt.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/47/38/17/regulationsfwcbrazil2014_en.pdf Typically, Fifa sends what is known as a match commissioner to each qualifier. It is their job and also the job of the referee(s) to inspect the field prior to the match. Certainly, if there were improprieties, we would have known by now. It would be absolutely amazing to me, if the field were less than 70 yards. It was pretty obviously longer than 110. And it was probably the narrowest field I have ever seen an international match on.
I've watched a lot of Timbers games at Jeld-Wen's 70 yard wide field. That looked at least 2-4 yards narrower. Couple that with the pictures being sent from the surface, and you take the 3 points however they came and move on. Not to say that game didn't suck. Because it did.
That's a solution. In any case, these things need to be challenged. They're clear attempts to cheat, and just simply putting up with it without calling them out on it only leaves the door open for it to happen to us again in the future.
Turns out, the chairman of FIFA's Committee for Ethics and Fair Play is actually an American named Michael Garcia. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/bodies/standingcommittees/committee=1882034.html The scope of applicability of FIFA's Code of Ethics: "This Code shall apply to conduct that damages the integrity and reputation of football and in particular to illegal, immoral and unethical behaviour. The Code focuses on general conduct within association football that has little or no connection with action on the field of play."
Pretty much. The overall length of the end line should be 70 yards. The goal takes up 8; that leaves 62. Or, 31 on each side. From the outer edge of the goal to the edge of the penalty area is 18, and from the corner arc to the restraining line is 10. That's 28 yards on each side of the goal. Leaving us needing three more yards somewhere on each side of the goal. And if anyone thinks that's a three yard gap between the restraining line and the 18, they're high.
Correction to my previous post: Because the Laws of the Game don't not precisely specify whether the hash to sideline should be 10 or 11 yards, I made a mistake and did not take the 1 yard arc 'around the corner' into account. So instead of 10 yards the 'sideline to hash length' is (should be) 11 yards. (Thanks to FUAEG) This reverts me to my initial conclusion: it seems highly likely based on the above image that the field was indeed 70 yards wide.
The USSF said they measured the field before the game. So this is interesting because it looked REALLY narrow. I guess now we know what 70 yes of width looks like. That with rain, wind and a horrible surface made for a truly terrible game. But we won!
I dont fault Antigua for trying to get a "competitive advantage" with a smaller field. The only question is as the OP asked if the field was legal. If it was by even 0.00000000001 cm, then we cant complain. The only thing we can complain was the use of a cricket field. In todays day and age of cricket, the field is flattened out so much, it is basically like playing on smooth asphalt. IMO, its worse than playing on turf. In the old days, cricket fields were only flattened where the pitch part was and the outfield was a much thicker softer grass. However, once you add in the rain and longer spikes and the field should have been unplayable due to a very uneven playing surface, especially with a compact field.