I just dont understand why FIFA doesn't put a height limit on the "bounce" of balls. Artificial just bounces too high. The balls need to be just slightly heavier and turf wouldnt look so terrible when watching games.
They do. See https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/get-turf-out-of-mls.1944595/page-4#post-25776790 From the same report. Conclusion, FIFA's testing places the vertical bounce within the variance you find on grass. Your move. EDIT: are there fields that don't meet these conditions? Certainly! Seattle Fieldturf pre-2012. Anything with the FIFA two-star rating has gone through the testing to fall within the same player/ball reactions you get on natural grass. It is really is that close.
And lets not forget the number of times we see a ball on a natural grass field bounce over the head of a keeper and end up in the goal. On a turf field the forums would be on fire with how artificial turf caused that bounce and how a natural grass field would never behave that way, but since it happened on a grass field, the GK got his positioning wrong.
How about you not be a dumbass and not compare your suburban lawn to a field that is used by two pro teams and soon enough a college team? Opinionated enough for you?
First of all, I'm sure Garber's not the only one who has a say in these decisions. Second of all, you're seriously misunderestimating the difficulties associated with getting a stadium. I know you said but this point deserves more than one sentence. This is MLS, not the NFL. Name all the soccer-only MLS stadiums. You can't have turf as a be-all-end-all factor for expansion. It's just not good business sense. If you call that being motivated by greed, then so be it.
Obviously the limit FIFA puts on the bounce needs to be more stringent. There is no way that one dropped on grass and one dropped on artificial will have the same bounce. Im asking it to just be the same that's all.
I'm sure you've done a detailed scientific study on this and your evidence runs counter to FIFA's. It is FIFA's contention that a 2-Star turf field shares similar characteristics to a grass field.
FIFA actually doesn't perform the tests themselves. They contract it out to a few select groups to independently [using the word loosely because this is FIFA, but considering the range of companies and the fact FIFA does have the interest in the quality of the game] grant the two or one-star ratings. The FIFA Quality Concept that I've been wielding like a Scottish claymore lists the "Test Institutes Appointed by FIFA": The single X means they can perform field tests, the double XX ones can do both laboratory and field tests. Mind you this report is a few years old, there may be many more now that can perform the tests. Not one of those above is in the Americas or Asia [save for the Aussies].
Not that I don't believe the studies, but anything "official" form FIFA has to be taken with a grain of salt considering all the corruption and money moving around that place. Plus if the excuse is "well it works if maintained", then shouldn't the moment it stops acting with in accepted bounds, be grounds for no longer "approving" of a surface? Not that it's really fair to just call out fake stuff, because as others have noted, there are a ton of times when the grass fields are worse then the worst turf. I guess the point is, MLS should do a better job making sure all the fields meet the quality all the time not just every 4 years when they re-plant/re-lay the stuff.
If it has to deal with money, I may agree with you. But when it deals with the safety and quality of the field, I think the interest in cronyism significantly decreases. If they did not develop the standards of quality and review, then how could they differentiate between turf fields of acceptable quality and those that should never host a FIFA match? Grass is easy: the sight test is enough. Not with the evergreen turf fields.
You mean like having to get it re-certified every year? http://www.portlandtimbers.com/news...urface-earns-second-fifa-2-star-certification Edit: Certification length of a two-star field is in section 2.4.1 of this document: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/foo...08/fqchandbookofrequirements(january2012).pdf
Exactly, the reason I brought it up, because there was no way the pre-2012 field at Century Link was certified anything, other then crap. But if they're doing their jobs, maintaining their surfaces, that's about the bets anyone can realistically hope for.
My problem is that 2 star field does not have the same characteristics as a grass field. All you have to do is watch a game and it is evident. FIFA needs to to do a new study. How about make it out of 4 stars?
Too bad they didn't show any data on the passing rates. 3.2% is possibly not even statistically significant.
Excuse me if I go with the professional companies that actually do this (listed above in this thread) rather than your "eye" for it.
No one doubts there are characteristics that differentiate artificial and natural grass. But I could make the argument there are differences between Bermuda and bluegrass. You've stated a fact that is obvious. Ever heard of expectancy bias? And the FIFA two-star rating is very stringent. Meeting it means that FIFA would even allow a FIFA World Cup Final to be played on it. A one-star rating is best used for recreation and never professional matches [which is unfortunately what Seattle earned for 2011]. The two tiered system separates the wheat from the tares. If you make it more complicated you will no doubt confuse people with all the elements needed to understand such a system. The two-star system gives a thumbs up or down. Simplicity works here.
Scientist/Engineer - "Here's this tried and tested data" Person - "Well, it just doesn't FEEL right" Scientist/Engineer - "I wasted four years of my life for what? ...for everyone to ignore me because they think their 'feelings' are more pertinent that measurable data? Sad scientist "
Yeah, but on a turf field the ball would have bounced over the net. This bounce was completely proper.
Do you work for an artificial turf company? Why else would you defend it so much? The ball bounces too high, end of story. If you have never watched one of these games, then you wouldn't know nut my guess is you have. Artificial is just terrible and shouldn't be used unless they change the bounce of the ball IMO.
No, it's not, actually. Because he works for 19 investor/operators who sit on the Board of Governors. Garber doesn't "hand out expansion franchises." And if he did, it's amazing he didn't put the kibosh on two of "his" expansion turf fields being replaced by grass. In other news, it's now ten days after this thread was created and they haven't pulled out all the turf yet? How is that possible?
How many times do we have to state you're making opinionated/subjective/biased statements lacking any credible source beyond your visual observations on a 37'' HDTV? The laws of physics don't change just because the field is artificial, they can construct it to act like natural grass and stop it from "bouncing too high." The bounce can be measured and is measured on grass and turf [synonymous words but, heck, I need to speak in layman's terms]. The four fields in MLS that are artificial meet these measurements.
Pointing out the flaw in your thinking does not automatically constitute a defense of what you're arguing against. I'm not defending turf. I'm pointing out that you simply saying "IMO, just look man you can seeeez it and stuff" doesn't go over the top of professional companies that do this shit for their business. If FIFA has set guidelines and any one of (if not multiple) the companies listed in this thread have done studies that empirically prove that the turf responds within acceptable margin to natural grass ... then your eye test just doesn't cut it, bro. Science > you. The ball bounces high on natural grass too. In fact, I've played both soccer and football on natural grass that I wish would have been turf. It happens.