Conference votes against allowing 3G pitches

[vornstyle76]

The Conference has voted 22-11 against allowing Maidstone United to use their 3G pitch should they get promoted to the Conference South this season (a real possibility). Maidstone say they will carry on campaigning: http://www.maidstoneunited.co.uk/2014/01/stones-to-continue-3g-campaign/

I personally think this is petty conservatism, but I know there's a lot of grass purists out there. The situation also makes things yet more interesting for Dulwich Hamlet as they're challenging with MUFC and others for promotion from the Isthmian Premier. The season may well not end at the final whistle of the play-off final

 

[editor]

I fully understand the logic. I fully understand the business ramifications and how beneficial they can be to a club.
But I fucking hate that shiny, perfect, fake grass.

I want puddles, and mud and changing seasons.

 

[vornstyle76]

I prefer grass. Yes, even when I'm all geared up to rage at the Met's pantomime fake works team and it gets called off due to a bit of rain. But a degree of pragmatism is needed. And there's probably a big chance Dulwich will eventually emerge from their current stadium ownership issues with a fake pitch.

 

[el-ahrairah]

I fully understand the logic. I fully understand the business ramifications and how beneficial they can be to a club.
But I fucking hate that shiny, perfect, fake grass.

I want puddles, and mud and changing seasons.

pretty much word for word my feelings.

 

[steeplejack]

terrible decision.

3G and 4G pitches are excellent surfaces and allow small clubs huge scope for turning their stadia into community space, and vital revenue generation. They are part of the future for small clubs, like it or not. # and 4 G pitches are becoming common in the lower leagues in Scotland and in the juniors, and they really help those clubs without having a detrimental or even noticeable effect on the players.

The decision smacks of bitterness at small clubs trying to improve their facilities / neanderthal perception that modern day artifical grass is exactly the same as Preston / Luton /QPR's bouncy carpets in the 80s. The latter view is like saying there is no difference between an Austin Maxi and a people carrier made in 2014.

 

[pettyboy]

What do those who've been to Maidstone think of their pitch?

 

[editor]

What do those who've been to Maidstone think of their pitch?

I hated the glowing green thing. Takes away a big part of the character and individuality of football grounds.

 

[juice_terry]

What do those who've been to Maidstone think of their pitch?

It's a cracking pitch and as stated by steeplejack is a far cry from terrible astroturf from the 80's. (I played on QPR, Luton and Oldham's pitches and boy the carpet burns were terrible).. Makes sense as it avoids the usual winter postponements due to water-logging etc.. although I agree in some respects to editor 's sentiments. I don't feel that the club are at any advantage in their home games playing on the 3G pitch and at Maidstone the pitch is utilised 7 days a week to benefit the community.

 

[editor]

I fully understand the business benefits and cashflow boost, but those monetary gains come at the expensive of character, and losing of what I think is an essential, integral part of the football experience.

 

[Yorick]

I personally think this is petty conservatism, but I know there's a lot of grass purists out there. The situation also makes things yet more interesting for Dulwich Hamlet as they're challenging with MUFC and others for promotion from the Isthmian Premier. The season may well not end at the final whistle of the play-off final

Would be disappointing to be subjected to the tedium of Conference regulations without seeing Dulwich "clinch" promotion. Especially as a result of what is, essentially, a silly decision.

I agree, in principle, with everything editor has said and would be very unhappy if Hamlet do end up on an artificial pitch. But esentially, these arguments against are mainly aesthetic, and I don't think are strong enough to stop it at this level.

 

[editor]

There should be MUD involved in winter football games.

 

[Teaboy]

The other factor which needs to be considered is no matter how realistic they are, they are still different, and as such will always be a benefit to the home club above and beyond mere home advantage. Unless there is wide spread take-up of the pitches then I can see why other clubs would always vote against it.

And before you ask yes I have had a kick around on a new generation pitch and they are good but not the same as grass (in all probability I'd say they are better but that's a personal thing). For those that don't know they are now being used in top flight rugby with Saracens new ground, it is without doubt an advantage to them as the opposition clearly don't trust the pitch, and lets face it the pitch matters a lot less in rugby then football.

 

[Yorick]

There should be MUD involved in winter football games.

I have a LOT of sympathy with this, but we also have to contend with the fact that Dulwich are due to play eight games during the shortest month of the year because of postponements, which is going to make the pitch even worse during the next cold spell, which will mean even more Tuesday games, which will mean even less income etc etc. WIth so many small clubs in precarious financial positions I think it's an inevitability.

 

[editor]

When I used to play football, half the fun of the game was indulging a muddy sliding tackle or ten.

 

[el-ahrairah]

I have a LOT of sympathy with this, but we also have to contend with the fact that Dulwich are due to play eight games during the shortest month of the year because of postponements, which is going to make the pitch even worse during the next cold spell, which will mean even more Tuesday games, which will mean even less income etc etc. WIth so many small clubs in precarious financial positions I think it's an inevitability.

yup. in the end if it helps our club survive then it's a small price to pay - the crappy pitch is part of our romantic dreams but not a necessary one.

 

[felixthecat]

Coming from a slightly different perspective - the 3G pitches play differently and therefore the biomechanics of playing football has to change. This means there needs to be a change in training techniques to accomodate this or you'll end up with an increase in specifically ankle injuries (only anecdotal evidence to date as suprise suprise, no one wants to fund the gathering of empirical evidence). Now, big, well funded clubs with sports scientists on board won't have a problem with this, but I can see it being an issue with smaller clubs until the knowledge starts to filter down - and it sure hasn't yet.

 

[revol68]

conservative bullshit, typical of English football.

3/4g pitches are far superior to grass for low level/grass roots/youth football, for a start they might help English kids learn how to pass a ball instead of hitting it long.

Having played on dreadful grass pitches as a kid, I can't wait to see them replaced with synthetic, that and moving kids to smaller pitches and smaller goals would go a long way to helping technical development.

 

[skyscraper101]

Maybe there's a third way. Perhaps there should be a rival league, a kind of Red Bull Xtreme Football or something where anything goes. 4G pitches, illuminated surfaces, flashy side banners, music pumping over the PA like in the NBA and extra time multi-ball when the matches end in a draw. They could half time shows featuring football trickery etc.

That way the traditionalists can be left to their mud and meat pies and the less bothered can slog it out in the new game.

 

[steeplejack]

There should be MUD involved in winter football games.

sorry, this is pathetic.

Your subjective and weird desire for MUD at football won't keep the doors open at many lower and non league clubs.

I'd rather clubs stayed open with a 3 or 4G than you and your mates had a kick about on some MUD in the derelict stadium of a defunct club.

 

[friedaweed]

conservative bullshit, typical of English football.

3/4g pitches are far superior to grass for low level/grass roots/youth football, for a start they might help English kids learn how to pass a ball instead of hitting it long.

Having played on dreadful grass pitches as a kid, I can't wait to see them replaced with synthetic, that and moving kids to smaller pitches and smaller goals would go a long way to helping technical development.

Kids play on much smaller pitches and use much smaller goals than they used to as well as smaller balls rev. The kids actually have smaller balls too but that's for a different thread. It's a good point about kids and astro though. The thing is a lot of kids aren't learning to tackle properly when they play on plastic because of the risk of injury. Swings and roundabouts innit.

My lad (8) and me (45) use a 4th gen pitch for training. It's absolutely lovely to play on. Yeah you have to stay on your feet more but that's ok. I agree though for matches grass is where its at.

 

[revol68]

If you are defending properly slide tackles should be a last resort. Playing on astro pitches encourages passing, favours technical ability over brute force or pace and discourages going to ground, seems like it's exactly what British football needs at grass roots level.

The conservative old crap about muddy bumpy pitches and getting dirty is precisely what needs ditched.

 

[revol68]

Unless you can afford to keep a grass pitch in near perfect condition then astro it should be.

 

[Onket]

I'm sure on the last thread on the subject, someone mentioned mixing the two together. I'm not talking about having a big square of astroturf in each penalty area and in the centre circle, as surely the technology is there to have astroturf on a grass pitch, quite thin where it's needed less and thicker where there is more wear?

 

[editor]

sorry, this is pathetic.

Your subjective and weird desire for MUD at football won't keep the doors open at many lower and non league clubs.

I'd rather clubs stayed open with a 3 or 4G than you and your mates had a kick about on some MUD in the derelict stadium of a defunct club.

Most seemed to have managed to survive for the last hundred years or so. And what about the clubs who can't afford a 3G pitch?

If you want to start getting angry about something, I suggest you look in the direction of the FA and the Premiership and how they distribute their fat wads of cash.

 

[editor]

If you are defending properly slide tackles should be a last resort. Playing on astro pitches encourages passing, favours technical ability over brute force or pace and discourages going to ground, seems like it's exactly what British football needs at grass roots level.

The conservative old crap about muddy bumpy pitches and getting dirty is precisely what needs ditched.

So the game should change to adapt to an artificial surface? How's they going to work at grassroots level where there's only grass parks to play on? And where's the money going to come from for all these pitches?

 

[revol68]

So the game should change to adapt to an artificial surface? How's they going to work at grassroots level where there's only grass parks to play on? And where's the money going to come from for all these pitches?

An expansion of artificial pitches would be save money in the long run, less maintenance.

Where the money comes from is a different issue, the issue at hand here is the fact that many smaller clubs would be better off with 4g but in this case face being punished for using them.

Your argument for mud is just stupid, reactionary even.

 

[friedaweed]

Unless you can afford to keep a grass pitch in near perfect condition then astro it should be.

Nah I can't agree with that sorry. Not sure if you're trying to play devils advocate here but I don't know many people who regularly play football who would support that stance. I play on both every week 11 a side. The rules are altered for astro and it is by no means as competitive as on grass solely for safety reasons. It's not just about slide tackling or brute force its about the way in which the games rules are constructed and the fact that the game is designed to be played on turf. What about goalkeepers are they supposed to stay on their feet as well? That arguments a load of tosh mate sorry.

I can't actually see that many grass-roots teams being able to afford 4th gen astro pitches. It's a ludicrous statement to make really. Investment is certainly needed for sure but if you think grass roots football would improve the national sides grass team if everyone was playing matches on plastic I think you're mistaken. Having access to it can certainly enhance certain attributes for sure but not enough to give up the surface the game is played on every sunday and saturday by thousands of youngsters and adults all over the world.

At my club we have 4 astro pitches, 1 indoor, 7 grass pitches and a cricket pitch. On the average Saturday we have as many as 20 kids footy teams playing, 10 adult footy teams, 6 rugby teams, 12 hockey teams and 20 six a side teams playing on the astro in the evenings. The synthetic pitches are a great income for the club but we couldn't turn all those grass pitches into astro and still home that many people participating in so many sports in one place. It has it's place in sport but it could never be a replacement for turf.

Our pitches are in pretty good shape year round. We have a full time groundsperson and she has an apprentice.

It is neglect by local authorities that sees pitches turned into the sort of rabbit hole and mole infested dirt parks that we play on in some of our away games but it doesn't take that much to keep a pitch in shape. We know that because we took over the local authority sports and social facilities and turned them into a self funded going concern.

Can I nudge your attention to this article and campaign being pushed by a mate of mine folks..


http://www.theguardian.com/football...ootball-england-abuse-death-threats-withering

I used to play with Kenny. He's a legend. You'll see revol68 the size of goals the kids use in the third pic.

Here's the E-petition

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46134

 

[friedaweed]

An expansion of artificial pitches would be save money in the long run, less maintenance.

Where the money comes from is a different issue, the issue at hand here is the fact that many smaller clubs would be better off with 4g but in this case face being punished for using them.

Your argument for mud is just stupid, reactionary even.

It's a long haul before you see any return on a 4g pitch. To bring money in you have to have them lit every night and maintained with various additives (Sand, rubber pellets, water) and raked. They also have a shelf life and need to be relayed after so many years. A lot of the third gen ones have to be watered just as much as grass. With the rising costs of utility services like electricity and water forth gen pitches can be just or even more costly for a club to keep open to teams as grass is.

 

[editor]

Disgraceful:

At present the Premier League gives under 1% of its total income via the Football Foundation, £12m a year, having initially bowed to government pressure to give 5% of it. The league insists that commitment was for one broadcasting rights deal only and, despite securing a record £5.5bn for 2013-16, has cut its funding to the Football Foundation from £20m a year. In a letter to Saunders's local MP, the Premier League chief executive, Richard Scudamore, explained the reduction thus: "The decision of the last government and the FA to cut their contributions."

http://www.theguardian.com/football...ootball-england-abuse-death-threats-withering

*And petition signed

 

[steeplejack]

Most seemed to have managed to survive for the last hundred years or so. And what about the clubs who can't afford a 3G pitch?

If you want to start getting angry about something, I suggest you look in the direction of the FA and the Premiership and how they distribute their fat wads of cash.

I'll stick with your comments for now- not that I'm "angry", just baffled.

In case you hadn't noticed, the financing and demographics of football have changed out of all recognition since the late 80s. It's precisely *because* of the "distribution of fat wads of cash" and the fact that little if any comes to the lower reaches and non league scene, that things like 3 and 4G have become a near-necessity for small clubs.

The days of 25,000 turning up to watch Walton & Hersham v HMS Victory, or Pollok v St. Roch's, are long gone, and they are not coming back. Small clubs exist on the margins of the communities whose name they carry. Developments such as these are a crucial building block not only in ensuring the financial survival of these clubs- but in actually getting themselves back from the margins to the centre of the place where they play, by providing a multi use stadium that generates revenue beyond matchday.

In Scotland, clubs like Stenhousemuir and Annan Athletic are really showing how it can be done with their artifical surfaces, with Stenny probably being the best run part time club in the country now. A club like Maidstone- coming back from a near death experience caused by boardroom hubris and bad management- should be encouraged in developing these facilities, not have all their hard work thrown back in their face.

I would respect your different viewpoint if it were based on anything more tangible than "I want" and "I hate" and your subjective definition of "character", whatever that's meant to mean - exactly the kind of vacuous consumerist pish which is the engine of the "New football" that you have appeared to despise, elsewhere.

I am interested in clubs surviving and kicking off at 3 every Saturday during a season. I really don't care what surface they play on.