|
Post by pinewalker on Sept 25, 2017 10:59:49 GMT
This isn't necessarily neglect. Every artificial pitch needs to be tested, I believe every season. Those tests are carried out both on a wet and dry surface. The bounce and run of a particular branded high quality match ball have to fall within a range. The test results on a wet or dry pitch will not be the same. It might be the case that Bromley's pitch when dry meets the spec. Bromley will have been told if they must water the pitch to maintain compliance. I thought the pitch was watered because it suited our style of play? It seems I'm wrong You may be right also. I would hope Sutton's pitch meets the spec both dry and wet. If so the choice to water or not may be the clubs. Even Clive Baxter may have a say in it, because one of the advantages of watering is the rubber granules don't fly up as much. Getting those granules out of the players' socks (and perhaps the washing machines) is a kit man's nightmare. IMO the Jaco ball the National league uses isn't the ball you would chose for a 3G pitch, it seems to skid through. I thought the FA cup ball played better last season, but I am told this season's FA cup ball is different from last year.
|
|
|
Post by maw on Sept 25, 2017 13:54:22 GMT
Are the pitches at Sutton and Bromley structurally the same?
|
|
Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
3G debate
Sept 25, 2017 14:35:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Millsy on Sept 25, 2017 14:35:01 GMT
However, Bromley are doing none of us any favours by not watering their pitch. Anyone who was there on bank holiday monday will attest that their pitch was not looking or playing anywhere near as well as ours. This isn't necessarily neglect. Every artificial pitch needs to be tested, I believe every season. Those tests are carried out both on a wet and dry surface. The bounce and run of a particular branded high quality match ball have to fall within a range. The test results on a wet or dry pitch will not be the same. It might be the case that Bromley's pitch when dry meets the spec. Bromley will have been told if they must water the pitch to maintain compliance. This may have been updated and/or I may have missed it but field tests are carried out in the prevailing meteorological conditions as far as I can see and I would be interested to hear the provenance on the water the pitch to maintain compliance comment. Doesn't sound correct to me but willing to learn - actually reads as opinion and guesswork stated as fact which is extremely counter-productive so I would be delighted to be told otherwise! football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/football-turf-handbook-of-test-methods-2015/
|
|
|
Post by baboonfish on Sept 25, 2017 16:59:21 GMT
I was told they have the exact same 3G surface as us. It was a baking hot day, the pitch wasnt watered and it looked worse than ours and played much worse than ours. It made for a pretty poor spectacle although we coped better obviously. Ironically it was mainly the Bromley players that kept losing their footing, ours occasionally but over the 90 minutes it must have happened 10+ times, whereas on our surface its rare that players lose their footing. The point Im making is that many away fans will come away from Hayes Lane with some of their negative preconceptions enforced, IF their pitch is always like that. Hence its not great for the reputation of 3G, whereas our well watered pitch probably does the opposite as it looks and plays great IMO.
|
|
|
Post by maw on Sept 25, 2017 17:34:09 GMT
Surely, the amount of rubber crumb makes the greatest difference to the roll and bounce of the ball, as it affects the length of the 'grass' - if this is the right term.
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Sept 25, 2017 18:21:11 GMT
Surely, the amount of rubber crumb makes the greatest difference to the roll and bounce of the ball, as it affects the length of the 'grass' - if this is the right term. I did notice the rubber crumb on their pitch, much like the old Maidstone surface. Maybe they don't prepare the surface correctly.
|
|
oxford
Youth Team Player
Posts: 230
|
Post by oxford on Sept 25, 2017 18:58:07 GMT
I don't know much about it but I also noticed how much more crumb there seemed to be. Oxford City have gone over to artificial this year too and the crumb there comes up in clouds and the pitch looks black at the end of the game.
|
|
Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
3G debate
Sept 25, 2017 19:46:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Millsy on Sept 25, 2017 19:46:20 GMT
Not sure how they get the same grading but you can have the shock pad, shorter carpet and less rubber crumb (as we have) or you can have the lower cost option with no shock pad, deeper carpet and more rubber crumb infill.
It's likely to be the latter where you see the bigger splash, watering would help reduce the splash. The amount of splash is part of the test.
|
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496
|
3G debate
Sept 25, 2017 19:53:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by tonyd on Sept 25, 2017 19:53:44 GMT
I think they also settle down with use. Much less crumb spray at Whyteleafe now than when the pitch was first laid.
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Sept 25, 2017 20:48:09 GMT
"This may have been updated and/or I may have missed it but field tests are carried out in the prevailing meteorological conditions as far as I can see and I would be interested to hear the provenance on the water the pitch to maintain compliance comment. Doesn't sound correct to me but willing to learn - actually reads as opinion and guesswork stated as fact which is extremely counter-productive so I would be delighted to be told otherwise!" What you quoted Millsy is the Test methodology. The requirements are in this document linked below football-technology.fifa.com/media/1239/fqp-handbook-of-requirements-v25.pdf Even Sepp couldn't bribe the weather gods so field tests are in ambient conditions. BUT each surface is also lab tested in wet and dry conditions. Different results are anticipated between wet and dry, but each must be in the same permitted range. Ball roll test range is 4m to 8m. Well that is double, so a large variation between wet and dry is tolerated. A video I cannot now find from the Scots firm Sportslabs showed their tester at one ground, I think Kilmarnock, on a dry day and he commented that he had previously tested it on a wet day when the ball roll readings were reduced. Perhaps some of the figures he quoted were revised in the 2015 specs. I have a business interest in this, we produce rubber. The original rubberized surfaces were developed as a use for the mountain of old tyres which could be 'reclaimed'. A Swiss firm leading the way. There is no problem in the shock-absorbing pad below the grass tufts being reclaim, but there may be a problem with the granules being reclaim. I believe the granules at Sutton are virgin rubber of type SBR, not reclaim.
|
|
|
3G debate
Sept 25, 2017 21:40:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by sallycat on Sept 25, 2017 21:40:58 GMT
I think they also settle down with use. Much less crumb spray at Whyteleafe now than when the pitch was first laid. Same with ours - maybe harder to notice as we see it so often, but I definitely remember seeing more crumb come up when it was first installed; now you hardly notice it.
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Sept 26, 2017 9:00:02 GMT
I think they also settle down with use. Much less crumb spray at Whyteleafe now than when the pitch was first laid. Same with ours - maybe harder to notice as we see it so often, but I definitely remember seeing more crumb come up when it was first installed; now you hardly notice it. Though if the lessening of splash is caused by the granules becoming impacted, this is undesirable. This link to a 3 minute FIFA video shows the machines in action designed to loosen the surface again back to as laid spec. football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/how-to-maintain-a-fifa-certified-football-turf-pitch/
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Sept 26, 2017 10:08:31 GMT
Same with ours - maybe harder to notice as we see it so often, but I definitely remember seeing more crumb come up when it was first installed; now you hardly notice it. Though if the lessening of splash is caused by the granules becoming impacted, this is undesirable. This link to a 3 minute FIFA video shows the machines in action designed to loosen the surface again back to as laid spec. football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/how-to-maintain-a-fifa-certified-football-turf-pitch/When you see your first game on 3G the crumb splash is very noticeable. I think we get accustomed to it.
|
|
|
3G debate
Sept 26, 2017 11:48:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by sallycat on Sept 26, 2017 11:48:21 GMT
I don't think it's just that, because I notice it on other pitches and think "ours used to do that"
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Sept 26, 2017 17:30:54 GMT
I don't think it's just that, because I notice it on other pitches and think "ours used to do that" I think you are right. I walked on GGL before the Barrow game, the first time for over a year I have done so. It felt and looked very good. My only other contact with 3G is at our local school where our Vets play, and by comparison the school seems to have too much rubber granules. Also last Saturday I caught a match ball. Goodness me they have them inflated really hard!
|
|