OT - the real travesty of the Women's WC perpetrated by FIFA

[UcMiami]

Been watching the some of the games and playing soccer on artificial concrete is a terrible thing and something men's players would never have allowed FIFA to perpetrate! That the women are relegated to playing on these surfaces is terrible - especially since Scott's I believe offered to lay real turf in all the stadiums for free.

Watching the games and seeing the ball skip off the artificial surface and bounce like a superball over everyone's heads is just frustrating - to say nothing of the damage it is doing to the athletes.

 

[triaddukefan]

Are they using astroturf or field turf ? Ive read and heard that the field turf isnt that bad..... nothing like the astroturf of the old days

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I was reprimanded - scolded - about Astro turf being long gone. But turf burn prevails, whatever you call it; so yeah, playing on this stuff is a joke and a travesty and yeah, you really can't get under it and the ball goes 20 feet over the net and Joe dumb says: Turn that off, the women can't play.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Yes, it is field turf - not the old astro,turf over concrete. Plays a little faster than grass, but not a lot faster. Some men's tournament games have also been played on it - but no WC games. My kids played hundreds of games on it before heading off to college and didn't find any difference in getting under the ball or playing the ball in general. Yes, you can get an abrasion a bit easier - although. A little Vaseline on the back of the legs helps in that regard.

A couple large studies have found that the number of major injuries was a bit lower on field turf than on grass fields. That includes less concussions because a good field turf field has a soft base.

 

[Icebear]

The health hazards are horrible including cancer due to the ground up and powered recycled tires used bed and set the turf. Goalies who are regularly diving face down on saves and breathing the rubber dust have been particularly affected. Lead levels are among the concerns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...artificial-turf-and-cancer-in-soccer-goalies/

http://www.ceh.org/get-involved/tak...-harmful-chemicals-in-artificial-turf-infill/

 

[lne001]

Sorry, but I can't find anywhere in the articles that this type field causes cancer. Only speculation based on anectdotes and small numerical samplings. Where are the male athletes and especially football players, who spend more time with their face in the turf than soccer? The women are bent are of shape about not playing on turf, and this is the best that they can come up with.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Several large studies have found no health risks. One of them was run by the State of Connecticut.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Here is the CT study which was a large one: http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3115&q=387178&dphNav_GID=1601

Concluded no significant health risk, as did a few other studies.

 

[UcMiami]

Problem with cancer is that it usually takes a very long time for the effects of exposure to something like the turf to turn up in the health stats - similar to black lung for coal miners.

But my real problems is the speed of the ball on the turf - it causes real problems on through balls - they have to be hit softer or they go too far, but being softer they are much easier for defenders to intercept. As for it being softer, based on the way the ball bounces, it sure does't look like it.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Here is the CT study which was a large one: http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3115&q=387178&dphNav_GID=1601

Concluded no significant health risk, as did a few other studies.

Yep, just like we were assured that the chance of leaks that a pipeline could bust around Santa Barbara were "very remote" or that fracking could cause any problems for earthquakes or environmental damage. Easy to reach these conclusions are based on data fed by the companies that want to push their products and industries. Meanwhile soccer players will be coming down with early onset incidences of cancer at extreme rates and some soccer fans will be pooh-poohing the players' concerns because the fans have swallowed the data without question, because that's how their type of science is constructed. As IB said, there are serious concerns here, and when my daughter reached an age where she was to be moved to high-tech turf fields rather than the mud pies she loved, that's when she stopped playing. Other parents might feel differently about their kids' welfare, but if Hope Solo and Abby Wambaugh punch out one of the horrific FIFA officials who okayed this travesty during some awards ceremony, I'll be cheering them on.

And if you're really in Stamford, then I'm sure that "stinking foamy mess of partially treated sewage" back in May last year is not what you had in mind when you were assured by CT's Pollution Control Board that they had matters in hand. Whether its turf or sewage, state boards aren't necessarily too clued in. Me, I'm going with the soccer players on this one, because just like the football players worrying about the concussions that the NFL pooh-poohed, it's their lives and health at stake. Not yours.

 

[stamfordhusky]

There is no evidence at all that these fields cause cancer. Bringing in totally irrelevant info doesn't change that.

 

[HuskyFanBlue]

Artificial turf fields wreck havoc on players legs with turf burns, hold the heat (field temperatures have been up to 120 degrees during group stage). My daughter played college soccer on turf and there were times during heat spells when it was to hot and dangerous to play or practice on field. Ball also tends to roll faster.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There is no evidence at all that these fields cause cancer. Bringing in totally irrelevant info doesn't change that.

Um, sure, not to you who are not playing on those fields and are willing to swallow hook-line-sinker and kool-aid all that is fed to you, but to the athletes and and their supporters who do have serious concerns about the reports, it's a different matter. But by all means swear by everything that FIFA tells you and be a good obedient fan. Blatter thanks you in advance.

 

[meyers7]

The health hazards are horrible including cancer due to the ground up and powered recycled tires used bed and set the turf. Goalies who are regularly diving face down on saves and breathing the rubber dust have been particularly affected. Lead levels are among the concerns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...artificial-turf-and-cancer-in-soccer-goalies/

http://www.ceh.org/get-involved/tak...-harmful-chemicals-in-artificial-turf-infill/

Neither one of these links give any evidence of any link to cancer. Even the links from the second link actually give evidence of no link to cancer.

I myself much prefer grass fields, playing or coaching (although I don't really play anymore). However, I like reffing on the turf fields because the fields are flat and even (don't end up tripping of turning ankles).

As for watching games, I'd much rather watch them on grass. I think the women had good reason to be perturbed with FIFA, but not because of cancer. Also they didn't help their case having at least 5 of the 9 fields they play on in the NWSL, as artificial fields.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Um, sure, not to you who are not playing on those fields and are willing to swallow hook-line-sinker and kool-aid all that is fed to you, but to the athletes and and their supporters who do have serious concerns about the reports, it's a different matter. But by all means swear by everything that FIFA tells you and be a good obedient fan. Blatter thanks you in advance.

That is an incredibly stupid post. I know far more about this subject than you will ever know. For a significant period of time, I served on a town committee that looked at a dozen reports - none put together by industry groups or FIFA - and that studied a huge amount of data. This committee included some very good medical and scientific professionals. At the end of the day, we concluded - as has every state and municipality that has looked at the evidence objectively - that there was no evidence to show any elevated risk in normal play. That is why these fields are being used by a huge number of municipalities, colleges, and school districts. Parents have no desire to put their kids at risk, but they have looked at the evidence, as opposed to using non-scientific anecdotes and junk science.

 

[Kibitzer]

Be advised that the front yard of our home in Norwalk is covered by artificial grass, Looks like a golf fairway and several female guests have given a sort of QC check by treading on it while barefoot. No watering, no cutting, no fertilizing, no weeding -- but next winter we will invest in a canister of light brown spray paint so our "lawn" will look like those of our neighbors.

 

[intlzncster]

I enjoy field turf much less than grass personally. I feel the ball definitely plays faster, and the spin on the ball on passes is different. Passing a ball into space is completely different as a result. Adds a different toe poke element (common in indoor) too.

Worst part is the traction. No matter what stud configuration you use, it does not come close to digging into natural grass with studs.

 

[Icebear]

Neither one of these links give any evidence of any link to cancer. Even the links from the second link actually give evidence of no link to cancer.

I myself much prefer grass fields, playing or coaching (although I don't really play anymore). However, I like reffing on the turf fields because the fields are flat and even (don't end up tripping of turning ankles).

As for watching games, I'd much rather watch them on grass. I think the women had good reason to be perturbed with FIFA, but not because of cancer. Also they didn't help their case having at least 5 of the 9 fields they play on in the NWSL, as artificial fields.

Sorry, I didn't to imply those particular articles covered the cancer aspect of the health issues. That was on a TV news report I watched it was about a high school goalie that had died from lung cancer. The lead levels are another concern.

 

[Icebear]

That is an incredibly stupid post. I know far more about this subject than you will ever know. For a significant period of time, I served on a town committee that looked at a dozen reports - none put together by industry groups or FIFA - and that studied a huge amount of data. This committee included some very good medical and scientific professionals. At the end of the day, we concluded - as has every state and municipality that has looked at the evidence objectively - that there was no evidence to show any elevated risk in normal play. That is why these fields are being used by a huge number of municipalities, colleges, and school districts. Parents have no desire to put their kids at risk, but they have looked at the evidence, as opposed to using non-scientific anecdotes and junk science.

Fracking is safe, too, and so were cigarettes. Yes, that was sarcasm. One needs to follow the science but that means pursuing unbiased and studies not connected to to any financially vested interests. The EPA has released a statement saying that the present research has been very limited and does not point clearly in either direction towards safe or dangerous.