Artificial pitch vote

[btb]

8 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Voting to ban artificial pitches is just another way for some clubs to try to pull up the ladder. “I’m alright, Jack” Tory attitude. The community and social benefits these pitches have brought are of no consideration to these clubs.

I've already shown that these pitches give an unfair advantage to the home club above, so let's not pretend your club's argument isn't based on self interest too.

Edited May 29 by btb

[Enigma]

8 minutes ago, btb said:

I've already shown that these pitches give an unfair advantage to the home club above

Bollocks. We actually have a better record on grass this season.

Edited May 29 by Enigma

[Enigma]

6 minutes ago, btb said:

I've already shown that these pitches give an unfair advantage to the home club above, so let's not pretend your club's argument isn't based on self interest too.

If they’re so advantageous why isn’t everybody installing them?

[btb]

10 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Bollocks. We actually have a better record on grass this season.

As I've already posted.

Artificial Pitches and Unfair Home Advantage in Professional Football by Jan van Ours :: SSRN

Your Home/Away record this season is merely an anecdotal/strawman argument.

Edited May 29 by btb

[btb]

10 minutes ago, Enigma said:

If they’re so advantageous why isn’t everybody installing them?

I don't know, I've often argued we should install one.

My main point however is the hypocrisy of you/your club accusing other clubs of self interest.

Oh and red do away, I care not a jot! 

[btb]

16 minutes ago, Enigma said:

If they’re so advantageous why isn’t everybody installing them?

There has been a general shift away from the use of artificial pitches in England too. They were once used by a number of big clubs – they became a sort of fashionable accessory in the 1980s in particular, but they are now expressly prohibited at the top level: the Premier League Handbook, which contains all of the competition’s rules, states that ‘no league match shall be played on an artificial surface.’

[Enigma]

5 minutes ago, btb said:

My main point however is the hypocrisy of you/your club accusing other clubs of self interest.

The difference is we didn’t install our pitch in order to gain any supposed, perceived competitive advantage. This vote is all about keeping the big boys big, there’s not going to be any compensation for club having to fork out small fortunes to relay grass or any consideration to the community clubs, who do a power of good work with all sorts or people, who use these facilities, the Stark’s Park pitch is very much a community asset, but that clearly means noting to you.

[ScottishLoon]

3 minutes ago, btb said:

There has been a general shift away from the use of artificial pitches in England too. They were once used by a number of big clubs – they became a sort of fashionable accessory in the 1980s in particular, but they are now expressly prohibited at the top level: the Premier League Handbook, which contains all of the competition’s rules, states that ‘no league match shall be played on an artificial surface.’

Spfl and the EFL are incomparable when it comes to this because of the difference In finances.

[btb]

Just now, Enigma said:

The difference is we didn’t install our pitch in order to gain any supposed, perceived competitive advantage. This vote is all about keeping the big boys big, there’s not going to be any compensation for club having to fork out small fortunes to relay grass or any consideration to the community clubs, who do a power of good work with all sorts or people, who use these facilities, the Stark’s Park pitch is very much a community asset, but that clearly means noting to you.

Yeah, but it does give you one. I'm quite happy to see us vote in our self-interest it's no different from you & your clubs current bleating - we've been shafted by top-flight self interest in the past.

**************

It's taken you quite a while to pull out the community asset argument so it's clearly not your main concern.

 

[btb]

4 minutes ago, ScottishLoon said:

Spfl and the EFL are incomparable when it comes to this because of the difference In finances.

Fairy Nuff but there's plenty of posts in the past coupla pages questioning/denying there is an advantage.

[ScottishLoon]

9 minutes ago, btb said:

Fairy Nuff but there's plenty of posts in the past coupla pages questioning/denying there is an advantage.

So do you think the pitch is the main reason you couldn't win away to Livingston and Killie this season?

[btb]

16 minutes ago, ScottishLoon said:

So do you think the pitch is the main reason you couldn't win away to Livingston and Killie this season?

Individual matches can go one of three ways, you accepted in your previous post that there is an advantage to be had in playing on a plastic pitch, quantifying it is more difficult, trying to do so over the single games mentioned above literally pointless (sic).

Edited May 29 by btb

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

1 hour ago, bob_mcshug said:

An unfair advantage? What do Falkirk, QoS, Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Raith, Livingston, Alloa, Cove all have in common? 

 

All relegated in the last 5 or 6 years - just off the top of my head - with their artificial advantage.

Just because those teams in those seasons were absolutely shite, doesn’t mean they didn’t have an unfair advantage. It was just that their utter shiteness dwarfed the unfair advantage.

1 hour ago, Enigma said:

If they’re so advantageous why isn’t everybody installing them?

What a stupid post. If everybody had one, then they wouldn’t be advantageous. 
Fortunately us big teams can rely on the fact that the majority of teams that have plastic pitches are too tinpot to ever darken our predominantly beautiful grassy league anyway. I mean it’s no like a team like Falkirk will ever be near the Premiership anyway. 

Edited May 29 by TPAFKA Jersey 2

[ScottishLoon]

2 minutes ago, btb said:

Individual matches can go one of three ways, you accepted in your previous post that there an advantage to be had in playing on a plastic pitch, quantifying it is more difficult, trying to do so over the single games mentioned above literally pointless.

In no way did I express a plastic pitch gives an advantage, merely suggesting that the root cause of your argument is possibly based on your own clubs performances on astro this season.

I recommend you got to a Dumbarton game in the middle of winter, then go to a game on astro in the same week and you tell me what's a better spectacle.

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

and that means everyone playing on the same surface. 

It's going to get crowded.

[bob_mcshug]

1 hour ago, btb said:

......and there were no other factors involved in these relegations, are we meant to assume these were  the only teams relegated during this period - strawman argument.

Well exactly, but I'm not the one trying to argue that these teams had an advantage over others due to their pitch.   It's a nonsense argument.

[btb]

Just now, ScottishLoon said:

In no way did I express a plastic pitch gives an advantage, merely suggesting that the root cause of your argument is possibly based on your own clubs performances on astro this season.

I recommend you got to a Dumbarton game in the middle of winter, then go to a game on astro in the same week and you tell me what's a better spectacle.

The EFL don't allow  artificial pitches you said that their situation was different from the SPFL due to finances - in what way is that disagreeing with my argument that the pitches are beneficial to the home team?

The quality of football in any individual game is less important to me than the result and it's quite clear that "astro" benefits the home team - this is not a fact that just occurred to me this season.

 

[btb]

3 minutes ago, bob_mcshug said:

Well exactly, but I'm not the one trying to argue that these teams had an advantage over others due to their pitch.   It's a nonsense argument.

It's clearly not as I've so very clearly shown in a coupla posts.

[bob_mcshug]

2 minutes ago, btb said:

It's clearly not as I've so very clearly shown in a coupla posts.

You've not shown anything of the sort. A match between two teams has huge variables such as form, confidence, ability, match prep, training, manager input, crowd, weather, pitch and just plain luck sometimes.  

The specific impact of a team having an advantage due to artificial over grass isn't possible to actually legitimately quantify. Hence why its a bollocks argument.

[btb]

1 minute ago, bob_mcshug said:

You've not shown anything of the sort. A match between two teams has huge variables such as form, confidence, ability, match prep, training, manager input, crowd, weather, pitch and just plain luck sometimes.  

The specific impact of a team having an advantage due to artificial over grass isn't possible to actually legitimately quantify. Hence why its a bollocks argument.

......and yet somehow the Dutch managed to as I've shown earlier in the thread.