bluekick 11 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 My mind was running off emotion last night and I got to thinking. I'm not saying this because I truely 100% believe this... I just think it might be a posiblity. I'm not trying to make excuses either. Could VHSL's decision to have title games played on turf fields been made to benefit eastern teams? Turf obviously helps teams with speed more than teams with power. There is, of course, no concrete evidence that eastern teams have more speed, but most would agree that styles of football are different at either end of the state. I think Richlands would have had a totally different ball game had it been played on grass. The VHSL is centered in Charlottesville, which is located in Region 2/B... eastern regions. Does anyone think there could have been some bias in the dicision making? I could be completely wrong but it does smell a little fishy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefield_Rules 46 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 Wouldn't playing on a grass field with the possibility of rain and/or snow causing the field to be muddy/less quick be an advantage to a slower team? Richlands had a great season and a lot to be proud of. Don't taint the great season by blaming the loss on playing on a turf field instead of grass field. TA was in the game for a reason, they earned their way there. They made the plays when it counted on Saturday and did what it took to win, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluekick 11 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 Yes a muddy field would benefit a slower team but a good grass field would be neutral. I didn't blame anything on the turf field. TA was the better team yesterday. But it could be a possibility that having games played on the turf is to benefit faster teams. I don't know if that had any bases in the dicision, I wasn't in Charlottesville at the time it was made. All I'm saying is that it is a possibility. I'm not blaming the loss on anything... I wan't to make that clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefield_Rules 46 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 With ANY grass surface, regardless of how good, the possibility of rain would alter the playing surface and favor the slower team. A state title game should be played on the best surface possible and that's turf, with field turf being the absolute best. I don't believe the stadium at Liberty has field turf, at least it didn't the last time I was there in 2001. Regardless, part of the game of football is having speed and quickness to outrun your opponent to the goal-line. I want to see state title game, which is suppose to be a showcase, played on a fast track, where the athletes can excel and thrive. I want to see a kid that runs a 4.4 or whatever get around the corner and turn on the burners to the endzone. I don't hear the folks from Giles questioning if there's a conspiracy by the VHSL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigD4VT 11 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 I'm pretty sure the VHSL wants the games played on turf to take field conditions out of the equation. They want a truly level playing field for both teams. Problem is the teams in this area have to travel two hours to practice on turf when teams like Turner Ashby have a place like JMU nearby. Was Richlands at a disadvantage playing on turf? Yes. Was it the reason they lost? No but it did affect them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_school_blue 247 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 Not making any excuses, TA came in prepared and did what they had to do. Just like we did against Liberty-Bedford. But in the interest of fairness and safety. I feel the turf can be a disadvantage to teams that do not have easy access to it for practice (i.e. Richlands, Graham, Tazewell, Grundy...etc) I also feel it can be dangerous. Turf can be the cause of many serious injuries. I think that every high school in VA plays on grass. So it seems to me that the last game should be on grass too. Neutral fields are fine, but, make it grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 The only reason the games are now played on turf at neutral sites is because the eastern/nothern schools complained EVERYTIME they had to come to SWVA and play...PERIOD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigD4VT 11 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 Just play the games at Virginia Tech. It's the best compromise between turf and grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Just play the games at Virginia Tech. It's the best comprimise between turf and grass. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed!!! They used to play them there back when I was in school...years before the MILLION $$$$, state of the art field-tray system was installed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluekick 11 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Just play the games at Virginia Tech. It's the best compromise between turf and grass. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I'd like to see. I think Lane for Single A, Scott for AA, and Dick Price in Hampton for AAA. Each hold well over 25,000 and have grass surfaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHS71 10 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 G-Man hit the button on the nose when he said this: The only reason the games are now played on turf at neutral sites is because the eastern/nothern schools complained EVERYTIME they had to come to SWVA and play...PERIOD... Richlands was one of the reasons the final games were changed to the present locations....the muddy field conditions....I believe Salem objected to using EHS as well as Orange in 1992 ,...but officals gave the go ahead to use them....Think several A schools complained too as their playoffs were in SWVA on muddy fields....any change like that always benifits the *up north* guys......9Didn't you know the majority of people up there thought the state ended in Roanoke)...hee hee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman 13 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 [ QUOTE ] My mind was running off emotion last night and I got to thinking. I'm not saying this because I truely 100% believe this... I just think it might be a posiblity. I'm not trying to make excuses either. Could VHSL's decision to have title games played on turf fields been made to benefit eastern teams? Turf obviously helps teams with speed more than teams with power. There is, of course, no concrete evidence that eastern teams have more speed, but most would agree that styles of football are different at either end of the state. I think Richlands would have had a totally different ball game had it been played on grass. The VHSL is centered in Charlottesville, which is located in Region 2/B... eastern regions. Does anyone think there could have been some bias in the dicision making? I could be completely wrong but it does smell a little fishy. [/ QUOTE ] Yes everyone agrees with you. We also agree that the media is controlled by a zionist plot with aim to take over the world and the Knights Templar hold the secret to the Holy Grail to this very day in the form of freemasonry and that worldwide pyramid building at about 2500 to 3000 B.C. was constructed by an alien race that will some day return to reclaim the earth. Oh , and don't forget about Atlantis, and Roswell, and the Illuminati and the Builderbergers and Skull and Bones and the "face" on Mars, and.........and.......and. Yes, it's just one big plot for "them" to stick it to "us". /sarcasm off/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DipsetinVA 10 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 TA cheated, they had Jesus christ on there side, i seen him... and they used lasers...hehe (bluekick)....Turf was the deciding factor in this game (i think).... If richlands had of Played TA last week we would have beat them...if Liberty-B had of played them saturday they would have beat them (TA)... i think our main problem was that we underestimated TA (im not sure about the players, but i know the fans did) and we didnt liberty, we went in against liberty knowing it would be a hard fight (like it was) but i didnt see that on the field saturday, allthough i did notice some of the best sportsmanship i had ever seen in a game... Im not doubting the boys of going in ready to work hard, but was did you think you would have to work as hard as you did for Liberty-b....ive talked to one of the players and he said that, it was there worst game, and i think it may very well be... It is a total different feeling when you walk on that turf, its slicker, no give, it hurts, its like switching from regular coke to diet in a day (its terrible)... everybodys like "ahh stop making excuses" or being obnoxious like the guy above me... but thats the point, i myself would like to find out what happend, and find out what the deciding facotr was in this game, and your right whoever said people in NoVa thinks the state ends in Ronoake, us people in SWVA dont exsist and alot of times things do sway their way..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubby 10 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 no excuses about turf however if vhsl wants games on turf it should make it fair on both teams. for example vhsl should supply turf shoes for all the teams i.e. ta had all the same shoes on saturday and rhs had mix and match that many of the kids said were to small or way to big. also both teams should be provided equal time to practice on turf i.e. when rhs was not allowed to travel to uvawise then ta should have to stay home and practice on grass, and if ta is allowed to have 5 days on turf then the vhsl should provide a situation where rhs can also pracice 5 days i.e. bus money, tutors, while they stay at uva wise etc. if it is to be a fair "playing field" you know just like the turf. if you were at the game you saw that ta had no trouble on turf while rhs players fell flat on their face just walking on the field. just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack 10 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 dude if you think ta was quick then richlands must be real slow-like in slow motion! the bottom line is richlands was not ready to play-and when things went against them they did not come back! you can rationalize all you want but they were just more ready than richlands! i hated it and i would rather play on grass or a more modern turf that is like grass! i am a salem fan and i hated that richlands lost but they did! but let me give you an example! in 1992 we played spotsylvania for the state at salem stadium! we had more talent, more speed, everything but they were more determined and their big fullback killed us! we just werent ready for that! they had a better plan than us! against powhatan my take was when we started hitting them they were not used to it! you can tell me about the field or whatever else but i know that you already beat liberty on equal footing! mantal preparedness and the right game plan! thats the story! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluekick 11 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 [ QUOTE ] in 1992 we played spotsylvania for the state at salem stadium! [/ QUOTE ] Richlands put Salem out in semis in '92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichlandsAlum 678 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 [ QUOTE ] dude if you think ta was quick then richlands must be real slow-like in slow motion! the bottom line is richlands was not ready to play-and when things went against them they did not come back! you can rationalize all you want but they were just more ready than richlands! i hated it and i would rather play on grass or a more modern turf that is like grass! i am a salem fan and i hated that richlands lost but they did! but let me give you an example! in 1992 we played spotsylvania for the state at salem stadium! we had more talent, more speed, everything but they were more determined and their big fullback killed us! we just werent ready for that! they had a better plan than us! against powhatan my take was when we started hitting them they were not used to it! you can tell me about the field or whatever else but i know that you already beat liberty on equal footing! mantal preparedness and the right game plan! thats the story! [/ QUOTE ] I know that not many folks want to hear it, but zack hit the nail on the head. In addition to his comments, I'd offer the unscientific opinion that travel adds a troublesome variable in and of itself. Either way, I predict that RHS will be much better prepared next time we make it to the title game. Still a fun and fantastic season overall. The Blues have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHSHokies 10 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Doc. I agree with you 100%,i.e. Turner Ashby stayed in a warm locker room and RHS sat out in the cold. Also, they told them to get dress for a team picture, only to have it canceled. This was after climbing a muddy bank to ther locker room, near Appomattox . They did not give the players time to go through their personal pre-game rituals, in the privacy of their own locker room. I have a business client from Harrisonburg, told me Monday Turner Ashby practiced two weeks on James Madison's turf field. I don't believe one bit that crap, the VHSL proclaims "equal playing conditons for all teams". How can you be mentally prepared under those conditions. You can call it "sour grapes" but that is my personal opinion. Richlands is still the #1 team in my heart!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.