newky
New Recruit
Posts: 49
|
Post by newky on Jun 11, 2006 16:27:40 GMT 10
yea this rain is getting annoying ay!
no training or games for my team for the past 2 weeks..and hav a game this friday against the team running first..should be interesting if we play that is..
i no we are in drought but it sucks to be not out there running around..
|
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Jun 12, 2006 8:55:58 GMT 10
I think that looking after the grounds is the main underlying issue when it comes to wet whether. Most would agree that games could have been played, but all the grounds would end up like cow paddocks.
With the drought conditions, i would assume that it becomes harder for the grounds to recover from the damage done to them in the wet whether.
Thats my take on it!
|
|
|
|
Post by roarmeat on Jun 13, 2006 11:26:26 GMT 10
Send us some rain up here!
|
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Jun 21, 2006 17:41:21 GMT 10
The advantage of cancelling the entire round instead of leaving a handful of grounds open is that, if worst comes to worst and the catchup games keep getting rained out then the possibility of those games not getting replayed is fairer and easier for all concerned. I had it a number of years ago, one team we never even got to play against. Unfortunately they were the only team we had a chance of beating, but oh well.
Don't forget that they can't water the fields until god knows when - they've gotta take extra in looking after the fields. And field surface is more critical in soccer than in the pointy ball codes.
Furthermore, council advised all clubs prior to the last washout that it would be up to the individual clubs if they played, but on tuesday the council would be inspecting all fields and any that were damaged would lead to the club getting fined.
Cancelling entire rounds is not a decision that's made lightly, but it IS made with the best interests of the competition at heart. And it DOES make sense to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by simmette on Jun 21, 2006 21:03:12 GMT 10
with level 3 water restricitions, council CANNOT lay turf on any oval after the soccer season as they cannot water it so soccer needs to look after the fields now or we are going to have major problems next season, not much grass at the start of next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by hilly1981 on Jun 22, 2006 9:16:41 GMT 10
Yeah the problem with the grounds is going to keep having a snowballing effect unfortunately whilst there are water restrictions in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Jun 22, 2006 17:20:07 GMT 10
Lets just cancel next season so we have beautiful green fields for passive recreation. Who has a spare picnic basket.
Fair dinkum we are talking about a winter sport.
All grounds should have water tanks installed as a matter of urgency. Bout time the council was proactive and did something other than threaten clubs, and no ice I'm not about to run for mayor.
We all get excited about the growing numbers for our sport, well can we cater for these increases? It seems not. Should be a $20 levy per player to be spent on grounds, starting with tanks or bore drilling. I believe the new fields at Wadalba will have dams incorporated into the landscaping to cater for the needs off the fields.
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jun 22, 2006 17:43:01 GMT 10
Lets just cancel next season so we have beautiful green fields for passive recreation. Who has a spare picnic basket. Fair dinkum we are talking about a winter sport. All grounds should have water tanks installed as a matter of urgency. Bout time the council was proactive and did something other than threaten clubs, and no ice I'm not about to run for mayor. We all get excited about the growing numbers for our sport, well can we cater for these increases? It seems not. Should be a $20 levy per player to be spent on grounds, starting with tanks or bore drilling. I believe the new fields at Wadalba will have dams incorporated into the landscaping to cater for the needs off the fields. tanks won't cut it, you need dams (like the wadalba idea). problem with that is that there isn't room in most places - find a place to put a dam near alan davidson oval... also, watering the grass means a lot of water each time. if you're getting enough rain to fill the dam (or even counter the evaporation effect), the grass is probably ok too. $20 a player would have people screaming. the occasional cancelled/postponed round is a fact of life. it happens, and you move on. in particular, cancelling a whole round is fairer than cancelling games here and there. and ground need to be looked after else council tells you to find somewhere else to play. |
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Jun 22, 2006 19:48:00 GMT 10
The council is a service provider for its constituents. It is the councils responsibility to cater for the needs and wants of the ratepayers of the Central Coast. You and I own the grounds and we have our public servants in a position of trust to manage them for us.
"Tanks wont cut it!" Not true. Like domestic homes the tanks are used to supplement the existing water supply. Tank water could be used when grounds need to be returfed at the completion of seasons.
People will complain a hell of a lot more if whole seasons are canned because grounds are too dry/hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jun 22, 2006 20:13:31 GMT 10
i was insufficiently clear - the amount of water required means that you need an enormous tank. filling this is a problem - where are you going to catch that amount of water from on a regular basis when there's very little rain? a big tank needs a big catchment, like a large roof. it's not really feasible. what's more likely is some sort of grey water system, but that would cost an absolute bomb.
i think you said the key thing in your earlier post - it's a winter sport. we've had rounds washed out pretty much every year i can think of, it happens. it's not the end of the world.
our climate and our environment means that we don't get a lot of rain and the strains of grass we grow don't stand up well to rain plus trampling. we can't treat our fields like english clubs might be able to - playing in the rain etc. we get hard clay far too soon, and that's not cool.
seasons are not likely to be cancelled - they would have by now, like in 94 and 95 during the last major el nino if ever, and we played those years out as normal.
it's not laziness on the part of council or the association, it's just an unfortunate combination of forces majeure.
not meaning to pick a fight, it's just that it's not really true that the association or the council 'should do more' - there's not much they could possibly do.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Jun 22, 2006 20:42:03 GMT 10
I don't want to pick a fight either, however I disagree with your suggestion that we just go along on our merry way and do nothing.
You quote that we survived el nino in 94 95 well that is true. Games were replayed without too much trouble. Problem in 2006 is that we have the same number of grounds but close to double the players. Sounds like our roads problem doesn't it. Only trouble is the council can't blame the state government.
My solution suggesting tanks is far more feasible than using grey water. Not sure where the grey water is coming from. Alan Davidson is supposed to have a new amenities block in the "near" future. How hard is it to place a large tank under such a building. The tank is fed by the roof of the amenities block. Similarly new amenities have been approved for Pluim plenty of scope for a very lage tank there. A tank large enough to supplement natural rainfall.
We need new fields to take the pressure of existing fields. Council has allowed the poulation explosion, look at the units in East Gosford, but have done nothing to provide the necesssary infrastructure be it roads or sports fields to go with the increase in population.
Where are any new fields developed in the past 10 years. Golden opportunity lost at Gosford Racecource. What's going on at Kincumber? How long has that been on the drawing boards?
|
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Aug 18, 2006 16:00:06 GMT 10
Have to feel for Gosford 15A's this weekend. Lost one game all season and they find themselves having to win by a truckload of goals to take the minor premiership and therefore a shot at C of C. All because one round when Tuggerah had a bye was washed out. 1 point to Gosford and 0 to Tuggerah.
Still they are playing their "B" team could be anb interesting scoreline.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farthing on Aug 18, 2006 17:58:46 GMT 10
Have to feel for Gosford 15A's this weekend. Lost one game all season and they find themselves having to win by a truckload of goals to take the minor premiership and therefore a shot at C of C. All because one round when Tuggerah had a bye was washed out. 1 point to Gosford and 0 to Tuggerah. Still they are playing their "B" team could be anb interesting scoreline. The wash outs have been a massive problems for teams trying to make the finals, my team for example probally should be in the top 4 but due to washed out games against teams we could have beaten we are left with having to win our last 3 games of the season and one of those teams is first and lost one game all year |
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Aug 20, 2006 14:07:40 GMT 10
Luckily in the end Gosford didn't have to worry about wash outs. They had their B side to rely on. 18 nil meant they are league champions on goal difference. Solidarity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perm on Aug 20, 2006 16:54:46 GMT 10
wash out rematch today!
Permboy - 2 , vs MarinerSack featuring MarinerMick and Sacko - 1
you left fast after the game mick?!
|
|
|
|
Post by georgebbbest on Aug 21, 2006 10:36:27 GMT 10
The Gosford 15a did what they do normally and get the result that was required to win the league and for good measure extend the goal difference beyond Tuggerahs reach
Gosford 15a 18, Gosford 15a b team 0. Thats how bad the standard of A grade competition is on the Central Coast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perm on Aug 21, 2006 11:00:50 GMT 10
or how good Gosford is on the Central Coast.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Aug 21, 2006 16:36:24 GMT 10
Gauging the standard of "A" football on the coast based on the performance of Gosford 15B's is ridiculous
|
|
|
|
Post by voice of reason on Aug 21, 2006 17:52:47 GMT 10
Gauging the standard of "A" football on the coast based on the performance of Gosford 15B's is ridiculous ..and i believe there were only 8 or so of the original team, the rest were made up of players playing up! Talk about a mismatch...having said that, the 'B's never looked too discouraged! |
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Aug 21, 2006 19:09:39 GMT 10
CCFA has stuffed up in the 15 Years age group this year.
Gosford's second side was never going to be competitive. Their third side hade to play in the B comp and they got hammered every weekend as well. How many of these kids have been lost to the game.
As VOR says only 8 originals fronted for the last game obviouslt disalusioned with the whole season. Normally would have been a forfeit, that wouldn't have helped the for and against of the A's though.
|
|
