I've been reading this debate. I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that stance.

 

To me, it is not fair nor is it ethical.

 

What nature does to a field is one thing. What humans do in an effort to "gain an edge" is another. It would be the same as a team using illegal cleats in an quagmire to get an edge. Now if both played with the same cleats that would be an equalizer.

I don't buy the "it is their field" notion. The field is the site of an athletic competition in which everyone is to do their best to create a level playing field for everyone to compete and allow the team playing its best to prevail. I could be mistaken but the home team supplies the referee crew as well. Suppose they found a crew that was loaded with sympathetic friends of the home team. (That doesn't happen now but it did in some places 30 or more years ago) With the same notion you could say, "Well, it's their choice for ref so it's fair if they get a crew that has a bias."

 

I have seen it become a factor on more than one occasion in both KY and VA. In both instances, slower power teams were facing quicker squads that had attacks built on attacking the edges and spreading the field. When these fields were deliberately "watered down" the balance of competition was swung. When God makes it rain or snow, that's life. When others do it by artificial means; that's cheating in my book.

 

Just my take.

 

I totally agree that it is morally and ethically wrong. Just figured I would put that disclaimer out here before I say what I am going to say.

 

However.... using the logic that you describe in the above bolded comment, it would be perfectly fine to water a field down since "both teams have to play in it" and therefore it would give no team an unfair advantage.

 

Now if one team has extra long spike cleats and the other team didn't then that would be cheating because there are rules against that kind of action and it give one team an unfair advantage. The same goes for your referee example since there is an obvious bias and it gives another team an unfair advantage.

 

However, the actual watering of the field doesnt really give a team an unfair advantage since both teams have to play on the same field.

 

I understand the whole argument that "watering the field DOES ACTUALLY give a team an unfair advantage because it neutralizes the speed of another team and may hurt the style of offense they run," but I dont buy that.

 

Here is why..... it is an excuse; essentially the same excuse we hear when a team that has great speed and attacks the edges of the field loses in the rain and says, well we couldnt play our best game because of the conditions. Well they cant use that excuse because everyone plays in the same condition, therefore logically you cant use that excuse if someone waters down a field.

I totally agree that it is morally and ethically wrong. Just figured I would put that disclaimer out here before I say what I am going to say.

 

However.... using the logic that you describe in the above bolded comment, it would be perfectly fine to water a field down since "both teams have to play in it" and therefore it would give no team an unfair advantage.

 

Now if one team has extra long spike cleats and the other team didn't then that would be cheating because there are rules against that kind of action and it give one team an unfair advantage. The same goes for your referee example since there is an obvious bias and it gives another team an unfair advantage.

 

However, the actual watering of the field doesnt really give a team an unfair advantage since both teams have to play on the same field.

 

I understand the whole argument that "watering the field DOES ACTUALLY give a team an unfair advantage because it neutralizes the speed of another team and may hurt the style of offense they run," but I dont buy that.

 

Here is why..... it is an excuse; essentially the same excuse we hear when a team that has great speed and attacks the edges of the field loses in the rain and says, well we couldnt play our best game because of the conditions. Well they cant use that excuse because everyone plays in the same condition, therefore logically you cant use that excuse if someone waters down a field.

3wishes also maintained that watering down the field wasn't much different than another team establishing an advantage by playing its home games on a turf field ... a ridiculous notion.

 

Anytime a team chooses to manipulate the playing surface for some perceived gain for a particular game is unethical as can be. I'm not saying it's ever happened and I'm not accusing anyone of doing so, but to maintain that it's "fair" is ridiculous.

3wishes also maintained that watering down the field wasn't much different than another team establishing an advantage by playing its home games on a turf field ... a ridiculous notion.

 

Anytime a team chooses to manipulate the playing surface for some perceived gain for a particular game is unethical as can be. I'm not saying it's ever happened and I'm not accusing anyone of doing so, but to maintain that it's "fair" is ridiculous.

If a team installs an artificial playing surface to exploit a perceived speed advantage, how is that more fair than a team watering down a field to exploit a size/strength advantage? One might argue that either practice is unethical because changing the playing surface can increase the potential of injuries to players, but the changes increase those chances in a "fair" manner to both teams.

 

There is a long tradition of sports teams changing home fields to exploit an advantage. Back in the 70's and 80's, it was a well known fact that the St. Louis baseball Cardinals compacted the dirt in front of home plate and sloped the first and third base foul lines to cause ground balls to bounce higher and more bunts to stay in fair territory. Other teams have tinkered with the distance to the outfield fences to offset a lack of home run power.

 

I don't advocate watering down football fields to gain a competitive advantage. However, a school installing an artificial surface primarily to take advantage of the home team speed's by minimizing the effects of the elements, is no more fair than artificially creating mud. (And, yes, I do realize that there are other valid reasons for installing turf.)

If a team installs an artificial playing surface to exploit a perceived speed advantage, how is that more fair than a team watering down a field to exploit a size/strength advantage? One might argue that either practice is unethical because changing the playing surface can increase the potential of injuries to players, but the changes increase those chances in a "fair" manner to both teams.

 

There is a long tradition of sports teams changing home fields to exploit an advantage. Back in the 70's and 80's, it was a well known fact that the St. Louis baseball Cardinals compacted the dirt in front of home plate and sloped the first and third base foul lines to cause ground balls to bounce higher and more bunts to stay in fair territory. Other teams have tinkered with the distance to the outfield fences to offset a lack of home run power.

 

I don't advocate watering down football fields to gain a competitive advantage. However, a school installing an artificial surface primarily to take advantage of the home team speed's by minimizing the effects of the elements, is no more fair than artificially creating mud. (And, yes, I do realize that there are other valid reasons for installing turf.)

For starters, Dino, I said the manipulation of the playing surface for a particular game. That would apply to watering the field down. I've never heard of a team putting in turf explicitly for an upcoming game.

 

I have yet to hear of a team installing a turf field to take advantage of their speed. Every program I know does it for maintenance reasons.

I totally agree that it is morally and ethically wrong. Just figured I would put that disclaimer out here before I say what I am going to say.

 

However.... using the logic that you describe in the above bolded comment, it would be perfectly fine to water a field down since "both teams have to play in it" and therefore it would give no team an unfair advantage.

 

Now if one team has extra long spike cleats and the other team didn't then that would be cheating because there are rules against that kind of action and it give one team an unfair advantage. The same goes for your referee example since there is an obvious bias and it gives another team an unfair advantage.

 

However, the actual watering of the field doesnt really give a team an unfair advantage since both teams have to play on the same field.

 

I understand the whole argument that "watering the field DOES ACTUALLY give a team an unfair advantage because it neutralizes the speed of another team and may hurt the style of offense they run," but I dont buy that.

 

Here is why..... it is an excuse; essentially the same excuse we hear when a team that has great speed and attacks the edges of the field loses in the rain and says, well we couldnt play our best game because of the conditions. Well they cant use that excuse because everyone plays in the same condition, therefore logically you cant use that excuse if someone waters down a field.

 

 

Could it be that "you don't buy that" because a) it's never been done to you or your team or b) you've never had a speed team that's whole attack was geared on creating mismatches with speed on the corners?

 

I respect your debate and I would not use it as an excuse when it rains, snows or whatever forces nature avails. I have a problem when fans or a program does it intentionally. It's an ethical dilemma that it appears you agree with me on.

 

BTW, during my High School career we lost our District title three years on muddy fields in close games to a team that was better suited to those conditions. I've never made an excuse for it or cried "foul" because each of those times it was the rain that caused the conditions, not man. To me, that is the difference.

All of this doesn't really matter. I was a part of all of this nonsense between Bell and "that other team", and I promise you that no field was ever watered down on purpose. This is just another urban legend guys.

All of this doesn't really matter. I was a part of all of this nonsense between Bell and "that other team", and I promise you that no field was ever watered down on purpose. This is just another urban legend guys.

 

 

I feel bad for having helped hijack this thread and I'm sorry Mods for that.

 

My final comment is that my posts had nothing to do with Bell County or "that game."

For the record:

Query Results

0 PRECIPITATION event(s) were reported in Bell County, Kentucky between 11/21/2004 and 11/26/2004.

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It really doesn't matter. The outcome(s) is/are what the Birds fans wanted anyway.

All of this doesn't really matter. I was a part of all of this nonsense between Bell and "that other team", and I promise you that no field was ever watered down on purpose. This is just another urban legend guys.

 

 

I agree with you 95; its more legend than fact. I don't think its ever been done intentionally by Bell County. Frankly, I think some Highlands fans have never "gotten over" the time Coach Hilton (who is a very, very good coach) scheduled the playoff game on Thanksgiving (which is a lot of fun if you are the home team, but a rather big inconvenience if you have to travel). The KHSAA has now banned playoff games from being played on Thursdays as a result of that game. Folks up here felt Coach Hilton scheduled it on that date because he thought it would be to his teams advantage and when the field has been muddy in the times we played at Bell, the Highlands fans have "questioned" whether it was intentionally watered in another attempt by Coach Hilton to give his team an advantage. Its not like its never happened before (sprinklers mistakenly left on) in the history of football.

 

I also think it was a knee jerk reaction two years ago to the Bell County complaints about Mitchell. Personally I don't think Coach Hilton would do it myself. I think he has too much confidence in his teams' abilities and in his coaching staff to resort to doing that.

For the record:

Query Results

0 PRECIPITATION event(s) were reported in Bell County, Kentucky between 11/21/2004 and 11/26/2004.

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It really doesn't matter. The outcome(s) is/are what the Birds fans wanted anyway.

 

Not according to the Farmers Almanac

 

Where are you ppl getting this info??????

I agree with you 95; its more legend than fact. I don't think its ever been done intentionally by Bell County. Frankly, I think some Highlands fans have never "gotten over" the time Coach Hilton (who is a very, very good coach) scheduled the playoff game on Thanksgiving (which is a lot of fun if you are the home team, but a rather big inconvenience if you have to travel). The KHSAA has now banned playoff games from being played on Thursdays as a result of that game. Folks up here felt Coach Hilton scheduled it on that date because he thought it would be to his teams advantage and when the field has been muddy in the times we played at Bell, the Highlands fans have "questioned" whether it was intentionally watered in another attempt by Coach Hilton to give his team an advantage. Its not like its never happened before (sprinklers mistakenly left on) in the history of football.

 

I also think it was a knee jerk reaction two years ago to the Bell County complaints about Mitchell. Personally I don't think Coach Hilton would do it myself. I think he has too much confidence in his teams' abilities and in his coaching staff to resort to doing that.

 

Finally...... someone with a little sense.

If anyone actually cares to discuss who should and shouldn't be included in a Pre-Season Top 5 poll in AAA feel free to begin a new thread.

 

Let's try and leave November of '04 weather out of the equation.