Despite my tendency toward being old school, I liken this to the issue regarding provision of water to players. In today's day and age, player safety should be paramount. Just as there is no longer any excuse for player collapse due to lack of water, there is no longer any excuse for intentionally hastening ACL injury due to field conditions under the guise of "both sides have to play it." I agree with semi-state games being played at neutral, equi-distant turf field sites, or alternatively, KHSAA official judgment call 24 hours prior to kickoff.

To me, for the first three rounds it should be up to the school with the home game as to where the game will be played. If they want to play it in their home mud pit, then so be it. If they want to move it to a neutral site, then so be it. They earned the home game by favorable seeding through their performance in the regular season.

 

As far as the semifinal games, I think they should be played on neutral sites due to the rotating nature of the games. Seeding does not play a part in who is the home team for semifinal games, so they should not get a say in where it is played.

Despite my tendency toward being old school, I liken this to the issue regarding provision of water to players. In today's day and age, player safety should be paramount. Just as there is no longer any excuse for player collapse due to lack of water, there is no longer any excuse for intentionally hastening ACL injury due to field conditions under the guise of "both sides have to play it." I agree with semi-state games being played at neutral, equi-distant turf field sites, or alternatively, KHSAA official judgment call 24 hours prior to kickoff.

 

ACL injuries in football are most prevalent on turf fields.

How would a neutral site be determined? Would they be other high school fields? High schools would need to volunteer to host. That would be money out of the pockets of the participating schools (who split gate right now anyway) because costs would be associated with bringing a third party into it. Would they be college fields? Most small colleges in KY have smaller stadiums than a lot of high schools.

I don't know the answer to this question. Anyone?

 

The Pulaski County field situation got me thinking about this issue. Everyone wants home field advantage and a bad playing surface definitely feels like an advantage to Pulaski County to me.

 

I want to reference this article:

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/ky-football-high/growing-up-in-372437.html

 

From the article:

 

Although conclusive research showing a direct correlation between the mental health of teenagers and smartphone usage won’t be complete for years, it isn’t a great confidence builder for a student to discover online that everyone else seems to have more friends.

 

In addition, recent figures indicate that more than 31 percent of America’s 42 million teenagers are overweight or obese, compared to only five percent in 1980. According to the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health, Kentucky is ranked the 14th most obese state in the nation with 33.5 percent of all teenagers considered overweight.

 

Not surprisingly, many psychologists and researchers agree that today’s teenagers are more lonely, anxious and depressed than ever before.

 

==============

 

When the "powers that be" start preaching about mental health, children's health, and psychologists and researchers talking about today’s teenagers are more lonely, anxious and depressed I wonder what all those same experts would say about playing such an important high school football game on a quagmire of a field?

 

So I will ask again, at what point is the KHSAA obligated to move a playoff game due to field conditions?

 

Guru,

 

Not sure I'm following you on your article on how that relates to playing a football game in mud vs. a good surface. Care to explain?

 

As long as both teams are playing in the same conditions, you play it. Just like if it's raining or snowing or sleeting... you play it. Life isn't always fair. No cookie-cutter life out there for everyone of us. You're forced to adapt to conditions. If that means a cow-pasture type team has to go play in the big city on a turf field, deal with it. If that means a city team has to go play in the sticks on a muddy, grass field, deal with it.

 

A muddy field will not increase severe injury risk. If anything, it would decrease it.

Guru,

 

Not sure I'm following you on your article on how that relates to playing a football game in mud vs. a good surface. Care to explain?

 

My reasoning is more of an over-arching thought process.

 

The article is saying playing high school sports is good for our mental health. So if the powers that be manage to convince some children to participate because it is "good for them" but then turn around and say we know there are much better fields available and we could change the game location but we have a long standing "good ol boys club" tradition of playing the hand dealt to you and you are going to have to "suck it up buttercup" just doesn't feel consistent to me.

 

With all that said, and of course to add balance, I played in a Mud Bowl game once against Bath County in 1985. My best friend Matt Bohmer put it best when he said no matter how bad you can imagine it was, it was worse.

 

I will also add the game was a lot of fun, we (Beechwood) won 6 to 0, but we would have beat Bath County much worse on a dry field. Just sayin'

I wouldn’t mind the semifinal games being at neutral sites if there was a double or triple header. Being that they are played on the Friday after Thanksgiving that would be a neat event to have.

Exactly. I’d much rather play in the mud than play on turf. It’s way more fun.

I always thought it would be a good idea for a school to schedule a semi-final game on Friday afternoon. Chances are the weather would be a little better (hopefully warmer) and it would allow the visiting team to get back to their school at a respectable hour instead of after midnight. Most people are off the Friday after Thanksgiving so it possibly could be done. But I’m sure the KHSAA has reasons why it can’t be done. Just a thought.

I always thought it would be a good idea for a school to schedule a semi-final game on Friday afternoon. Chances are the weather would be a little better (hopefully warmer) and it would allow the visiting team to get back to their school at a respectable hour instead of after midnight. Most people are off the Friday after Thanksgiving so it possibly could be done. But I’m sure the KHSAA has reasons why it can’t be done. Just a thought.

 

Interesting. Not a bad idea.

Game time is up to the two schools. My sophomore year, we played a state-semifinal game around 2:00/3:00 pm...

Game time is up to the two schools. My sophomore year, we played a state-semifinal game around 2:00/3:00 pm...

 

Is it up to both schools or is it really up to the home school?

 

And does anyone know what the KHSAA Rule is for circumstances where a football game may need to be moved due to field conditions or is there a rule at all?

It's been a few years since I was coaching Guru, but last time I remember if neither team could agree on game time, it was set at either 7:00 or 7:30.

My reasoning is more of an over-arching thought process.

 

The article is saying playing high school sports is good for our mental health. So if the powers that be manage to convince some children to participate because it is "good for them" but then turn around and say we know there are much better fields available and we could change the game location but we have a long standing "good ol boys club" tradition of playing the hand dealt to you and you are going to have to "suck it up buttercup" just doesn't feel consistent to me.

 

With all that said, and of course to add balance, I played in a Mud Bowl game once against Bath County in 1985. My best friend Matt Bohmer put it best when he said no matter how bad you can imagine it was, it was worse.

 

I will also add the game was a lot of fun, we (Beechwood) won 6 to 0, but we would have beat Bath County much worse on a dry field. Just sayin'

 

Is it fair for the team who doesnt have field turf to have to practice in the mud all week if it rains? While the team with field turf gets to get good work in on nice field turf even if it rains?

 

If this game was at Covcath. But yet it was raining all week at Pulaski County. Should the state have ordered CovCath to practice in the mud, instead of the field turf to make it fair. Since Pulaski would have had to practice in the mud, even though the game was on field turf. Or does it only work the other way around and only applies to making it fair for when a field turf team may have to play in the mud? No one seems to care about it, if a team has to practice all week in mud. While the other team doesn't have to do that.

 

This issue never seems to be a problem when it's two grass teams. But when a turf team has to play in the mud, watch out.

 

To truly make it fair, then the KHSAA needs to just pay for every school in the state to have field turf. Until then, there is zero reason for the game to be moved unless it was a safety issue. Which playing in the mud is not a safety issue.

When the gym floor sweats and becomes slick then play the game because neither team can stand up.