Re: Where's the grass? That pitch is still better than the old pitches we're used to playing on back in HK... And to think my PE teacher said 'you need studs so you don't slip on the grass'. Try havin a look around .... WHAT GRASS?
While back in the past and in Eastern Europe poor pitches may be fine, it still doesn't mean that a poor pitch in the Premiership has to be accepted, especially when it has been written into the regulations of the league that games should be played on grass. But eh. Down here we have teams playing with a cricket pitch in the middle of the field, and that's accepted by everyone. Each to own, I guess.
Excuse me, but doesn't the match referee have the final say in such things? I mean, he can call off the match if he deems the pitch to be unplayable, right? Anyway, I'm sure it was the lousy pitch which caused Kiely to drop the third goal into his own net...: Express delivery! One case of sour grapes to The Valley...
Well obviously if Charlton hadn't have lost, we wouldn't be hearing anything about it, but the fact remains that both teams played on the same pitch and had to endure the same conditions. As long as it weren't too sneaky, any suggestion that Chelsea somehow benefitted from prior knowledge of what the pitch would be like, should simply be accepted as Home Advantage.
What about that pitch Portsmouth played Leicester on earlier this season.That certainly wasn't played on grass,more like it was played on the river trent.
It will be highly embarracing if a rematch is granted and we lose again. Personally I'd rather put it down to a bad day at the office and move on - the winning streak had to finish eventually. However, as has already been mentioned in the thread, had we refused to play we would prolly have been docked points as the referee had already given the go ahead, and if it is true that Chelsea players were given practice sessions on the sandpit on Thu/Fri prior to game then that counters the argument that it was the same environment for both sides as our players wouldn't have had an opportunity to try different footware, get used to the bounce, etc. Rematch/no rematch I don't really care, I'd rather look forward to the remaining fixtures.
why are people saying there have been worse pitchs, its nothing to do with that is it! Chelseas pitch was shit before they lifted the truf and put sand down - its not cos it was a shit pitch, its cos it wasnt grass.
it was horrible, but you can't lose a game and then protest, Refuse to play on a pitch and the ref might call it off, or perhaps you could win an appeal to replay the game. As it is Charlton come off as pantie wearing losers.
It's true that you are in breach of FA rules if you refuse to play a match but if the pitch does not come up to scratch, then by FA rules, it shouldn't go ahead anyway. If the club had protested strongly enough to the referee beforehand, I'm sure there's a good chance he would have postponed the match. You can't blame Charlton for trying this tactic. They probably took one look at the pitch and decided "well, if we play and get a good result, we'll keep schtum, if we lose we can try and get the match replayed" Sounds fair to me! Especially the bit about Bates.
That is part of Chartlon's complaint - they were denied access to all the officials prior to the decision to play/not play - Merv Day wanted to speak to the ref and wes denied; in addition Chartlon weren't consulted AT ALL when the decision to play/not play was made, and Chelsea were encouraging it.
