Nashville and Orlando played with visible NFL lines on the field. The Patriots play a home game on Sunday so I imagine we'll have lines as well on Tuesday.
MLS Cup Playoffs - November 30 - New England (Away)
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
But we get shit upon for playing in someone else’s stadium. As mentioned before, if/when we get our own stadium I hope they keep the size of the pitch as small as it is in YS just to piss off every fan of every mls team that plays us for the rest of time. God damn hypocrites.
We should get shit on for playing at a baseball stadium. But teams like Atlanta, New England, and Seattle should also get shit on for playing at a football stadium and having NFL lines and whatnot at times (leaving Nashville out of this with their stadium opening next year).
There's also a difference between shitting on us for playing at a baseball stadium and complaining after a game that the field is too small, especially when it's been proven to not be too small multiple times over the years.
I understand the difference you are pointing out and I should have been a bit clearer about that. But as I’m sure you and everyone else here knows, playing in a baseball stadium AND on a small yet regulation size pitch has been treated as cannon fodder by any fan that is not our own. Hell our own fan base complain about it too. My point is, i would really enjoy “one uping” Atlanta, New England, and Seattle by 1) having a stadium of our own that we don’t share with another sports team from a different league and 2) that was designed with the small pitch in mind as a middle finger to everyone who has said that the pitch is too small even though as we all know it is not. Having a SSS with those dimensions just takes the the wind out of the sails of their argument by saying no it was fifa approved last time and now it’s been approved again.
No team that plays on artificial turf - especially turf that is as shitty as the turf in New England - should feel a right to complain about our small, but regulation, pitch.
they only complain because it's us. if our field is the same small dimensions in a new stadium, they won't even notice, like they don't notice or complain about the field at allegiant stadium in vegas. they also never complain with there are international matches inside baseball stadiums either. they only do it cause it's us and they rarely do well when they come to the bronx
There are still jabronis on Twitter complaining that Peter Vermes said it was too small six years ago and there is a conspiracy that NYCFC doesn’t “allow” independent observers to measure the field.
some guy was even going on about how the corners were not right angles. It’s hilarious.
some guy was even going on about how the corners were not right angles. It’s hilarious.
My response to all the whiners out there that the field isn't regulation is to complain to MLS and FIFA. If a major professional team were really playing on a non-regulation field, that'd be a huge deal. We'd be talking massive fines, point deductions, probably loss of draft picks and maybe even Garberbucks fines. The fact that there hasn't been a single official complaint says it all.
The reality is that it's the perspective that's weird, not the size. Since soccer fields are rectangular, you're used to 4 sides of stands. However, since baseball is played on a triangular field, there's 1 side of the soccer field that doesn't have stands. The curved walls of the outfield and the missing stand side is probably what leads to opposition players being thrown off. The camera angle is really low too, which is why I love the tactical/overhead cam they do on the broadcast sometimes. When they pan overhead, it's painfully obvious that the field is regulation size.
And if they're complaining about the size, then maybe they should complain about Fulham's Craven Cottage or Arsenal's old White Hart Lane.
The reality is that it's the perspective that's weird, not the size. Since soccer fields are rectangular, you're used to 4 sides of stands. However, since baseball is played on a triangular field, there's 1 side of the soccer field that doesn't have stands. The curved walls of the outfield and the missing stand side is probably what leads to opposition players being thrown off. The camera angle is really low too, which is why I love the tactical/overhead cam they do on the broadcast sometimes. When they pan overhead, it's painfully obvious that the field is regulation size.
And if they're complaining about the size, then maybe they should complain about Fulham's Craven Cottage or Arsenal's old White Hart Lane.
I've been saying we should build the same size pitch in the SSS, whenever it comes, for years. Not claiming I was the first but I'm glad to see the idea becoming more widespread, not just here but on other sites. Now I have a new idea:
We should do something to replicate the weird crooked relationship of the pitch to the stands. Nothing as drastic as we have now. You don't want to make viewing in person or at TV legitimately worse, but I figure:
Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that the team should place a regular or digital measuring tape device in the opposing locker room for every game.
We should do something to replicate the weird crooked relationship of the pitch to the stands. Nothing as drastic as we have now. You don't want to make viewing in person or at TV legitimately worse, but I figure:
- You could angle one corner just a bit further from the field than the other 4. Something subtle, but maybe enough to throw off perspective for visiting players. And you can put the away supporters section there.
- Play with perspective. You've seen this at places like theme parks. Hogwarts Tower at Universal and and Cinderella's Castle at WDW are built in such a way that when seen from the ground, they appear significantly taller than they actually are. There has to be a way to play with the angle or placement and size of the roof, or corners of the upper deck, to make some of them seem further away than they are. The point is to have the rectangle of the field and the rectangle of the stands seem askew when you are on the field, even if they are not.
Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that the team should place a regular or digital measuring tape device in the opposing locker room for every game.
Just to have some extra fun, intentionally mis-calibrate it so it reads 68 yds, teams make complaints with the league only to look like fools!
this is why i dont take too kind to SKC. The man gave an opinion in year one and everyone takes it as gospel. Its not that nycfc doesnt allow, IIRC its MLS regulation that dont allow measurement. That being said glen crooks did that facebook live or whatever of him measuring taking steps across the field to show it was 70 yrds. of course its not measuring tape,
is it smaller than everyone else? yes. is it against the rules no.
Interesting point. I did some digging. Below are in yards.
Fulham 109 x 71
Liverpool 110 x 75
C. Palace 110 x 74
Everton 110 x 74
Sheffield 110 x 74
QPR 112 x 72
I'm not at liberty to say how I got my hands on this leaked document but I think you may find it relevant to your interests.
i could of sworn it was lalas who said this some time ago, but since it was lalas i thought nothing of it.
Five of NYCFC's 11 losses (45%) came in the 8 of 34 games (24%) that Callens did not play. These include both losses to New England.
NYC conceded 1.625 goals per game with Callens out and 0.846 when he played.
For Away games, NYCFC conceded 2.33 goals per game without Callens (admittedly a mere 3 game sample), and just 1.14 when he played.
Before you get too optimistic, on offense, and ignoring Callens, NYC scored 2.18 goals per game at home and just 1.12 on the road, including 4 of the team's 6 shutouts and 12 of the 20 games where NYCFC scored 0 or 1 goals. Basically, with our regular CB pair we always have a shot -- even on the road and even against New England -- but someone besides Taty is going to need to contribute some goals. We scored 2 or more just 5 times Away.
Also, not really relevant now, but Callens also did not play in both of the "home" RBA losses.
NYC conceded 1.625 goals per game with Callens out and 0.846 when he played.
For Away games, NYCFC conceded 2.33 goals per game without Callens (admittedly a mere 3 game sample), and just 1.14 when he played.
Before you get too optimistic, on offense, and ignoring Callens, NYC scored 2.18 goals per game at home and just 1.12 on the road, including 4 of the team's 6 shutouts and 12 of the 20 games where NYCFC scored 0 or 1 goals. Basically, with our regular CB pair we always have a shot -- even on the road and even against New England -- but someone besides Taty is going to need to contribute some goals. We scored 2 or more just 5 times Away.
Also, not really relevant now, but Callens also did not play in both of the "home" RBA losses.
