BGA (6-1)(2-1) vs. BA (5-1)(3-0)

[doct]

It is absolutely absurd to say that BGA tried to sabotage their own field to get an edge on BA. If you remember correctly BGA also had to play on the same field. If BGA tried to get an edge it obviously didn't help. FYI BGA's regular grounds keeper has recently had an extended stay in the hospital so...

 

Sorry to hear about the groundskeeper--I have already apologized to BGA fans everywhere in an earlier post. It was absurd to make that claim. I am still perplexed why the field was so wet.

[sportshooter]

You are right--I shouldn't have said that. Sorry, I apologize to BGA. But why was the field so wet?

I don't know the irrigation schedule but there is a problem with the turf tearing away. It obviously did not give the home team an advantage. Thanks for the apology. Pictures of the field and the game are here: www.bgapix.com.

[AlWaldrop]

I don't know the irrigation schedule but there is a problem with the turf tearing away. It obviously did not give the home team an advantage. Thanks for the apology. Pictures of the field and the game are here: www.bgapix.com.

 

Those are incredible pictures! You have a gift!

[two4takedowns]

Sorry to hear about the groundskeeper--I have already apologized to BGA fans everywhere in an earlier post. It was absurd to make that claim. I am still perplexed why the field was so wet.

BGA's whole campus was wet the next morning. I'm guessing there was a problem with the sprinkler system

[WesVLT]

I stood in the end zone the whole time I was at the game. The field was drenched. I won't accuse anybody of anything...I don't think BGA would stoop to that pitiful level. But the field was quite shoddy. I'll chalk it up to wear and tear.

[repo]

I stood in the end zone the whole time I was at the game. The field was drenched. I won't accuse anybody of anything...I don't think BGA would stoop to that pitiful level. But the field was quite shoddy. I'll chalk it up to wear and tear.

If the field at BGA was as drenched as you claim...why aren't the players uniforms from either team covered in mud in the pictures that Sportshooter shared above? The turf looks chewed up, but to say the field was drenched would mean that it was saturated in water. The pictures don't seem to confirm that nor do the rushing yards that BA piled up. I don't understand why the BA fans are so troubled by this.

Edited October 10, 2011 by repo

[sportshooter]

I was very impressed with no. 20, the safety for BA. What year is he and has he been offered?

[doct]

I was very impressed with no. 20, the safety for BA. What year is he and has he been offered?

He's a 10th grader, Rashaun Gaulden. Very good player.

[deadaim]

I stood in the end zone the whole time I was at the game. The field was drenched. I won't accuse anybody of anything...I don't think BGA would stoop to that pitiful level. But the field was quite shoddy. I'll chalk it up to wear and tear.

Bermuda grass, whether it is common or the older Tifway 419 or some of the newer strains such as Mohawk or Prima HD, is beginning to slow down a little now with the cooler weather. Although we are in the transition zone, these turf grasses should be very good this time of year but will not repair very quickly, if at all, due to lower night temperatures.They will not go dormant until the first frost. A possible explanation here, which is completely unverified, is that BGA overseeded in winter rye which needs substantial water to germinate. Ensworth, rather than overseeding, paints its field to keep it green and it certainly looked good last year after all the other bermuda fields had turned brown.

[WesVLT]

Repo, I wouldn't say we're troubled by it; after all, BA won the game handily. It was just odd.

 

After I saw players slipping on every play, I picked up a piece of turf where I was standing beyond the end zone. It was very wet. I can't speak to mud on jerseys; I can tell you firsthand how the grass felt.

 

None of it matters. It was an easy win for BA and I don't believe BGA would stoop to such tactics.

[sportshooter]

Repo, I wouldn't say we're troubled by it; after all, BA won the game handily. It was just odd.

 

After I saw players slipping on every play, I picked up a piece of turf where I was standing beyond the end zone. It was very wet. I can't speak to mud on jerseys; I can tell you firsthand how the grass felt.

 

None of it matters. It was an easy win for BA and I don't believe BGA would stoop to such tactics.

Dew sets in by the second half and will cause the field to be wet. Can we move on from Turfgate??

[shakinthefat]

The turf looks chewed up, but to say the field was drenched would mean that it was saturated in water. The pictures don't seem to confirm that nor do the rushing yards that BA piled up. I don't understand why the BA fans are so troubled by this.

I saw the BA field 2 weeks, same grass and the turf did not tear away from the ground like at BGA. Three weeks ago a watched a game at Ensworth, same grass and the turf did not tear away from the ground like at BGA. It just seems strange that if the groundskeeper is away, a nice school like BGA could find someone to reset sprinkler systems. The BGA coach had to see how the field condition was getting throughout the week.

If BGA did not soak the field then I would say they were negligent allowing the sprinkler system to run without supervision. A field that soggy is not SAFE for either team. A slippery field can cause knee and ankle injuries.

Maybe it wasn't done to slow down BA, but maybe BGA receivers have the advantage on a wet field in that they know where they are going and the defensive backs loose traction and cannot cover.

Edited October 10, 2011 by shakinthefat