Getting rid of the Gabba cricket pitch

[amortiser]

They dug up the centre wicket square to level the ground for the Olympics and then recompacted it in time for the cricket season without any perceived problems.

The Test match is played in November at present. Although the first test is traditionally played at the Gabba it doesn't have to be. The wet season is typically in January - February but now the tests are all played by early in the new year. The Brisbane Test could be rescheduled to mid December to allow for additional time for the wicket to be prepared.

The last AFL game would be played by the second last week in September giving the groundstaff nearly 3 months to recompact and prepare the wicket. The soil can still be there but its the compaction that is the problem in the footy season. Surely an area 50 metres by 30 metres doesn't take 3 months to compact. There are plenty of contractors with the necessary equipment to fast track such a task. They have managed to do it once. They can only get better at it.

 

[FattyLumpkin]

Adelaide Oval - has a pitch & they play footy on it. They did it with the MCG for years. Back then however, the pitch wasn't treated as a sacred site all year round, but left to get cut up, muddied etc during footy season, then treated as a pitch during cricket season.

Why can't the same be done with the Gabba? It has always looked to me as the Gabba could be ready for a game of cricket next week - just roll & paint a few crease lines. Why does it need be in this state of "cricket readiness" all year round?

 

[Cousin Jed]

Good to see the Courier Mail have kept their reputation for well rounded, unbiased journalism.

An editorial written by the Courier Mail was printed today that starts with the sentence "Leigh Matthews needs to pull his head in" in case you missed it.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24061100-13360,00.html

And AFL aficionados should also be well aware that the very game itself was actually invented as a way of maintaining the fitness levels of cricket players in the off-season.

 

[LionKing]

Leave the bloody pitch.

Should we remove the goal posts as well in case a player runs into them and injures themselves?

I hardly think the 2000 Olympics is a valid point. Yes, they removed the centre square and levelled the entire surface but the square was replaced and left there. It wasn't being repeatedly dug up every year.

And saying there is just "one" cricket match a year vs 11 AFL matches is complete and utter nonsense. 35 days of cricket vs 11 days of football.

Yes, its only 11 home games at the moment, but what about when the Gold Coast franchise play their 11 home games at the Gabba as well??? The pressure from two AFL clubs to remove the cricket pitch would be enormous.

 

[Warwick]

Yes, its only 11 home games at the moment, but what about when the Gold Coast franchise play their 11 home games at the Gabba as well??? The pressure from two AFL clubs to remove the cricket pitch would be enormous.

35 beats 22 still according to my maths.

 

[_Gin]

Quality over quantity .

There's a lawsuit over the pitch now, I think its harding. So either the AFL or the Gabba is going to cop it.

 

[POBT]

There's a lawsuit over the pitch now, I think its harding. So either the AFL or the Gabba is going to cop it.

I'm pretty sure he hasn't filed yet.

And, anyway, what is his loss? 4 match payments at best So his economic loss, at this stage, is a maximum of 4 x$2700 (assuming Scott is on close to minimum wage for a player other than 1st or 2nd year draftee) plus any out of pocket expenses like medical fees, which would be covered by the club and/or insurance. Keep in mind that, as a fringe player, a court would not award him all 4 payments but probably some percentage based on how many games he'd played over the year/career to factor in the likelihood that Harding would have been dropped or omitted for injury during those 4 weeks.

If I were a litigator, I wouldn't get out of bed for a possibility of a $10,800 damages award. As far as long term damage is concerned, the guy was back playing in 4 weeks. It is not as though he is Shaun Rehn, a league leading ruckman cut down in his prime.

I am not aware of any of these player injuries cases ever going to trial. They tend to get settled out of court. The media (yes, they can manipulate facts to make the story sound better) always reports them as a "win" to the player but the details are always kept confidential - it is equally plausible that the Rehn case was a "win" to the AFL.

Once again, it goes back to the fact that the AFL passes the surface as safe for work. As Leigh Matthews says, potential injuries to players is a problem. Having to call a game off because the ground is too hard is a massive headache. Hence why the AFL wants someone else (the State preferably) to make the hard decision.

 

[kimp]

This issue will not magically go away. I htink the advent of GC17 will make it an even hotter topic given that the State government want them to play at the Gabba til '17(?).

I also don't think it matters how much money is involved in Hardings' potential suit. If he is successful then either the AFL of Qld Gov will be forced to take some sort of action to rectify the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the club is behind the lawsuit.

 

[POBT]

I also don't think it matters how much money is involved in Hardings' potential suit. If he is successful then either the AFL of Qld Gov will be forced to take some sort of action to rectify the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the club is behind the lawsuit.

Not necessarily. Plenty of companies just accept the fact that they will be sued, without taking action to rectify the problem. It may be that the State Govt thinks that they'll wear the risk of a player suing them. A WH & S investigation is a different story.

They may not wear the risk that the AFL refuses to play at the Gabba. But that requires the AFL to have far larger kahunas than Andy D and co possess. As I said earlier in the thread, the AFL is in a unique position of not being able to bully or bribe the State Govt on a couple of issues. And the prevarication shown by them on some key issues demonstrates that they don't know how to handle that situation.

 

[POBT]

I should add that I think that there are a whole range of middle ground options which are yet to be explored, particularly from the State Govt and ground management side of things.

 

[Judge]

I also don't think it matters how much money is involved in Hardings' potential suit. If he is successful then either the AFL of Qld Gov will be forced to take some sort of action to rectify the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the club is behind the lawsuit.

Trust me, unless Scott lost a significant bonus or match payment as a result of his injury, his claim would be worth SFA and no lawyer would be interested except possibly for the publicity. Didn't he only miss one match? And with his selection record, it could hardly be said to be certain that he missed selection in the firsts the following week (or weeks) due to the injury.

I don't think the AFL or Stadiums Qld will be too worried about what Scott might do, but there is certainly a risk of a future claim in the event of a worse injury- I think Browny doing his knee in the square with his contract expiring might be viewed a bit differently!

 

[POBT]

Trust me, unless Scott lost a significant bonus or match payment as a result of his injury, his claim would be worth SFA and no lawyer would be interested except possibly for the publicity. Didn't he only miss one match? And with his selection record, it could hardly be said to be certain that he missed selection in the firsts the following week (or weeks) due to the injury.

I don't think the AFL or Stadiums Qld will be too worried about what Scott might do, but there is certainly a risk of a future claim in the event of a worse injury- I think Browny doing his knee in the square with his contract expiring might be viewed a bit differently!

Gotta listen to a guy called "Judge" when it comes to the law!

 

[LionKing]

35 beats 22 still according to my maths.

Yes Warwick your maths is correct . . . I also pointed out that two clubs (and now thinking about it, possibly the AFL with the money their throwing behind the GC franchise) would place enormous pressure on the Gabba trust and as a result they may have no choice but to replace the cricket pitch.

 

[POBT]

Yes Warwick your maths is correct . . . I also pointed out that two clubs (and now thinking about it, possibly the AFL with the money their throwing behind the GC franchise) would place enormous pressure on the Gabba trust and as a result they may have no choice but to replace the cricket pitch.

And if the Gabba/Government says no? All the pressure in the world won't matter because the State Government holds the upper hand right now.

Right now, the AFL's position is pretty much: Please let us out of our agreement to play all games at the Gabba and if you could see it in your heart to fund a new stadium down the Coast, then that would be great. By the way, could you also backflip on the issue of a drop in pitch?

What exactly are the AFL offering the Qld Govt? The idea of a Gold Coast side is not exactly a major political issue. There's some community support for it but, compared to the weight of support for a Gold Coast RL side (which was enough for the Beattie govt to build an entire stadium), it is pretty low key.

The AFL can turn that around by offering to build the stadium down the coast. That might interest the State Govt. But that is a major capital investment that they were hoping to avoid.

 

[kimp]

All good points POBT.

The point about if Harding wins is the precedence it would set for future liabilities. It would also be inredibly hypocritical for a government to take such a stand on an OH&S issue.


(Also think they'll be no shortage of lawyers lining up for the free publicity)

 

[Judge]

All good points POBT.



(Also think they'll be no shortage of lawyers lining up for the free publicity)

Possibly, but you can't eat, drink or drive publicity!

 

[Tassie4ever]

Anyone who thinks the State government will do anything about the state of the Gabba until it jumps up and bites them is kidding themselves. As I see it, the majority of this government sees AFL as a bit of an anachronism which they have an inkling is followed by a number curious other Australians- you know, them on daylight saving time, different rail gauges etc.

It never ceases to amaze me the the Big D and others in the AFL hierarchy assume that all State governments will bend over backwards to keep them onside. Not up here mate, where LLLLLLeauge is the go.

What we should be doing is directly approaching the groundsman to ask him to desist with the rolling and mowing phase of his pitch preparation until the cricket is actually approaching- ie, not in the middle of winter. Otherwise, Leigh will have to have him in for a coffee.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Doesn't the SCG keep its pitch during the winter months?

What is different about the SCG and the Gabba in terms of the hardness of the pitch.

 

[_Gin]

At the moment I'd be happy if the Gabba Trust would just find some sort of compromise. Don't get rid of the pitch thats fine, as long as you put some kind of padding or thicker turf on it.

I'm not saying thats the solution.

I am saying that the Gabba Trust and State Government is being negligent by not investigating alternative solutions.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Can't win this...tear it up and upset the cricketers...one of the best wickets in the world. Drop in wickets currently aren't up to standard. Look at the MCG.

Don't tear it up, upset the footballers. Even worse if one suffers serious and or career ending injury and sues Gabba/AFL.

Brisy can't afford to build a new stadium in/near Brisy. Gabba can't earn enough $$ if run only as a cricket ground.

Damn this is a toughie!

 

[Notorious_29]

ive heard a few of you say it falls within the afl's saftey guidlines etc. where exactly are these guidlines stated anywhere? who is responsible for inspecting the ground before a match? and who would be held responsible and hence sued if there was an injury directly related to the square?

thanks in advance.

 

[POBT]

ive heard a few of you say it falls within the afl's saftey guidlines etc. where exactly are these guidlines stated anywhere? who is responsible for inspecting the ground before a match? and who would be held responsible and hence sued if there was an injury directly related to the square?

thanks in advance.

My understanding is that an official from the AFL inspects the ground on the morning of the match, using a penotrometer (or something similar). That then gives a reading level for "hardness". If the reading is greater than the AFL accepted level (which is probably in an internal WH&S policy), then, in theory, the game must not be played.

If a player sued, any one of the following could be held liable (depending on the circumstances):

- The club
- The AFL
- The State Government (who operate the stadium)
- If the AFL uses a 3rd party to do the testing, the 3rd party
- Any individuals involved (eg the tester) - however, individuals are not likely to be required to pay any form of damages as their employer will be ultimately held responsible for their actions.

 

[Cousin Jed]

They also measure it between the reserves game and the main game

 

[Hollow Knight]

Vossy is digging it up as we speak.

 

[Warwick]

Has it cost Simon Black 2 Brownlows?