2017 Surf Cup experiences.....

I agree. and out of all the times I have done games with a single ball, very very seldom have I ever had a player complain. Many many times I have had parents complain, and sometimes you have a coach complain but only when he/she's losing. I really think it's more perception of something wrong when there's really not much to it. It makes very little difference.

You're rationalizing.
 
At least with the olders, the better ball does make a difference. It does not stick to the cleats, has a truer flight and is easier to control.

Over the two weekends and 21 games I refereed, there was only one time when it took longer than 5-15 seconds to get the ball back in play. The one time the ball went into the parking lot it took approximately 30 seconds to get the ball back to the keeper for a goal kick, so I announced to the players and coaches that I would add time to the half. One time out of the 100's of times the ball went out of play is nothing.

A $150 ball is 99% marketing. Its biggest benefit is durability which is meaningless for a tournament weekend with three balls. I guess im just not that impressed when people brag about the cost of something when there is no appreciable benefit from a less expensive model.

Our big issue with lost time was our late game on Saturday. There was no game to the north so any ball sent over this endline took more time to retrieve than was necessary. At the end of the day the fact is most tournaments provide or allow 3 balls, obviously they feel its preferable. Surf is a great tournament regardless.
 
It's tough to do one ball at silverlakes. The wind will blow it 3 fields over during some points in the year. Plenty of time lost chasing there.
 
It's tough to do one ball at silverlakes. The wind will blow it 3 fields over during some points in the year. Plenty of time lost chasing there.
It is tough to do one ball anywhere that fields are in close proximity to each other. When the ball goes onto an adjoining field, the compulsion to run out and get it is greater regardless of whether it impacts the game on the field instead of waiting for a clear chance to retrieve the ball.
 
A $150 ball is 99% marketing. Its biggest benefit is durability which is meaningless for a tournament weekend with three balls. I guess im just not that impressed when people brag about the cost of something when there is no appreciable benefit from a less expensive model.

Our big issue with lost time was our late game on Saturday. There was no game to the north so any ball sent over this endline took more time to retrieve than was necessary. At the end of the day the fact is most tournaments provide or allow 3 balls, obviously they feel its preferable. Surf is a great tournament regardless.
Have you ever played soccer with an expensive soccer ball? I agree that a $150 ball is overpriced, but there is a huge difference between an expensive ball ($100+) and a cheap ball. The cheap balls, especially those nice shinny ones, have a surface that is stickier and will not release from the cleat smoothly. The sticky ball makes tit very difficult to maneuver when dribbling and does not release cleanly when kicking it.

There should have been a couple parents chasing down the ball or send a couple of the siblings to chase down the ball. There is always one to two crazy parents that will run like a mad man to get the ball.

When I worked Albion Cup a month ago there was only one ball per field and at the Disney tournament last December we only had one ball per field. I have worked many tournaments over the years that supply the game balls and only supply 1-2 balls.
 
with regards to the polo fields dirt parking lot, i heard a long time ago it's due to the fact that it's a polo field, that allows soccer to be played on it.

So it's safety wise for the horses, if they make they way off the grass.

As far as oceanside....dont know.
 
with regards to the polo fields dirt parking lot, i heard a long time ago it's due to the fact that it's a polo field, that allows soccer to be played on it.

So it's safety wise for the horses, if they make they way off the grass.

As far as oceanside....dont know.

The City redid the lease recently, naming Surf as the prime tenant. The dirt parking lot has nothing to do with polo - it's dirt because no one wants to pay to pave it, and parking revenue is not going to be enough when it only fills up a few weekends each year.
 
From what I remember, the parking lot at the Polo Fields is owned by the water authority, not the Polo Fields.

Surf Cup has stated many times that they do not own the lot and are powerless to improve it. At various times the owner has been said to be a private party or the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds). Water Authority is a new one to me, but some public entity is likely because the whole neighborhood was declared off limits to high-density residential and commercial development as open space mitigation decades ago when Fairbanks Ranch was developed.
 
Surf Cup has stated many times that they do not own the lot and are powerless to improve it. At various times the owner has been said to be a private party or the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds). Water Authority is a new one to me, but some public entity is likely because the whole neighborhood was declared off limits to high-density residential and commercial development as open space mitigation decades ago when Fairbanks Ranch was developed.
I probably mis-remembered what I read on the old forum. The Ag Association is probably what I remember. The gist of the old thread was that parking revenue went to another entity, not Surf Cup.
 
I probably mis-remembered what I read on the old forum. The Ag Association is probably what I remember. The gist of the old thread was that parking revenue went to another entity, not Surf Cup.

I have seen the lot used as overflow parking during the fair and the parking receipts I got when I parked there in the past had 22nd District written on them. They also control the horse arena lot just across El Camino real.
 
I guess its a matter of your own priority. Personally I'd rather have a dusty car than lost playing time chasing balls.
 
with regards to the polo fields dirt parking lot, i heard a long time ago it's due to the fact that it's a polo field, that allows soccer to be played on it.

So it's safety wise for the horses, if they make they way off the grass.

As far as oceanside....dont know.

Surf Cup Sports now owns the Polo Fields and has changed the name to Surf Cup Sports Park. The old parking area is not used and the area around the field is now used. I actually prefer the new parking layout. I just wish it was paved.
 
Surf Cup Sports now owns the Polo Fields and has changed the name to Surf Cup Sports Park. The old parking area is not used and the area around the field is now used. I actually prefer the new parking layout. I just wish it was paved.
The old parking area on the north side is owned by a 3rd party that is rumored to want to develop the site and used the Agricultural District to manage it. I believe this is the only area not in the flood plan and thus may be developed. By keeping the parking closer around the fields, Surf gets to keep all the parking revenue. Also because it is in the flood plan (I believe 100 year flood plan), even a paved road is most likely forbidden. Since they took the stables down, I doubt that they will ever be able to build on the site, including no permanent restrooms or clubhouse.
 
If a few parents were to camp out to help retrieve balls, would the referee allow them to hang out behind the goal?
What if the parents hanging out on the side of the team that is winning actually delay things longer?

What's wrong with sticking a spare ball next to each goal during a game?

Forget about the cost of a ball. There is a big difference between a $150 ball and a $15 ball.
Not as much of a difference between a $150 ball and a $40-$50 ball though.

What happened to "home team supplies 3 balls?"
 
That's funny since the north side parking lot seems to flood frequently.
It does not flood. It just has standing water from the rain with no where to drain since the property is not graded well. The north side is furthest away from the riverbed which is along the southern side. If the river floods, the north side is the last to flood. There is also a huge grade change between the north parking and Via De Valle directly to the north. The way I understand it is the north parking lot may be able to be built up to match the grade of Via De Valle and thus develop it.
 
Whatever you want to call it, the north side parking lot is frequently underwater. No doubt that the property is currently poorly graded to the point that it could almost be called wetlands at times or at the very least vernal pools. If they build it up to match the grade of Via De La Valle that will make it higher than the Polo Fields. If that happens where will the water go that used to collect there? My guess would be the Polo Fields unless they put some well designed drainage around or under the Polo Fields.
 
Whatever you want to call it, the north side parking lot is frequently underwater. No doubt that the property is currently poorly graded to the point that it could almost be called wetlands at times or at the very least vernal pools. If they build it up to match the grade of Via De La Valle that will make it higher than the Polo Fields. If that happens where will the water go that used to collect there? My guess would be the Polo Fields unless they put some well designed drainage around or under the Polo Fields.
They would have to capture all of the water from their property and divert it to the line that currently runs along Via De La Valle. However, currently I do not think a project like this would be viable because of the amount of fill needed, the traffic mitigation measures that would be needed and the neighborhood would surely tie it up in litigation.
My only point in mentioning this was in response to the new parking areas at the Pollo Fields have eliminated the need to park in this privately owed area and thus Surf gets all of the parking revenue plus it is probably not allowed to pave the road which is in the flood plan.
 
They would have to capture all of the water from their property and divert it to the line that currently runs along Via De La Valle. However, currently I do not think a project like this would be viable because of the amount of fill needed, the traffic mitigation measures that would be needed and the neighborhood would surely tie it up in litigation.
My only point in mentioning this was in response to the new parking areas at the Pollo Fields have eliminated the need to park in this privately owed area and thus Surf gets all of the parking revenue plus it is probably not allowed to pave the road which is in the flood plan.


Who cares you maggot? This is along the lines of what I would expect from a dip$hit like you. Debating parking lots. Let's hear your thoughts on the actual game of soccer. What did you think of the NWSL game yesterday or today? Who do you think the best forward in the league is? How do you thing Alex Morgan and Marta are meshing? What are your thoughts on the United Soccer Coaches poll? Tell us more about your Ivy League recruiting experiences with your non soccer playing child that relates to soccer. Let's talk about ULittle nonsense like ranking teams and which showcase is the best.

You have to do better than that @Fact. I have gone toe to toe with trolls waaaay more serious than you. And my kid is killing the game. You should have seen her. I hope that yours is doing the same.
 
Back
Top