no97 Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 All of these other gripes about football at Wrigley are now secondary:SourceYeah... Um... WHAT?!?!?Wow.It used to be blue, so what's the big deal with it being purple for a couple weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Is it just me or does it seem incredibly unsafe to basically have a 10 foot brick wall marking out of bounds in the back of the endzone? How many times do you see receivers run full speed out of bounds on a deep pass into the endzone? Seems like a there's a huge potential for injury, IMO.No worries...the players are protected by pictures of fake ivy. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Renovations didn't change the field dimensions.Really?To further prove this point, they removed the brick wall from the CBOE seats:to squeeze in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Renovations didn't change the field dimensions.Not the dimensions of the area in play, but adding the box seats behind homeplate took away even more space from the south endzone, which had the corner cut off when the Bears played there due to proximity to the wall. Putting the field down the thirdbase line would have made them cut even more of the corner out of the endzone. Even though it would have altered the dimensions of play (which I'm sure is against the rules), it would have probably been safer than what they are doing in right field. I just can't imagine how both schools looked at that setup and thought it would be safe. Having the players run into it full speed isn't even my biggest concern. If a receiver is going up for a pass in the back of the endzone you better believe the DB/linebacker is going to be going for the absolute killshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Renovations didn't change the field dimensions.Not the dimensions of the area in play, but adding the box seats behind homeplate took away even more space from the south endzone, which had the corner cut off when the Bears played there due to proximity to the wall. Putting the field down the thirdbase line would have made them cut even more of the corner out of the endzone. Even though it would have altered the dimensions of play (which I'm sure is against the rules), it would have probably been safer than what they are doing in right field. I just can't imagine how both schools looked at that setup and thought it would be safe. Having the players run into it full speed isn't even my biggest concern. If a receiver is going up for a pass in the back of the endzone you better believe the DB/linebacker is going to be going for the absolute killshot.In what way? By creating a knee high wall just outside the endzone? Yeah, that works well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 I meant the outfield dimensions, my mistake. The dangers of being overly terse. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buster Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Renovations didn't change the field dimensions.Not the dimensions of the area in play, but adding the box seats behind homeplate took away even more space from the south endzone, which had the corner cut off when the Bears played there due to proximity to the wall. Putting the field down the thirdbase line would have made them cut even more of the corner out of the endzone. Even though it would have altered the dimensions of play (which I'm sure is against the rules), it would have probably been safer than what they are doing in right field. I just can't imagine how both schools looked at that setup and thought it would be safe. Having the players run into it full speed isn't even my biggest concern. If a receiver is going up for a pass in the back of the endzone you better believe the DB/linebacker is going to be going for the absolute killshot.In what way? By creating a knee high wall just outside the endzone? Yeah, that works well... That injury had nothing to do with bad facilities planning...it was caused by moron band members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Here's a picture of that right field endzone:That's part of the difference of the two feet from left field to right field.Yeah have fun receivers.Seems to me that the padded wall area there is in the same spot as the goal post support would be. Receivers know how to avoid that. Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Here's a picture of that right field endzone:That's part of the difference of the two feet from left field to right field.Yeah have fun receivers.Seems to me that the padded wall area there is in the same spot as the goal post support would be. Receivers know how to avoid that.The goal post support is behind the thick endline (in the pros, not all college fields use the endline). According to a quick Google search, the endline is 6 feet wide. This padding is one foot from the back of the endzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 So what you're saying is that a college football player is not capable of avoiding a brick wall? Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Yes. Clearly that is what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee. Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Ideas were created. Plans were submitted. Said plans were approved. Teams were made aware.I don't think there'll be any surprises for the teams come Saturday. They'll figure it out in a hurry. Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmm Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 New Yankee Stadium pic:http://twitpic.com/37qpxd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I love the fact they still have the Yankees "NY" on the field... Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I'm surprised they didn't put it at midfield. It would have been unique to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illini1 Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I can't believe that the schools' lawyers have no problem with the teams playing on this field, but they stopped the teams from arriving to the game on the El because of insurance reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illini1 Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I'm surprised they didn't put it at midfield. It would have been unique to see.Notre Dame would never allow the Yankees logo on the actual playing surface. I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone or covered up by gametime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I'm surprised they didn't put it at midfield. It would have been unique to see.Notre Dame would never allow the Yankees logo on the actual playing surface. I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone or covered up by gametime.considering that the grass was just painted with the NY logo, i doubt it's getting covered up... Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Notre Dame would never allow the Yankees logo on the actual playing surface.Notre Dame would, however, send a kid up on a 50-foot-high platform in the middle of an enormous storm. Branding > safety. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 Notre Dame would never allow the Yankees logo on the actual playing surface.Notre Dame would, however, send a kid up on a 50-foot-high platform in the middle of an enormous storm. Branding > safety.Kid shoulda tucked & rolled. Would have only needed a band-aid... Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.