Was FIFA right to ban games at high altitude?

[Simster]

Difficult one really innit. Although not for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru I guess - who think they are being PICKED on.

But the fact is that Ecuador qualified for the last WC off the back of a FINE home record with opposing players complaining of breathing difficulties.

Personally I'm torn - I do think that the likes of Brazil and Argentina were acting like whinging kids and should be turning over these nations anyway. On the other hand, what is the point of playing games in unreasonably harsh conditions? Which begs the question, what is an acceptable level or heat? Should Norway be expected to play in hot conditions that they might not be used to in the next WC if they qualify? I bet you won't hear Brazil and Argentina moaning about that...

 

[Robot Chicken]

Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru etc should be able to and MUST be allowed to play their games in their own country. If a home team has advantage then fine.

 

[Simster]

Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru etc should be able to and MUST be allowed to play their games in their own country. If a home team has advantage then fine.

They can. Just not in their captial cities, which are all above the "acceptable" altitude level, apparently.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

More than a little unfair on the club sides that play in Quito, La Paz, Cusco and so on. It's a ridiculous ruling ... which is pretty much the norm for FIFA, I guess.

 

[tedebear]

Making players play in a location that could be medically dangerous shouldn't be allowed to happen. I guess thats why a line should be drawn above which teams would have to find an alternative location to play. Harsh but fair I think.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I think it's bollocks. In the same way that an away game in Russia in winter is a tough proposition, it's part of the game. And it hasn't exactly stopped Brazil and Argentina qualifying.

The only thing would be if there was a unanimous medical consensus that playing at that altitude was actually putting people in mortal danger, but as far as I'm aware, that doesn't exist. People haven't died - those countries have just got a few better results.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

Making players play in a location that could be medically dangerous shouldn't be allowed to happen. I guess thats why a line should be drawn above which teams would have to find an alternative location to play. Harsh but fair I think.

As mentioned above, do you apply the same conditions to extreme heat/cold?

And what are the clubs who come from those regions supposed to do?

 

[The Auditor]

I think it's bollocks. In the same way that an away game in Russia in winter is a tough proposition, it's part of the game. And it hasn't exactly stopped Brazil and Argentina qualifying.

is it any worse than playing in a smog ridden Rio ? or the humid far east ?

 

[tedebear]

As mentioned above, do you apply the same conditions to extreme heat/cold?

And what are the clubs who come from those regions supposed to do?

I should have put quote marks around the words "medically dangerous". Meaning the debate should be around what is considered "medically dangerous" for these players. If someone can prove with acceptable credibility that something is unsafe - heat/cold/elevation etc. then why should they be expected to play, was my point...

 

[severnside gull]

If Sep Blatter gets his way and the world cup rotates between continents it is only a matter of time before there is no choice but to play a tournament at altitude

 

[Monkster]

Brazil are fine ones to talk though aren't they.

South America 1993 - Apart from Brazil that was allowed 2 cities to play at, they got drawn with Peru & Ecuador whos chosen cities were at altitude

They didn't like playing at altitude, so put pressure on them to change location (only ecuador did and got royally thumped)

Brazil, on the other hand, got booed by their own fans in the qualifiers in Rio & Sao Paulo & moved the final 3 games to another part of the country.....& qualified (Broke the rules)

Now Bolivia have chosen to MOVE their qualifiers to another city (be it at altitude) Brazil decide to complain...........

1 rule for one me thinks

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Cant we get Oldham to change as well as they have the highest altitude in England

 

[Meade's Ball]

Surely they should be allowed one of two things:
1 - stadia that have systems that control the flow of oxygen supply with closeable roofs and vulture-snipers.
2 - stadia built at least a mile into the ground that could equalise the equilibrium of opposing teams. Maybe at the roots of a mountain, all builders wary of those accursed, prickled south american hedgehogs we read of and they hear the music of, all carrying at least 7ft in height and human suffering in their you're-next faces.

 

[Dave the OAP]

when I lived in Joburg, that was 6000 FT above sea level!

Do i take it the South Africans will be banned from playing there then as there is a WC about to be played.

 

[Jesus Gul]

Cant we get Oldham to change as well as they have the highest altitude in England

West Brom, surely?

 

[crodonilson]

Cant we get Oldham to change as well as they have the highest altitude in England

West Bromwich Albions ground is the highest above sea level in England

 

[Man of Harveys]

Cant we get Oldham to change as well as they have the highest altitude in England

I always thought that was West Brom's the Hawthorns?

 

[Simster]

Cant we get Oldham to change as well as they have the highest altitude in England

I think you'll find it's the Hawthorns actually.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

In all fairness to FIFA, have you seen some of these high altitude pitches in La Paz;

 

[The Large One]

I think it's bollocks. In the same way that an away game in Russia in winter is a tough proposition, it's part of the game. And it hasn't exactly stopped Brazil and Argentina qualifying

I don't think Russia play at home in winter, do they? Certainly their domestic season is not on during winter.