Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
The condition of the field had nothing to do with why that game was moved - they had over 3 days to resod the field in Mexico City if they wanted.
I don't think it did either - but that is what they said publicly. Nobody wanted to go was the real reason. [Reply]
Even if in the 0.00000000000000001% charge Oakland made the playoffs and we had to play them at their house, it would be a full grass field by then. They cover the dirt after baseball season [Reply]
Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
The condition of the field had nothing to do with why that game was moved - they had over 3 days to resod the field in Mexico City if they wanted.
3 days is nowhere near enough time for the new grass to take [Reply]
Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
The condition of the field had nothing to do with why that game was moved - they had over 3 days to resod the field in Mexico City if they wanted.
Right, if Rams had not lost to Saints in week 9, that Rams-Chiefs game would have been played in Mexico City.
Rams slow played fixing the situation once they knew there was a problem.
Rams were 8-1 and Saints were 7-1 with tie breaker over Rams on head to head after Saints won week 9 game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
What do the Rams have to do with fixing the field situation in Mexico?
They were the home team. Truckloads of sod was on the way to the stadium, they begged off on moving the game because they figured a loss to the Chiefs would guarantee the Saints home field. And, they figured they had a better chance against Chiefs in LA. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jettio:
They were the home team. Truckloads of sod was on the way to the stadium, they begged off on moving the game because they figured a loss to the Chiefs would guarantee the Saints home field. And, they figured they had a better chance against Chiefs in LA.
The NFL helped by allowing the game to be moved, then had their refs not call a dozen false starts on the Rams LT, even when he was lined up in the backfield. [Reply]
