Friday, June 12, 2009

Port-A Fields or Painted Lines- Which do you prefer?

Nation,

Pretty simple topic today. When you play in a major tournament, do you prefer port-a-fields or painted field lining?

Port-A-Fields last longer, are quicker to set up and put away, and are a cheaper alternative. Lined Fields are the tradition and there is no realistic concern about tripping over a painted line!

Please answer the poll on the right.

12 comments:

jhaig said...

I'm a little confused. What is the perceived advantage to port-a-fields from a players perspective?

Sport Management Steven said...

What I'm trying to figure out is

-Do players notice a difference
-Is there a strong preference or indifference

In a sport where the players also run the tourneys, I'm also looking for feedback from past TDs and volunteers.

T1000 said...

I'm not sold on the cost-effectiveness of Port-a-fields. A Port-a-field will cost between $150-$200. Athletic spraypaint seems much cheaper for the purposes of a tournament. You can get a case of 12x20oz. cans for $80.

ivar @ ultipedia.org said...

Arguably, port-a-fields have the (minor) advantage of having a slightly different feel, so sometimes you can tell where the line is without having to look down.

Box said...

painted lines ftw

AC said...

painted 100%.

Also I'm not getting the cost argument.

westwell said...

Painted:
-don't sway in the wind/move on contact
-easily visible from "best perspective"
-cheap
-can leave on field without fear of being stolen
-no metal pegs (or anything) holding down lines to possibly lay out and land on

Port-a-field:
-perfect dimensions
-faster to set up

Never played on port-a-fields, but painted fields just seem more reasonable in almost all respects.

Sport Management Steven said...

Cost Argument

-Port a Fields can be used for multiple tournaments.

-Painted lines can usually not be used for more than one tournament without reapplication and cost. That cost adds up. If you rent the machine, it costs. As does the cost and maintenance of a painter if owned.

-For TV/Internet Streaming purposes, is the look of painted lines visible to cameras for live action and replays?

Is there any readers that have played often on port-a-fields and can attest to whether players trip on them, or if the lines sway with the wind if properly set up?

Steph said...

I've never played on them in high wind but have seen in/out arguments when players have their toes drag underneath the port-a-field tape pulling it out of position while making a catch.

Painted. No question.

T1000 said...

Re: Cost Argument

I agree Port-a-Fields have reusability going for them, provided you take care of them. But if you're the TD of a tournament that occurs on annual basis, you can realistically line your fields with spraypaint for a tenth of the cost. Port-a-fields make more sense for regular use, but not much sense for the tournament-based system we have right now.

Yes, I've played often enough on Port-a-fields to attest to tripping hazards. It's rare, mind you, if the tape is properly secured, and if any slack is properly taken up. TDs sometimes forget that they don't have room to accomodate regulation fields, causing problems with leftover slack.

Taylor said...

Port-a-fields look better than (most) painted fields. I've definitely witnessed sideline sag in windy conditions though and others have raised fair points. They look nice is all I'm saying.

Eric St-Amant said...

I played few times on Port-A Field (WUGC 2008 had quite few fields with Port-A field setup) and I like lined field 100 times better. The painted lines never move and it is much easier for in/out-of-bounds foot drag. As for streaming purposes is concern, good painted lines will show just as well as port-A field. I never had a problem seeing the lines at Wimbledon or at a Packers game. (I know, not exactly comparable!!!)