Will the NFL ever learn that bad fields affect games?

[Seymour]

Its football. Its supposed to be sloppy and messy sometimes.

Nope! In todays world where everyone deserves a trophy, nobody should have to play in the rain or the snow either. NFL needs to have rain outs. :roll: :sarcasm_off:

 

[ivotuk]

Both teams played on the same field.

And both teams got players injured. Although the home team, the one that is used to the shitty turf, has a distinct advantage.

As does a team in a hot humid climate, has an advantage over a team from a wet or cold client.

This also applies to dome teams, that have an advantage at home, but some (Drew Brees) struggle in outdoor stadiums.

It's called "Home Field Advantage" for a reason. But some teams take an unreasonable advantage.

Are people okay with FedEx field? The one that destroyed Chris Clemon's knee in the playoffs? The fact that it also destroyed RG3's knee doesn't bother me. That's on the home team. But it destroyed a visiting player's knee. That's bullshit.

Now we have 2 players out that are very important to our team.

 

[kobebryant]

I will never say that is impacts the outcome of the game - because ultimately both teams are playing on the same surface, and it would just be an excuse for losing.

What bad grass does is impact the quality of the game. I want to see these great athletes playing as fast as possible. Good grass, like in Tampa and Arizona, is the best possible surface - even preferable to fieldturf. But bad playing surfaces - Washington, Pitt and Oakland come to the top of mind - is a safety issue that the union should be more vocal about. Bad weather is football, but sloppy playing fields are inexcusable with the resources available.

It will never cease to amaze me that the R-Words would invest so much draft capital and marketing dollars into RG3 and then have him play on that junk field as opposed to installing the fastest track possible. That picture of his knee bending in the crap surface is still tough to look at.

 

[Marvin49]

I will never say that is impacts the outcome of the game - because ultimately both teams are playing on the same surface, and it would just be an excuse for losing.

What bad grass does is impact the quality of the game. I want to see these great athletes playing as fast as possible. Good grass, like in Tampa and Arizona, is the best possible surface - even preferable to fieldturf. But bad playing surfaces - Washington, Pitt and Oakland come to the top of mind - is a safety issue that the union should be more vocal about. Bad weather is football, but sloppy playing fields are inexcusable with the resources available.

It will never cease to amaze me that the R-Words would invest so much draft capital and marketing dollars into RG3 and then have him play on that junk field as opposed to installing the fastest track possible. That picture of his knee bending in the crap surface is still tough to look at.

I can't entirely disagree.

The prob for me is that calling Washington "grass" isn't accurate (and you didn't, you said natural surface)

The horrific field that killed RGIIIs knee was nothing more than painted dirt. That ain't grass.

As much complaint as there was about Levis in the first season, it really hasn't been an issue for several years. Its not a "cheap" issue either. Its more expensive.

It is grass and it does get wet. I really hope we haven't moved to the point where natural fields are deemed "dangerous". That's just crazy to me.

Field Turf has come a long, long, LONG way from the days of Astroturf, but grass is just better IMO.

I will say this tho, there are climates where I thing Field Turf is better, and Seattle might just be one. As much as it rains, the drainage would have to be insane to keep that field playable.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

It always impacts both teams. But the league should care a lot more about the condition of fields, period. So many horrible injuries to great players are directly a result of a crap field.

 

[Marvin49]

It always impacts both teams. But the league should care a lot more about the condition of fields, period. So many horrible injuries to great players are directly a result of a crap field.

I agree.

As far as "advantage" though as other said before, homefield advantage is just that. If a team knows its field better, that's a part of homefield advantage. It's no different than crowd noise.

As long as the field is safe to play on (and I've seen nothing of Levi's in particular that would say other wise), it's fair game. In fact, teams are constructed to match the field conditions. It's a part of the game.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And they have plenty of time to get out there and run around and see which cleats might be best for that field. Multi Billion dollar sport and they can't keep some of these fields safe and kept up. Unreal

 

[Sports Hernia]

Look at Lambeau. They still have grass. Why grass in Wisconsin in January ? They could put turf in no problem... but they don’t because it is Lambeau and is nostalgic . Football is meant to be played outside on grass in the elements

Could not agree more.

The calls for field turf crack me up. As though its safer. Ask the players.

Its a winter game in the rain. It gets slippery. It wasn't a pit of mud as I've seen many fields become in the elements. A few guys slipped. Oh noes. They slipped.

Football is an outdoor sport. Its meant to be played on grass and grass is a safer surface preferred by a large % of the players.

As for the cheap owner comment above, grass is BY FAR more expensive than Field Turf.

It's worth pointing out that GB has one of the best systems in the world installed underneath the turf to keep it playable and not frozen.

Santa Clara on the other hand has a 12 yard wide patch of grass installed the entire length of the field that is of a different consistency than the grass on both sides of it.

Ideally, grass is better than turf, but that is dependent on the ability to actually provide upkeep on the surface. Based on the current state of the field, that would seem to beyond the capabilities of whomever is responsible in Santa Clara.

Yes, the center of the field was replaced....and it got slippery. That happens on grass fields all over the league. You guys act like SC is somehow special.

I've still yet to see an instance that it was somehow unsafe on Sunday or that it would have been better as field turf.

Selective reading Marvin. I mentioned at least 3 other fields besides Levi’s that are shit.

Why is it whenever I watch my teams play in SC the field sucks? The UW played a Pac-12 championship game there and the field sucked in that game too. I think you are in severe denial of condition of the playing field of Levi’s.

Also a poll was taken of the players on best playing surfaces a couple of years back, and Century Link in Seattle that has Field Turf was rated second best in the league. How did that happen if Field Turf was so bad?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Look at Lambeau. They still have grass. Why grass in Wisconsin in January ? They could put turf in no problem... but they don’t because it is Lambeau and is nostalgic . Football is meant to be played outside on grass in the elements

I'd buy this if you guys were still playing at Candlestick, but you're not. You're 50 miles away in a new stadium, what tradition and reverence is needed for type of turf in a new stadium that's not even in the same city as the old one?

I'm fine with real grass, fake grass, whatever............but holy crap this is the NFL, why are your fields always garbage. Either figure it out, or put in turf.

Can't wait for a couple Alabama players to get seriously injured at Levi and listen to Saban go berserk. Maybe that'll be the negative national media attention needed to do something about Levi's awful field.

 

[WmHBonney]

Get rid of domes. Get rid of turf. Play the game the way it should be played....outside in the weather on grass.

 

[GeekHawk]

Its football. Its supposed to be sloppy and messy sometimes.

Cars are supposed to have hand cranks sticking out the front of the engines, too. And AM radios with vacuum tubes that have to warm up before sound comes out.

 

[GeekHawk]

It always impacts both teams. But the league should care a lot more about the condition of fields, period. So many horrible injuries to great players are directly a result of a crap field.

I agree.

As far as "advantage" though as other said before, homefield advantage is just that. If a team knows its field better, that's a part of homefield advantage. It's no different than crowd noise.

As long as the field is safe to play on (and I've seen nothing of Levi's in particular that would say other wise), it's fair game. In fact, teams are constructed to match the field conditions. It's a part of the game.

This is the same bullshit that Dan Snyder was saying in Washington (DC). Then RGIII got his knee blown out in a career-altering fashion.

 

[rcaido]

Didn't Carolina purposely drench the field during the playoff game? They had the right cleats on while we were slipping and sliding. Such bush league.

Im hoping Wilson will finally show up against the Chiefs in a shootout.

 

[253hawk]

The Panthers had their week 17 game there, then the Belk Bowl (during wild card weekend), then it was re-sodded and then had some rain/snow, and the grass was painted. It was in no condition to host a NFL playoff game.

Look at the Chargers field tonight...guys slipping all over the place just like the 49ers game. California needs to figure out their goddamned fields or just switch to field turf.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

The Panthers had their week 17 game there, then the Belk Bowl (during wild card weekend), then it was re-sodded and then had some rain/snow, and the grass was painted. It was in no condition to host a NFL playoff game.

Look at the Chargers field tonight...guys slipping all over the place just like the 49ers game. California needs to figure out their goddamned fields or just switch to field turf.

I vote for turf