Will the NFL ever learn that bad fields affect games?

Look both teams were forced today played on a crappy field. Not making that an excuse as why the Hawks lost. However in this day and age of field turf, why the heck would the multi multi multi BILLION DOLLAR EMPIRE called the NFL allow organizations to have a grass field?

The turf today was downright terrible and definitely had a affect on the result of the game. Players falling everywhere which directly lead to scores. I just don't get it.

They should buy their grass from nearby Santa Cruz. I hear they grow some amazing grass.

I agree billion dollar stadiums with trash grass, we shouldn't see patches of grass missing before the game even starts, that's horrible

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

justafan":7y1b03p2 said:

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

Click to expand...

if that's the case then they should have played the Rams vs Chiefs game on the crappy field in Mexico as originally planned. Bad weather is one thing but bad surfaces conditions is another. Shouldn't happen.

You’d think that would be a priority for the best football league in the world.
If I’m the NFL I’d give the troubled surfaced fields, see Santa Clara, Pittsburgh, Washington, Oakland etc etc one year to get their shit together, if they can’t or won’t the they are 100% field turf the next year if they want to play games at those stadiums at the team’s cost.

definitely need to set higher standards. The NFLPA should be pushing for this, as it is also a pretty large player safety issue.

Sports Hernia":3hot0v91 said:

You’d think that would be a priority for the best football league in the world.
If I’m the NFL I’d give the troubled surfaced fields, see Santa Clara, Pittsburgh, Washington, Oakland etc etc one year to get their shit together, if they can’t or won’t the they are 100% field turf the next year if they want to play games at those stadiums at the team’s cost.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!!

Both teams played on the same field.

vin.couve12":dwftg5kv said:

Both teams played on the same field.

Click to expand...

Not the point. Please read the original post. The NFL should do whatever they can regarding field conditions so that games aren't affect by luck but rather the talent of the plsyers. Bad weather is fine but to play in a substandard surface is just plain unacceptable.

It’s a safety issue. They have a cheap POS owner who refuses to make the necessary investments. If they can’t maintain a safe playing surface, then they should be required to use turf.

There are pros and cons to both natural grass and turf.

justafan":3ngidj3d said:

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

Click to expand...

Back when it was a sport. It's a business now, and multi-billion dollar teams with hundred-million dollar athletes should have the fastest, safest, easiest to maintain playing surface available. And grass ain't it.

seabowl":33tph77s said:

vin.couve12":33tph77s said:

Both teams played on the same field.

Click to expand...

Not the point. Please read the original post. The NFL should do whatever they can regarding field conditions so that games aren't affect by luck but rather the talent of the plsyers. Bad weather is fine but to play in a substandard surface is just plain unacceptable.

Click to expand...

affecting the outcome of the game is irrelevant. It's too risky to players on both sides. They do a ton of things to protect their millions of dollars invested in players, but this one area where they have dropped the ball. It might take a law suit to change things. Reggie Bush sued a team/facility a while back when he got hurt on a sketchy area of the sidelines. He won. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a player sues. It may be that there is some contract language in the CBA that doesn't allow a player to sue, but if I was an agent, I would keep that avenue open if one of my clients tore an ACL on one of these fields.

vin.couve12":3peucs6m said:

Both teams played on the same field.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. The is the best football league in the world, they should be playing on the best football fields in the world. Like I said if you can’t grow grass or maintain it right, it should be field turf time.

Reggie Bush sued when he slipped on the concrete at St Louis on the side of the field. As I said in another thread, what are you guys going to say when you travel to Chicago and there is 3 inches of snow on the ground? It’s December, was wet and slippery. Put on your cleats on! It wasn’t dangerous, there wasn’t chunks of turf coming up! The whole second half it was pouring rain. You guys would have started a fan law suit if the Seahawks had to play at the stick in the 90s and 80s. It’s not basketball

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

94Smith":1bkw0inm said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Marvin49":2yonh8m1 said:

94Smith":2yonh8m1 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

drrew":2mkjqzw8 said:

Marvin49":2mkjqzw8 said:

94Smith":2mkjqzw8 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

David