Marvin49":2s86i1aj said:
taz291819":2s86i1aj said:
ivotuk":2s86i1aj said:
They'd be better off looking to improve artificial turf, and setting a standard for all fields.
Agreed. Cheaper to put money into Field Turf technology than using actual grass fields.
I live in the South, film football games for a living (both HS and college), and Field Turf stands up much better than a drenched natural field.
Slippery, yes. Divots, no. Remember AstroTurf? LOL. I'm sure the technology will get better.
They've been saying that for 30 years.
As for divots...they are actually MUCH more safe than the field NOT giving and the force that would induce a divot instead being transferred to the ligaments in the athletes knees and ankles. The force has to go somewhere. That's why players report being much more sore after playing on turf than natural surfaces. I'd much rather the surface gave than the players legs.
in 2010, players preferred natural grass to turf by 87%.
That’s also a 10 year old study. Turf technologies have gotten better since then.
C-links field in Seattle was actually rated one of the NFL’s better playing surfaces years ago by the players.
Both surfaces have their pluses and minuses. Hawks players over the years have suffered severe injuries on both surfaces over the years. I think “immaculate” grass fields are the best surface but they are hard to maintain. It took your home field Levi’s years to get decent-good.
Seattle’s field would be a mud pit if it was grass and a game took place in heavy rain here. My home HS football stadium was known as the mud bowl before they put in artificial turf my sophomore year in HS during the caveman days. Ever played football in a mud pit? Looks fun but it isn’t.