Do Not Sell My Personal Information

NFLPA wants all stadiums to be natural grass

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics. Ex-Seahawks fall into NFL topics. LANGUAGE: PG-13

  • SeatownJay wrote:https://apnews.com/article/nfl-football-archive-9b34d4402f2f82ae60708605f65aa560

    https://nflpa.com/posts/only-natural-gr ... ying-field

    Not sure how feasible this actually is.



    First can they prove that actual grass fields in Pitt, GB and ESPECIALLY Washington DC be actual grass instead of the green spray painted mud/dirt patches they turn into in the winter???
    gowazzu02
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1806
    Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:32 am


  • Grass just doesn't hold up well, especially if the stadium uses the facility for more than one game a week. And what stadium can afford that? The problem is especially bad in areas with a lot of weather. Even in southern climes, grass turf can dry out and turn to concrete.

    Even after one game in wet weather, having a bunch of huge guys digging in and shoving each other around will turn the sod to mud.
    sutz
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 20657
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • They'd be better off looking to improve artificial turf, and setting a standard for all fields.
    ivotuk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 20666
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • ivotuk wrote:They'd be better off looking to improve artificial turf, and setting a standard for all fields.


    Just my personal opinion but F that. Lol. I don’t EVER want my fav team to have turf. I hate the stuff. Study after study show that there is a significantly higher risk of lower body injuries on Turf than in Grass...and it was a several year study so it includes all conditions of grass.

    Ya, a few fields have had issue with maintenance, but overall, even with those fields are included, turf is more dangerous.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7031
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


  • ivotuk wrote: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.
    taz291819
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3626
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:16 pm
    Location: Huntsville, Al


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:They'd be better off looking to improve artificial turf, and setting a standard for all fields.


    Just my personal opinion but F that. Lol. I don’t EVER want my fav team to have turf. I hate the stuff. Study after study show that there is a significantly higher risk of lower body injuries on Turf than in Grass...and it was a several year study so it includes all conditions of grass.

    Ya, a few fields have had issue with maintenance, but overall, even with those fields are included, turf is more dangerous.


    :sarcasm_on: Because we ALL know what a great example the 49ers set with their grass standards. :sarcasm_off:



    Image

    Image
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7001
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


  • Maulbert wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:They'd be better off looking to improve artificial turf, and setting a standard for all fields.


    Just my personal opinion but F that. Lol. I don’t EVER want my fav team to have turf. I hate the stuff. Study after study show that there is a significantly higher risk of lower body injuries on Turf than in Grass...and it was a several year study so it includes all conditions of grass.

    Ya, a few fields have had issue with maintenance, but overall, even with those fields are included, turf is more dangerous.


    :sarcasm_on: Because we ALL know what a great example the 49ers set with their grass standards. :sarcasm_off:



    Image

    Image


    Seriously dude?

    1) Those are all several years old.

    2) You really want me to come up with all the knee and ankle injuries on Turf? Seriously?

    Despite all of those videos, NONE of those players were hurt. You can't argue this one. In ALL games over a 5 or 6 year span in the survey, players were something like 38% more likely to have a lower body injury on turf. You can show all the gifs you want, that doesn't change anything.

    Its like arguing there is no such thing as global warming because its chilly outside today.

    3) I know you are being sarcastic, so not taking it too seriously....I just REALLY hate that stuff. Turf is demon spawn. LOL.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7031
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


  • taz291819 wrote:
    ivotuk wrote: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%.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7031
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    taz291819 wrote:
    ivotuk wrote: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.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 31683
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    taz291819 wrote:
    ivotuk wrote: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 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.


    Especially in late October and November when it ices over at night and you are just caked in cold wet mud and hope the other side offense or defense gets off the field fast so you can move and warm up.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 33414
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • gowazzu02 wrote:
    SeatownJay wrote:https://apnews.com/article/nfl-football-archive-9b34d4402f2f82ae60708605f65aa560

    https://nflpa.com/posts/only-natural-gr ... ying-field

    Not sure how feasible this actually is.



    First can they prove that actual grass fields in Pitt, GB and ESPECIALLY Washington DC be actual grass instead of the green spray painted mud/dirt patches they turn into in the winter???


    I still have bad memories of FedEx Field.
    Threedee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2631
    Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:08 pm
    Location: Federal Way, WA


  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    taz291819 wrote:
    ivotuk wrote: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.


    The Player study was 10 years ago. The below was not.

    https://theathletic.com/2093302/2020/09 ... ed_article

    Its behind paywall, but highlights....

    A review of injury information from the 2012 to 2018 NFL seasons, again by a group of NFL physicians, determined that the risk of knee, ankle and foot injuries was nearly 50 percent higher on an artificial playing surface. The findings indicate that the closer the joint is to the artificial surface, the greater the risk of injury; the ankle and knee are especially vulnerable.

    Let’s be clear, these aren’t snap judgments based on one bad day; they are extensive summaries of multiple seasons of NFL data.

    more...

    For performance, you want grip. For safety, you want slip.

    Because the cleat doesn’t create a divot — a piece of grass that’s separated from the ground — like it would in natural grass, the foot, ankle and knee experience much greater forces during changes in direction, with ligaments and other soft-tissue structures bearing the brunt of those traveling forces. Grass, on the other hand, releases the cleat more readily, limiting the force.


    more...

    Because the hardness of every NFL field is closely monitored before every game — using a portable device called the Clegg Impact Tester — artificial surfaces no longer carry a greater risk of impact injury, something that first-generation turf fields were notorious for. The tester drops a weight onto the field to measure the hardness of the surface. A surface that measures as too hard must be fixed, whether by watering if it’s a natural surface or adding infill to an artificial surface.

    But because turf fields allow a cleated shoe to sink more deeply into the surface, rotational injuries are more common.

    MetLife’s field was tested on Thursday, Sansiveri said, and “testing was not any different.”

    “It is still an artificial surface that will not play as safe as grass,” he said. “But the experts don’t believe it is any less safe than other artificial fields in the NFL.”

    Unfortunately, Sansiveri said, unlike the relative ease of testing the hardness of the field, testing the give or release of a field requires a machine called the Beast, which not surprisingly, isn’t portable.


    more...

    Multiple research studies, several of which were conducted by NFL team physicians, have found an increased risk of lower-body injury when playing on turf. And the numbers are overwhelming. One of those, a 2012 study led by Elliott Hershman, team physician for the New York Jets, found a 67 percent greater risk of ACL injury and 38 percent greater risk of ankle sprains on third-generation artificial surfaces, like the turf installed at MetLife Field.

    This really isn't a question of which field type is safer. My experience is people by default simply defend the field type their favorite team happens to play on.

    My personal opinion is that turf is garbage. Straight up. I hate the stuff. Grass isn't perfect, but it is far safer than turf.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7031
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm




It is currently Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:42 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests