I've heard players (mainly in NFL) complaining about the current field surfaces and saying everything should be natural grass. I thought the field turf was supposed to be good for the players. I understand what was going on with the old Astroturf. It had seams in it that if your stepped in would destroy a knee. What is it about natural grass that is better than the field turf? I'm not complaining, I'm just not smart enough to know why it's so bad.
Field surfaces
- Thread starter Glenn's take
- Start date
Guessing here but go outside and have a 300 pound guy tackle you in your yard, then take a piece of carpet lay it on your driveway and have the same guy do it again. Let me know which one feels less like death.
Main complaint is players feet get caught in field turf, leading to leg/knee injuries. Natural grass/dirt that isn't an issue.
"can't" isn't the right word. "won't" is the correct word. My only guess is that the maintenance cost of natural grass over the long run costs more than field turf.
I'm speculating from the things I have read over the years, but I think it comes down to the forgiveness of the surface when your foot is planted and a stress is placed on your leg/knee/ankle. Field turf is still a synthetic fabric and unless the force is strong enough to rip the fabric your foot isn't going anywhere, which means much more stress on your knees and ankles. This leads to more injuries. With natural grass, the dirt and grass will tear away relieving the stress on the knees and ankles, resulting in less injury. Synthetic turf isn't hard anymore. If you have ever walked on the field at Kroger Field or in the practice facility, it's quite cushiony. The rubber pellets they use really make it more cushiony than natural grass. It's probably better to be tackled on the turf than on the natural grass. I think the issue really is about natural grass will give and tear out relieving the stress on your leg where synthetic fabric will not.
That makes sense. I thought it was more of a knee problem than anything else. It would be nice if they could make a better surface.
Green Bay can do it because they spend a ridiculous amount of money to maintain the field.
Lambeau field has 40 miles of pipes running through the soil to heat the field. They also wheel out grow lights every evening in the fall/winter to make up for the decreased sunlight (see picture below).
UK also has a lot more facilities to maintain than the Packers do. Our budget has to cover football fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, etc. So an NFL team like Green Bay has more flexibility to stick with grass whereas it’s a tougher decision for UK. Even schools like Ohio State use field turf instead of grass for the same reasons. When schools look at benefits vs. costs, field turf becomes more attractive given their budgets and competing priorities.
The newer turf has a 1-1/2" pile or so and I don't think the knee injuries that happened on the original AstroTurf are near the problem now. With the rubber pellets on the surface, it's softer and players' shoes don't stick as much as with the original turf. Cost of keeping the field playable not to mention eliminating frozen/slushy due to rain/etc. conditions make the field condition >> consistent. Plenty of injuries occur on crappy real grass fields if you've noticed.
I’ve actually toured lambeau and saw that procedure in actionGreen Bay can do it because they spend a ridiculous amount of money to maintain the field.
Lambeau field has 40 miles of pipes running through the soil to heat the field. They also wheel out grow lights every evening in the fall/winter to make up for the decreased sunlight (see picture below).
UK also has a lot more facilities to maintain than the Packers do. Our budget has to cover football fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, etc. So an NFL team like Green Bay has more flexibility to stick with grass whereas it’s a tougher decision for UK. Even schools like Ohio State use field turf instead of grass for the same reasons. When schools look at benefits vs. costs, field turf becomes more attractive given their budgets and competing priorities.
But I didn’t think about UK having that extra cost with maintaining other fields
Some NFL stadiums have gone to great lengths to have a grass field. I believe the Arizona Cardinals stadium has a field on rollers that can roll the entire field out into the sun for maintenance, and for when the stadium is in use for other events.Green Bay can do it because they spend a ridiculous amount of money to maintain the field.
Lambeau field has 40 miles of pipes running through the soil to heat the field. They also wheel out grow lights every evening in the fall/winter to make up for the decreased sunlight (see picture below).
UK also has a lot more facilities to maintain than the Packers do. Our budget has to cover football fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, etc. So an NFL team like Green Bay has more flexibility to stick with grass whereas it’s a tougher decision for UK. Even schools like Ohio State use field turf instead of grass for the same reasons. When schools look at benefits vs. costs, field turf becomes more attractive given their budgets and competing priorities.
