NFL needs to 'seriously' look into grass-turf debate

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

oldnotdead

Legend
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
5,406
Yet they have grass in Arizona...essentially a desert.

Yes and it was designed that way when they built the stadium. It's rolled out and left in the sun. But don't think it isn't a target of environmental concerns because it is. The fertilizers and insecticides mixed with the water runoff is a source of environmental concern

The field at SoFi is in a freaking pit. There is no way to roll it out so drainage must be installed, along with a pumping system to get it out of the pit. Grow lights are horrendously expensive to run, i.e. an energy hog. So you think CA would certify an energy and water hogging system just for freaking grass? Why do you think it's artificial in the first place? A whole new environmental impact report would need to be made and submitted with very little chance of passing.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,360
Yet they have grass in Arizona...essentially a desert.
That's built at ground level and they have a system to wheel it out and swap in grass from outside to replace it. With SoFi being built below ground level it's not possible to do this and the drainage is also not possible. There were many discussions posted about this during the stadiums construction. It's a nice idea to have grass in SoFi but it's not possible. And as @MadGoat posted above the turf at SoFi is actually safer so far in testing and in data.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,947
That's built at ground level and they have a system to wheel it out and swap in grass from outside to replace it. With SoFi being built below ground level it's not possible to do this and the drainage is also not possible. There were many discussions posted about this during the stadiums construction. It's a nice idea to have grass in SoFi but it's not possible. And as @MadGoat posted above the turf at SoFi is actually safer so far in testing and in data.
As I recall you are a big soccer fan. So how do you think SoFi will meet the requirement for having a grass playing field at the World Cup in 2026?

I'll admit I don't know much about horticulture. Is it a difference between a "grass field laid out in sections that can last a game or two" vs. "a real grass field that has time to take root"?

As posted above, SoFi hosted a game on grass just a couple months ago. Granted it was in sections, but it was grass nonetheless.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,360
As I recall you are a big soccer fan. So how do you think SoFi will meet the requirement for having a grass playing field at the World Cup in 2026?

I'll admit I don't know much about horticulture. Is it a difference between a "grass field laid out in sections that can last a game or two" vs. "a real grass field that has time to take root"?

As posted above, SoFi hosted a game on grass just a couple months ago. Granted it was in sections, but it was grass nonetheless.
Probably the same way they did this. My understanding is the cost associated with this isn't feasible for two teams sharing the stadium during an NFL season but for one offs like this and the World Cup they're ok with doing it based on the revenue those especially the WC generate. The bigger issue is the field isn't wide enough for the WC so they've got to solve that too. NFL players play on a small field.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q3rGZ7_xWo&ab_channel=JohnKay
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,103
Name
Burger man

November 12, 2022

Advocating for safer working conditions is a core job of our union, and there are few greater examples of this than raising the standards of the fields we practice and play on.

Week after week, we have heard players sound off on the need to improve our fields, too often after a player suffers an injury. This week, we have seen the NFL PR machine go into overdrive to spin a more favorable narrative to what the union and players know is a problem.

If the NFL is serious about their claims that they make data-based decisions and that they care about player safety, then we have some actionable items for them.

1. The Immediate Replacement and Ban of all Slit Film Turf

Just like there are different types of grass, there are also different types of turf (Monofilament, Dual fiber, Slit film). The slit film playing surface has statistically higher in-game injury rates compared to all other surfaces for each of the following:
  • Non-contact injuries
  • Missed time injuries
  • Lower extremity injuries
  • Foot and ankle injuries
There are currently seven teams that use slit film in their stadiums (New York Giants, New York Jets, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Indianapolis Colts, and Cincinnati Bengals).

The NFL and its experts have agreed with this data and acknowledge that the slit film field is less safe. Player leadership wrote a letter to the NFL this week demanding the immediate removal of these fields and a ban on them going forward, both in stadiums and for practice fields. The NFL has not only refused to mandate this change immediately, but they have also refused to commit to mandating a change away from slit film in the future at all.

The injuries on slit film are completely avoidable -- both the NFL and NFLPA experts agree on the data -- and yet the NFL will not protect players from a subpar surface.

2.
No longer allowing games to be played on fields with clear visual abnormalities

Too often we see fields with clear issues that pose an increased risk to the players. Most recently, we saw the field in Tottenham that had a giant uneven seam right above the numbers. We should not be playing on anything but the best-quality playing surfaces. We saw this in Chicago and Las Vegas during the preseason as well, with chunks of grass torn up. This is an embarrassment.

The NFL might be quick to say something like, “those fields have passed their mandatory inspections.” While, again, this is a great PR spin, it does not address the need for safety improvements.

3. For players, it means we need to raise the field standards and test the safety and performance of all field surfaces.

The current mandatory field practices (or “MPs”) only evaluate the maintenance condition of the surface. This includes surface hardness. These standards are more than 13 years old. The results tell you nothing about how safe it is to play on the field.

We need to accelerate the joint development of new performance and safety standards that can be used to test every single field. The good news is that the NFLPA and NFL are currently engaged in research to, for the first time, establish these standards.

Until we have those standards in place, the NFL needs to be much more conservative when we have visible issues with the fields. The current field inspections do not account for performance and safety, so we should stop saying that these fields are safe to play on based on the fact they passed said inspection.

4. Clear the excess people and dangerous equipment from the sidelines

We have seen too many injuries because of this issue, and it really should be a simple fix. Give the players their space to perform. Year after year, the NFL tells us they will look into it; and year after year, nothing ever changes.

The players are frustrated. We simply want a safer workplace. The NFL has an obligation to provide the safest work environment possible. They are not living up to that standard.

We play one of the most dangerous sports in the world; it shouldn’t be more dangerous because the clubs won’t do anything to remove the simple injury risks on practice and playing surfaces. If the league wants to actually use data to drive its decisions, then do it already. We’ve been waiting for years for some of these changes.

As players, we have a simple message for the league: stop with the lip service, stop with the media spin, stop pretending you care. And if you actually do care, take the actionable steps to fix the problems our union has identified, especially those issues you actually agree with.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,103
Name
Burger man
This guy says new data will be coming out on this very soon...

Last year “the data shows the biggest gap we’ve ever seen on injuries between grass and turf”.

If you search Google… article after article says the data is the same between surfaces. This guy says otherwise.

NFLPA President: New Data Shows 'Large Difference' Between Grass And Turf Fields​

At the NFL owners meetings in Phoenix this year, the league reportedly bypassed an opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of turf and grass fields. Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio described the NFL "glossing over" complaints from players who would prefer to play exclusively on grass.

On the latest edition of The Pat McAfee Show, NFLPA President J.C. Tretter carried the momentum for this argument on his players' behalf.

Tretter cited data that he purports to show a massive difference between playing on the two surfaces.


View: https://twitter.com/PatMcAfeeShow/status/1641859850916483072?s=20


"Yeah, we got interesting data. I don't think it's been put out there, I think it'll get out there in the coming weeks. I think we've seen the biggest gap — I know last year there was this big push about how it's inconsequential, or there's no difference between turf and grass. The data this past year showed that that is not true," Tretter said.

Tretter is just the latest prominent voice to call on the NFL to switch to grass fields across the board. Last season, Cooper Kupp of the Los Angeles Rams flatly stated "hands down, we should be on grass."

Vaunted quarterback Aaron Rodgers agreed with the sentiment as well, saying "As much as I’ve enjoyed playing indoors over the years on turf, I do think it’s time to play on grass. I think you’d see less of these non-contact injuries."

Fans will keep their eyes peeled for the data that Tretter cited to be released. In the meantime, the NFL will find it increasingly difficult to ignore the chorus of prominent athletes who want to do away with turf.
 

Merlin

Damn the torpedoes
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2023 TOP Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
39,397
When you talk about artificial grass being an issue the shoes should be discussed too. Are they too good in terms of grip. Maybe before we change half the fields in the league we could apply some science here and analyze this.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,103
Name
Burger man
When you talk about artificial grass being an issue the shoes should be discussed too. Are they too good in terms of grip. Maybe before we change half the fields in the league we could apply some science here and analyze this.
Good point. Never really thought about the shoes.
 

So Ram

Legend
Camp Reporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
15,063
Good point. Never really thought about the shoes.
Nick Scott stood for change & players health. It’s the fact Owners are cheap & don’t care about the players in general.

In NY they just changed the service. Half the NINER’s got hurt playing back to back NY(jersey) games when the Met first opened.
SOFI ? Not sure,but the dome(stl.) was a joke. Reggie sued them but it was more the sidelines weren’t covered up.

Scott’s point was World Cup & Soccer teams request grass & it happens right away. Just proving it is just an extra cost is why it doesn’t happen.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,947
When you talk about artificial grass being an issue the shoes should be discussed too. Are they too good in terms of grip. Maybe before we change half the fields in the league we could apply some science here and analyze this.
Just off the top of my head...

(I.e. spouting an opinion prior to thinking about it much, let alone reading about it further :laugh3: ...)

Seems to me that teams on grass probably choose whatever maximizes the "grip" on the surface. In other words... I assume it's a competitive advantage to be able to "stop on a dime" whereas your opponent "slips for a split second."

By this reasoning, I would guess that teams look for shoes on ANY surface that MAXIMIZES the "grip". Would any team voluntarily choose a shoe that has "less grip" but is "slightly safer"?

Anyway... just off the top of my head... hard for me to imagine teams voluntarily choosing to give up a slight competitive advantage in exchange for a slight uptick in safety.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, who knows. I recall several players complaining in particular about the Giants/Jets surface being too "sticky" with "excessive grip." If grip gives a slight competitive advantage, hard to imagine teams giving that up to avoid "potential" injury.

Just my "initial reaction 2 cents"

EDIT: Below is an article with more info than I'd care to know about the science of cleats interacting with artificial turf surfaces

 
Last edited:

Merlin

Damn the torpedoes
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2023 TOP Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
39,397
Yeah I have no idea. But nobody ever mentions the shoes. And they can be changed with different grip values, at least I imagine they can.

One of my kids suffered a knee injury in soccer and swears it was due to the turf gripping the turf cleats. I don't disagree. Makes sense in a way that it is unnatural, or that we haven't fine-tuned things to properly copy the way cleats grip on natural grass. So no idea but with all this talk about turf (and I am sure some of the surfaces need to be redone) it is strange to me that everyone is ignoring 50% of the equation.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,947
Yeah I have no idea. But nobody ever mentions the shoes. And they can be changed with different grip values, at least I imagine they can.

One of my kids suffered a knee injury in soccer and swears it was due to the turf gripping the turf cleats. I don't disagree. Makes sense in a way that it is unnatural, or that we haven't fine-tuned things to properly copy the way cleats grip on natural grass. So no idea but with all this talk about turf (and I am sure some of the surfaces need to be redone) it is strange to me that everyone is ignoring 50% of the equation.
Well, theoretically anyway, the NFL provides a lot of info to players about how to choose the best cleats for each surface. That's what the article I posted claims, at least. So theoretically they're not "ignoring" the cleat part of the equation.

Here's an excerpt:

The NFL Musculoskeletal Committee has coordinated this extensive research on athletic shoe safety and performance and worked with Dr. Kent to develop the laboratory tests that evaluate which cleats best permit release from synthetic turf during potentially injurious loading.
The results of those tests are shared with NFL players, club equipment managers, and club medical, training, and coaching staffs to help inform equipment choices. A poster summarizing the results hangs in all 32 NFL club locker rooms.
The NFL also uses new technology to help players choose a shoe that is the appropriate size and shape. The HP FitStation technology is now installed in all 32 NFL locker rooms to scan a player’s feet and identify the shoe models and sizes that best match him.


As to your kid with soccer... I can relate. I've had 3 knee surgeries, 2 of which were the direct result of non-contact soccer injuries.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,103
Name
Burger man
When you go fast around a turn in your car the tires slip slightly, or the stress on the wheel would be extreme.

Human joints would seem no different where cleats grip the surface.

car GIF
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,947
When you go fast around a turn in your car the tires slip slightly, or the stress on the wheel would be extreme.

Human joints would seem no different where cleats grip the surface.

car GIF
This kinda reminds me of Barry Sanders and his freakish ability to stop and change direction at high speed. The guy had superhuman joints. Here's a vid of Barry "breakin' ankles."


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_y4HyltiU
 

Merlin

Damn the torpedoes
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2023 TOP Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
39,397
Yeah man. My lower leg would be detached with some of those moves.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,103
Name
Burger man

Why The NFL's approach to Field Surfaces Is Uneven​

For more than a decade, players have been speaking out about their strong preference to work on natural grass over synthetic playing surfaces. Players have shared stories about how their bodies feel after playing on turf compared to grass, and the injury data for nearly a decade supports those anecdotes.

However, in early November of last year, there was a large media offensive by the NFL to pushback against the historical data and players’ experiences. The following slide was distributed to the media, and NFL staff and owners were aggressive in their claims that the fight over which is safer, grass or turf, was no longer an issue.

More:

 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,416
Name
Mack
NFL owners want to build domed stadiums or essentially domed like Sofi which allows for a more controlled venue with greater opportunities for innovation like the Oculus or whatever that thing is in Dallas.

These venues allow for year round events which are no small thing and while there is still a place for large outdoor stadiums (as the Taylor Swift mega concert at Raymond James in Tampa recently demonstrated), most events aren't that.

Also, most venues don't have the space to add a tray like they did in Arizona.

This means that the owners are gonna fight for artificial turf even if it means going back to that super thin carpet on concrete like they had in the Edward Jones dome and at the Meadowlands because that's what's gonna allow the domed stadiums.

Is it reasonable to assume that humans adapted to nature such that with the very recent phenomenon of some of us humans having bodies this big and fast hasn't allowed us to fully adapt? Is it reasonable to assume that further increasing the stresses on already maladapted joints for these activities might lead to further and increasingly severe injuries?

Of course. Grass is more forgiving because it has a root structure which fails under a certain load. We see it when big guys fall and turf chunks fly. We do not see artificial turf chunks fly. That means the artificial turf can only do one of two things: it can fail and break leading to a need for immediate repair or it can not fail, meaning that the load until failure will happen to the athlete.

And that's where we're at... ever bigger and faster guys expecting to be able to immediately accelerate and decelerate in ever decreasing time increments playing on surfaces that ever more so fail less.

Could they work out natural turf in these indoor stadiums? Yes, but at much greater expense as it's not just a matter of having indoor grow lights (giggity), but in some places there would be significantly difficult to solve drainage issues. Still, with enough money, almost anything is achievable. The problem is that old men with money NEVER care enough about the young men earning them that money to invest in their health if it means less for the old men.

That goes back to antiquity, it's nothing new.

Incrementally, we'll get better artificial turf, sure. But until it has a failure mechanism like real grass, these issues of player injury will continue unabated.

The simpler version of this: NFL players have the same issues golfers have. The golfer takes a divot to get under the ball. the PGA will never go to artificial turf expressly because the artificial turf doesn't allow for the golf club to destroy the root structure (take a divot). The NFL player playing on artificial turf cannot take a divot and thus their excess load is transferred to their "club" which is usually a part fo the leg. Anyone who's hit behind their ball when hitting off a grass mat at the driving range knows who bad that is.

The problem is that it's not really an argument because the owners aren't ever gonna budge on this and will shrug and say "we're doing our best to provide the best artificial turf we can"... because natural turf in most stadiums will NEVER, EVER, EVER be an option that maximizes the return on their stadium investment.

And so it goes...
 

VegasRam

Give your dog a hug.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
3,925
Name
Doug
That means the artificial turf can only do one of two things: it can fail and break leading to a need for immediate repair or it can not fail, meaning that the load until failure will happen to the athlete.
So you are saying there is zero cushioning effect with artificial grass/turf?