Jaycee Horn weighs in on the turf debate

[ThPantherFan]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

The NFL has always prioritized money over player safety. 

That is getting more and more evident.

[bigdog10]

If these guys played in tennis shoes as opposed to cleats, would it reduce injuries on turf fields?

 

if the answer to that question is yes, then the debate needs to expand further and include the shoe makers into this. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by bigdog10

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Is it?

Click on Brooklyn's link and actually read the article. It would seem to suggest there's a lot of hard science that says there's little to no difference and actual injury rates are slightly worse on grass.  Yes turf is cheaper to maintain, but player dislike of it may boil down to not liking turf burns (which sucks but aren't actual injuries) and a misperception it's less safe.

Not actual hard evidence to back up that claim.

I'll admit, the article surprised me, but if we're going to be intellectually honest, we have to consider it's merits.

I got this from the NFLPA who think that turf is a big problem in football.

https://nflpa.com/posts/only-natural-grass-can-level-the-nfls-playing-field#:~:text=Specifically%2C players have a 28,on turf compared to grass.

[GRWatcher]

Jaycee isn't the only Panther with an opinion.

 

[GRWatcher]

 

[Tbe]

10 minutes ago, GRWatcher said:

 

So it’s specifically slit film? B of A isn’t slit film.

[Sasquatch]

2 hours ago, TheCasillas said:

The players will win this debate. the question is how soon will they change the fields?

It could have been part of the negotiations by the NFLPA during the last CBA. The players union reps may have dropped the ball (or didn't care)

[Raleigh PF]

IIRC, the comment Tepper made about going to a turf field didn't involve JUST money savings. The issue is, they wanted to open up BoA to more events. Doing so is going to result in damage to a grass field. I can remember more than a few occasions an event happened on a Saturday before a Panthers game and the field was a mess. Rain might have been involved, but the fact remains, more events means a tougher time maintaining a field that is worthy of professional athletes. I'm not sure what a better solution is. 

My personal opinion is everyone not under a dome should have grass, but I can understand why this decision was made.

[Sgt Schultz]

Anybody thinking they can find a study that will prove their point on this is running a fool's errand.  There are studies all across the spectrum.

If you look through the NIH data base, they have a study particular to knee injuries saying PCL injuries are about 3 times more likely to happen on artificial turf than on grass, but other knee injuries are the about the same regardless of surface.  Then they have another story saying ACL injuries are more likely on artificial turf, but only for football players.  The only consensus I could see among their studies seemed to be that soccer and baseball were relatively unaffected by the surface, but football was another matter.  One study recommended that players wear non-cleated shoes.

As for the slit film issue, the companies that sell artificial turf market it on the basis of increased durability vs. monofilm products (and they generally sell both).  I guess it makes sense that if the fiber is more durable, it is going to have less give and grass-like qualities.  You can see on this images that the slit film fiber is wider.

As far as being cheaper to maintain, that is especially true if the artificial surface is not maintained properly.  The NFL's Super Bowl groundskeeper, George Toma (from Kansas City) used to bring in crews to inspect an artificial surface on their hands and knees, looking for fibers that had fused together from the friction.  That was a regular practice for his crew at Arrowhead (artificial surface until 1994), but apparently not done almost anywhere else.  He said maintaining an artificial surface correctly was no cheaper or easier than grass, and perhaps the opposite was true.

Any bets on whether that level of care is done on NFL fields today?

[Growl]

tired of y’all complaining, this is the price you pay for having music in the carolinas

[AggieLean]

3 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I'm aware. Turf is not some evil thing the big bad rich white man uses just to make a profit. You dorks need to get off that.

The fug are you talking about? You letting your frustrations with the rest of the world spill over into the turf/grass debate. Sad.

 

lol

Edited November 13, 2022 by AggieLean

[Cullenator]

Pretty sure Dan Morgan might have an opinion about grass thats not too high after that game in 2001

[Jackie Lee]

9 hours ago, TheCasillas said:

The players will win this debate. the question is how soon will they change the fields?

I think it's worth a player strike. Owners need to cough up the 25 cents it costs them to maintain a grass field. Tepper can figure out the 2 soccer games a year that overlap with Panthers games, Wembley Stadium already has a way to cover their grass field for concerts so that is no excuse. 

[Jackie Lee]

9 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I'm aware. Turf is not some evil thing the big bad rich white man uses just to make a profit. You dorks need to get off that.

Horrible take for what reason? It's 100% because it's cheaper for billionaire owners, the soccer blog post thing you put up earlier may as well have been a paid advertisement for turf companies