Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Turf playing surfaces have a 16% higher injury rate per play, and linked to a higher rate of ankle and foot injuries


hepcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

Recently, a group of researchers reviewed studies on the topic. They looked at 53 articles published between 1972 and 2020, on injuries in professional and amateur sports, including football, soccer, rugby, field hockey and ultimate Frisbee. The authors didn’t specify whether the studies included injuries involving a direct blow from another player, or just non-contact injuries.

The studies suggest “a higher rate of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf, both old-generation and new-generation turf, compared to natural grass,” they wrote in a paper published last year in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Knee and hip injuries were similar on both surfaces, they wrote. The authors noted that studies reporting a higher rate of injury on grass received financial support from the artificial turf industry.

Similar findings were reported in a separate study that analyzed 4,801 NFL foot and leg injuries during 2012-2016 regular season games. That research found 16% more injuries per play on artificial turf compared to grass. The authors concluded that if all games had been played on grass during that period there would have been 319 fewer foot and leg injuries. Looking only at non-contact injuries the risk was even higher, about 20% more injuries per play.

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-aaron-rodgers-achilles-grass-artificial-turf-79212f5443cd2a0d30fe8c9d981b13c0
 

David Tepper loves data so here’s some food for thought. Maybe the team’s horrible performance and persistent injury issues with notable players will convince a potentially humbled owner to switch back to grass. 

 

  • Flames 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2023 at 6:34 AM, hepcat said:

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-aaron-rodgers-achilles-grass-artificial-turf-79212f5443cd2a0d30fe8c9d981b13c0
 

David Tepper loves data so here’s some food for thought. Maybe the team’s horrible performance and persistent injury issues with notable players will convince a potentially humbled owner to switch back to grass. 

 

B-but live music!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lmao said:

Economic value of players on the field contributing to winning resulting in ticket, concession and jersey sales vs economic value of James Taylor and Beyoncé ticket, concession sales 

There are only ~10 home games a year (pending the preseason and 17th game location). How many concerts does the stadium host per year? Tepper definitely accomplished one thing - the stadium is in use year round far more than it was under Jerry Richardson.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hepcat said:

There are only ~10 home games a year (pending the preseason and 17th game location). How many concerts does the stadium host per year? Tepper definitely accomplished one thing - the stadium is in use year round far more than it was under Jerry Richardson.

You can have grass and still have a system design to cover the turf that won't damage it. Is it likely to be a pain? Yes. But it's doable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...