Reiss: Pats installing latest version of FieldTurf in Gillette

[FredFromDartmouth]

Yes, but the bad trip flashbacks haven't encouraged the majority here to accept his findings.

I resemble that remark.

 

[Tunescribe]

10X eh? That seems like a bit of hyperbole, and I am sure you meant it as such. Anyway if this was the case the Patriots would have had a lot less injuries than the grass teams but I just do not see that.

I don't know where to start about the problems with turf. How about rug burns? I have rarely heard of grass burns. How about turf toe? I have never heard of grass-toe. How about staph infections from turf; does not happen on grass. MRSA is great; just ask Brady.

But the worst problem is that turf does not give like grass; once the knee is planted it stays planted even if the knee is hit by a 240 pound linebacker. This is why turf will NEVER be as safe as grass. Never ever.

The advantage of turf is that the fans like its faux green color and the jerseys do not get muddy; it has made the game antiseptic (except for the staph infections) and the white bread fans seem to love it this judging from the fanatical responses I have gotten when criticizing turf. Seriously though, the advantage of turf is that the playing field is consistent and does not develop divots, soft spots, etc., but is this enough to offset the joint problems it causes? I tend to doubt it.

Check out the Mayo injury; it would appear to be a turf injury all the way.

The best we can hope for this time is that the field is more yielding and thus avoid some of the impact injuries.

Fred, I have to agree with JBB. You're judging by conjecture and it seems that you're lumping Field Turf in with the old, hard Astro Turf. This new stuff is many generations more advanced, and has a sand base vs. the asphalt bases of yore. Players seem to like Field Turf; I've never heard/read about any of the Patriots disliking it. The reason they switched to turf in Gillette is they could never get the grass right and that caused problems of its own.

I'm a purist like you and generally believe football should be played on real grass. But Field Turf is good stuff that remains consistent from August through January. If Gillette was in Florida or Carolina, the grass factor would be different.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Fred, I have to agree with JBB. You're judging by conjecture and it seems that you're lumping Field Turf in with the old, hard Astro Turf. This new stuff is many generations more advanced, and has a sand base vs. the asphalt bases of yore. Players seem to like Field Turf; I've never heard/read about any of the Patriots disliking it. The reason they switched to turf in Gillette is they could never get the grass right and that caused problems of its own.

I'm a purist like you and generally believe football should be played on real grass. But Field Turf is good stuff that remains consistent from August through January. If Gillette was in Florida or Carolina, the grass factor would be different.

Let's see how it works out. I suspect that it will be better than the old turf (but not as nice as grass of course).

I strongly suspect that the turf was replaced 4 years before its warranty was up because it was causing injuries; there is no question that the Patriots were beat up this year and BB is not the type to sit on his hands and not fix a problem. Remember that the old Gillette turf was installed in a rush job. This time they have the luxury of installing it carefully. Of course the organization will not tell us that is why they are replacing the turf, but you have to believe that they are concerned about injuries.

I just don't want to see Randy Moss with ice packs on both knees or the infamous "non-contact" injuries anymore.

With Reese in the draft room, a bunch of extra picks, and new turf, the Patriots could be something special this year. Just hope the Krafts open up their checkbooks for the FAs this year (but it sure does not look like it now).

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I resemble that remark.

I know, but I love ya anyways. :singing:

 

[Tunescribe]

Let's see how it works out. I suspect that it will be better than the old turf (but not as nice as grass of course).

I strongly suspect that the turf was replaced 4 years before its warranty was up because it was causing injuries; there is no question that the Patriots were beat up this year and BB is not the type to sit on his hands and not fix a problem. Remember that the old Gillette turf was installed in a rush job. This time they have the luxury of installing it carefully. Of course the organization will not tell us that is why they are replacing the turf, but you have to believe that they are concerned about injuries.

I just don't want to see Randy Moss with ice packs on both knees or the infamous "non-contact" injuries anymore.

With Reese in the draft room, a bunch of extra picks, and new turf, the Patriots could be something special this year. Just hope the Krafts open up their checkbooks for the FAs this year (but it sure does not look like it now).

Welker's non-contact injury happened on a grass field, by the way. I think an argument could be made for Field Turf being safer than grass in a northern climate like New England, given how the elements change things.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Welker's non-contact injury happened on a grass field, by the way. I think an argument could be made for Field Turf being safer than grass in a northern climate like New England, given how the elements change things.

IIRC Reliant Stadium is of the hybrid-synthetic variety.

 

[captain stone]

You sure about that, RW? I googled Reliant Stadium Playing Surface, and the first half-dozen links claimed that the playing surface was grass.

BTW, has there been a game of any kind played on this new Duraspine Pro turf?

 

[Tunescribe]

From the Field Turf site:

College Study Proves FieldTurf Safer than Grass

FieldTurf, the world leader in artificial turf, praised the published research today which concludes that college football games played on FieldTurf synthetic turf playing surfaces resulted in statistically fewer and less severe injuries than those played on natural grass.

The research was led by Michael C. Meyers, PhD, FACSM, presently a professor within the Department of Health and Human Development at Montana State University. The official study is entitled: “Incidence, Mechanisms, and Severity of Game-Related College Football Injuries on FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass: A Three-Year Prospective Study”.

The peer-reviewed study is published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine

“Over the past decades, numerous studies attributed a greater risk and incidence of articular and concussive trauma to playing on an artificial surface when compared to natural grass," said Meyers. "To that end, though balanced by a view that the synthetic turf product had seen technology advancements in the years thereafter, we hypothesized that FieldTurf would deliver a similar safety profile as natural grass relative to injury incidence, mechanism and severity. Although similarities did exist between FieldTurf and natural grass over a three-year period of competitive play, the findings showed significant differences in injury incidence, severity of injury, injury time loss, injury situation, grade of injury, injuries under various field conditions, and temperature between playing surfaces – with FieldTurf markedly the safer playing surface.”

The study evaluated play under natural game conditions and across 24 NCAA Division 1-A FBS universities. A total of 465 games were tracked – 230 games on FieldTurf, and 235 games on natural grass. A "reportable injury" was defined as any game-related football trauma that resulted in an athlete missing all or part of a game, time away from competition, any injury reported or treated by an ATC or physician and all cranial/cervical trauma reported. "Injury time loss" was categorized as minor if time lost was 0-6 days; substantial at 7-21 days resulting in the athlete unable to return to play at the same high competitive level; and severe if the trauma required 22 or more days of time loss.

“Injury incidence and severity is a topic of much discussion right now, not only within the halls of the NFL and relative to head trauma, but at colleges/universities and high schools across the country,” said FieldTurf President Eric Daliere. “We are pleased that this first-of-its-kind college football research is consistent with similar earlier findings at the high school level. These long-term studies will serve to set the record straight about athlete safety and FieldTurf.”

Findings suggested FieldTurf fields were safer than natural grass fields to the following degrees:



In regards to incidence of injury

7% Fewer total injuries

3% Fewer minor injuries

19% Fewer substantial injuries

22% Fewer severe injuries

In regards to head, knee, and shoulder trauma

12% Fewer concussions

42% Lower anterior cruciate ligament trauma

16 % Lower ACL and associated tissue trauma

10% Fewer AC separations

64% Fewer rotator cuff tears

46% Lower incidence of shoulder lesions (SLAP, Hill-Sachs, Bankart)



In regards to injury category

8% Less injury from player-to-player collisions

10% Less injury from shoe surface interaction during contact

8% Less injury from shoe surface interaction during non-contact



In regards to primary type of injury

8% Fewer ligament sprains

32% Fewer ligament tears

8% Fewer muscle strains and spasms

74% Fewer muscle tears

8% Less tendon strains



In regards to grade of injury

24% Lower incidence of second degree trauma

24% Lower incidence of third degree trauma



In regards to type of tissue injured

6% Lower incidence of joint trauma

6% Lower incidence of muscle trauma

6% Lower incidence of neural trauma



In regards to environmental conditions

10% Less injury during inclement weather (rain, snow, sleet)

42% Less injury during no precipitation, wet field conditions

24% Lower incidence of injury during games played under hot weather conditions

 

[jbb9s]

tune - are you sure about that? I mean, I bet Crable would have played 33 games by now plus 8 preseasons in his young career if he was on grass. The divots, the uneven wear between the hash marks, the wet and slick conditions, the mud. Way way way safer than engineered surfaces installed by 75%+ of the NFL.

Any standards set forth by the American Society for Testing & Mats (ASTM) is obviously trumped by ice packs on a 33 year old's knees. Why doesnt Fred actually run on a synthetic field in Duxbury, Weston, Carlisle, Newton or any private school in metro boston and compare it to the grass experience?

 

[Patjew]

From the Field Turf site:

College Study Proves FieldTurf Safer than Grass

But what kind of data does the inventor of grass have?

 

[RobertWeathers]

You sure about that, RW? I googled Reliant Stadium Playing Surface, and the first half-dozen links claimed that the playing surface was grass.

BTW, has there been a game of any kind played on this new Duraspine Pro turf?

You're right. Thought it was. Went back and read the article quoting BB ripping the stuff after WW went down...All grass. My bad.

I can't find anyplace that publishes it's use of Duraspine Pro turf..

 

[Underdog]

Reliant is grass, but it's installed in a bunch of removable trays. They take it outside the stadium to give it sun and water, and then bring it back inside for the games. That's what creates the consistency problems BB was complaining about.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

But what kind of data does the inventor of grass have?

Ah well put PJ!

We should take anything that a Field Turf sales weasel has to say about how great it is with a grain of salt...no wait a mafia road crew salting truck worth of salt.