Dick_Cheney Posted February 10 Posted February 10 Didn't see this posted anywhere yet. Some very interesting details in it. In my opinion, it's inexcusable that every team does not play on a natural grass field. The players overwhelmingly want it. Owners will gripe about the cost, but ***** the billionaire class. Hopefully the NFLPA continues to push on this issue. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/fake-grass-real-injuries-dissecting-the-nfls-artificial-turf-debate/ Corresponding article referencing which stadiums seem to be more injury prone: https://www.the33rdteam.com/analyzing-nfl-injury-frequency-on-grass-vs-turf-fields/ 1 Quote
BringBackFergy Posted February 10 Posted February 10 What if open air stadiums result in more injuries?? Snow, rain, ice, Miami sun/humidity. Oh boy!! This thread could go for years. 1 Quote
Jauronimo Posted February 10 Posted February 10 11 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said: What if open air stadiums result in more injuries?? Snow, rain, ice, Miami sun/humidity. Oh boy!! This thread could go for years. Open air stadiums release major amounts of greenhouse gas relative to domes. Look at a chart of CO2 levels and global temperatures since Franklin Field first opened at the turn of the 20th century. Its uncanny!! Quote
Low Positive Posted February 10 Posted February 10 Just now, Jauronimo said: Open air stadiums release major amounts of greenhouse gas relative to domes. Look at a chart of CO2 levels and global temperatures since Franklin Field first opened at the turn of the 20th century. Its uncanny!! And look at the impact the invention of the telegraph has had on the climate. It’s unreal! 2 Quote
Thrivefourfive Posted February 11 Posted February 11 1 hour ago, Dick_Cheney said: Didn't see this posted anywhere yet. Some very interesting details in it. In my opinion, it's inexcusable that every team does not play on a natural grass field. The players overwhelmingly want it. Owners will gripe about the cost, but ***** the billionaire class. Hopefully the NFLPA continues to push on this issue. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/fake-grass-real-injuries-dissecting-the-nfls-artificial-turf-debate/ Corresponding article referencing which stadiums seem to be more injury prone: https://www.the33rdteam.com/analyzing-nfl-injury-frequency-on-grass-vs-turf-fields/ The list reads like.. #1 Party city! #2 Playing in conditions like a Uruguayan rugby team #3 NYC and twice the games #4 Bare naked ladies across the river.. #5 Bottoms Up #6 LA and twice the games #7 I hate this city.. I’m not stretching etc., etc., etc. Quote
Mr. WEO Posted February 11 Posted February 11 15 hours ago, Dick_Cheney said: Didn't see this posted anywhere yet. Some very interesting details in it. In my opinion, it's inexcusable that every team does not play on a natural grass field. The players overwhelmingly want it. Owners will gripe about the cost, but ***** the billionaire class. Hopefully the NFLPA continues to push on this issue. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/fake-grass-real-injuries-dissecting-the-nfls-artificial-turf-debate/ Corresponding article referencing which stadiums seem to be more injury prone: https://www.the33rdteam.com/analyzing-nfl-injury-frequency-on-grass-vs-turf-fields/ This statement makes it clear that you did not read the entire first article you posted... 1 Quote
SoonerBillsFan Posted February 11 Posted February 11 Grass is the way to go. I'm glad Terry got that part of the Stadium right. I am in the "it should have been a Dome" group. The superbowl is played in warmer weather and sometimes in a dome. Quote
ControllerOfPlanetX Posted February 11 Posted February 11 Hockey needs to be played on naturally frozen ice, not artificially frozen indoors. 2 Quote
Doc Posted February 11 Posted February 11 34 minutes ago, ControllerOfPlanetX said: Hockey needs to be played on naturally frozen ice, not artificially frozen indoors. Yeah. All those peaks and valleys on the surface make it fun. Quote
Gugny Posted February 11 Posted February 11 As much as people like to think the field surface matter … it really isn’t a major factor. As long as players are wearing the right cleats and they have helmets with water chambers to help minimize impact, the surface of the field really means nothing. Quote
hondo in seattle Posted February 11 Posted February 11 The article, written by two PhDs, was ambivalent and didn't convince me of anything other than more work needs to be done. Quote
Mr. WEO Posted February 11 Posted February 11 2 hours ago, Gugny said: As much as people like to think the field surface matter … it really isn’t a major factor. As long as players are wearing the right cleats and they have helmets with water chambers to help minimize impact, the surface of the field really means nothing. Exactly. The article brought this up in detail. The OP didn't read it carefully. The article also brings up a rule change about tackling that would potentially have twice the impact on lowering injuries than would switching to gras---but the NFLPA was predictably against that. As with new helmet technology in the past, NFLPA pays lip service to actual player safety. Quote
LeGOATski Posted February 11 Posted February 11 I'm in favor of natural grass purely for aesthetic reasons. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.