Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Lately, I have been reading through old issues from the late 1960s and early 1970s of The Sporting News and one of the things that jumps out at me was the heavy advertising done promoting Astroturf. These ads appeared on a weekly basis and often announced what new pro or college team had just installed Astroturf. The ads touted its alleged injury reducing properties as well as its enhanced playability in bad weather. (The 1969 Redsksins-Eagles game might have been the first true test of turf in icy conditions and it was far from successful. This did not seem to deter pro and college teams however. )

While baseball has moved back to natural grass, football hasn't. I don't think turf was ever popular with the NFLPA and you might have thought football might have followed baseball's example. Was there ever any evidence that turf contributed to more injuries than grass? Even without evidence I think the perception among some is that playing on turf is not as safe as playing on grass. If that is true, you might think owners, players and agents would have lobbied harder for its removal. Why hasn't this occurred? Could the lack of padding on the early artificial surfaces led to a rise in concussions? Obviously you can get concussions on grass but grass has to be a bit softer than turf.

Fieldturf (and the other various brands of artificial turf) is cheaper than grass. Hence why owners go that route. Anything to save a buck.

Players seems to be a mix, players that rely on speed (including defensive players) say how 'great' fieldturf is and whine about grass, mud, dirt, etc. Most other players prefer natural grass.

People can come to their own conclusions but it's fairly obvious to me that fieldturf is directly responsible for more injuries (knees, head, etc) than grass.

Reaser wrote:Fieldturf (and the other various brands of artificial turf) is cheaper than grass. Hence why owners go that route. Anything to save a buck.

Players seems to be a mix, players that rely on speed (including defensive players) say how 'great' fieldturf is and whine about grass, mud, dirt, etc. Most other players prefer natural grass.

People can come to their own conclusions but it's fairly obvious to me that fieldturf is directly responsible for more injuries (knees, head, etc) than grass.

I do understand the cost factor but I have to assume the same is true in baseball which had no qualms about spending more money to have grass surfaces.

There have been a number of studies that have shown that NFL players were more likely to suffer knee injuries on the old AstroTurf than on natural grass.
Philadelphia's "The Vet" was the worst. And little wonder...it was like playing on concrete. Chicago WR Wendell Davis blew out both patella tendons there when his cleats got caught in one of the seams of the turf..an unfortunate consequence of a field being used for football and baseball. Michael Irvin's career ended when his head was driven into the turf. (You can't say what would have happened if the same thing had happened on grass, but it's reasonable to assume it wouldn't have been as serious.) Brian Billick once had a preseason game there called off because of problems with the playing surface.

The new artificial FieldTurf is much better than the old stuff, but still generally not as good or safe as grass.

I can't think of too many good things to say about Astroturf, other than it was cool when Brooks Robinson would bounce a ball off it when throwing from third base to first base.

I have nothing to back this up but I have long had a bad feeling about the bits of rubber that kick up from field turf surfaces. I feel like there will be health repercussions down the road.

In an old early-80s magazine when the fields of each NFL team were listed, it always popped me that Dallas, Pittsburgh and Kansas City had Tartan Turrf, and New England had Super Turf instead of Astro Turf.

JohnH19 wrote:I have nothing to back this up but I have long had a bad feeling about the bits of rubber that kick up from field turf surfaces. I feel like there will be health repercussions down the road.

The girls soccer and "possible links" of the rubber causing cancer was a huge story here in WA.

JohnH19 wrote:I have nothing to back this up but I have long had a bad feeling about the bits of rubber that kick up from field turf surfaces. I feel like there will be health repercussions down the road.

We think alike.

Always hated it, not just from a health/injury angle but I just like the aesthetics of a natural grass field. Places like Soldier Field, Orange Bowl, KC, Foxboro all looked so much better with grass. An Eagles home game at the Vet just looked bad with that awful turf.