NFL News & Notes

[turf toe]

15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Lots of players like playing on turf too. 

While I'm all for discounting the opinions of WRs and RBs on all things, the skill position players, especially the offensive ones typically like to feel fast on that track. 

Which soccer teams?

FIFA doesn't allow it because they had the 2015 women's world cup played on the jankest turf imaginable and banned it after a lawsuit so as to avoid the PR nightmare of admitting they don't give a **** about women's soccer. They also bought into the nonsense at the time that pellet turf causes cancer. 

6 MLS teams play on turf. 

The Premiere League doesn't like it for a lot of reasons, some of it is concern about knees, but a lot is also: following FIFA, feeling like the ball rolls differently, and heat. 

turf is faster, and cheaper, thats why the league likes it, WR and RB's like it because it allows them to play faster, people adore speed, and tend to be willing to pay any cost to get it, thats why teams use turf, player health has always come in second place

players would still be using leather helmets if the Doctors didn't get involved, now we improved the helmets and concussion protocol.

it'll be the same concerning turf, it's not just joint problems it's soft tissue injury's too, (Bakhtiari) turf allows no cushion, and wont allow the cleats to break free as grass does, so injury's of all sorts increase, money will win as usual, the findings will show that it is cheaper to change the field then having costly talent on the side lines

there have already been a bunch of studies on this, maybe we should just listen to science

[mikebpackfan]

5 minutes ago, turf toe said:

 

players would still be using leather helmets if the Doctors didn't get involved, now we improved the helmets and concussion protocol.

What’s wrong with leather helmets?

[Packer_ESP]

58 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How many years of data are we going to need?

Do we have the data from 4 years ago on what cleats the Panthers 5th string LB who tore his ACL on a punt return was wearing?

https://nflpa.com/posts/nfl-approach-field-surface-uneven

Here's some data in an essay written by our beloved JC Tretter

TLDR: the statistics compiled from 2015 onwards show higher lower body non contact injury rates for turf vs grass all years except 2021, which is deemed an outlier.

[AlexGreen#20]

10 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Those are all decisions that would be discussed before the data is compiled. I mean this isn't that complicated I don't understand what your hang up is? Do you just not believe that a company can collect, analyze, and interpret data with a number of variables? 

No, my issue is three fold:

1. Pellet turf is safe enough for the vast majority of high school and college fields across the country. If this is a horrifying safety problem, it's not immediately apparent. 

2. Certain players have been vocal about this before the CBA negotiations in 2020. They weren't able to reach enough of a majority on this internally (or didn't feel it important enough) to put it in front of the owners at that point. That's their fault.

They're currently trying to strong arm the owners into changing the terms of the CBA through the press, without sitting down and negotiating this like they should be doing.

3. My issue regarding the study has 2 parts.

First, the players should be paying for it. This data should be public and transparent. They should then be going to the owners with this data and trying to convince them that it's worth the investment.

Second, this is going to be a multi year study. In an ideal world I would want 5-10 years. 

By the end of 5 years we'll be in the 2028-2029 season. The CBA expires in 2030. At which point they then negotiate it anyway. 

[Leader]

A negotiating tactic for the next CBA?

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/newsmax-host-rodgers-tore-achilles-because-he-ignored-god

[craig]

I'm coming in late, so may have missed ideas.  Couple thoughts:

1. Discussion has focused on league expenses. 
2. Should an individual team with a dome bear the full cost of somehow getting/sustaining grass; or would/should the other teams share that cost?  
3. If surface leads to injuries, the individual team suffers most.  It has self-interest to reduce injuries.  Isn't it the Jets hurt most by Rodgers injury? 
4. Owners have money interests.  But most also care about winning.  [For the fun of it; just as fans themselves; for public appreciation for owner of winner; and obviously winning enhances revenue.]  So *IF* surface works against team health+success, owner has self-interest in preventing injuries.
5. For Packers, for example: *IF* our surfaces were hypothetically risking the health and durability of Watson, Love, Jaire, Gary, Musgrave, VanNess, etc, guys on which our competitive future depend; we'd have a self-interested motive to try to improve our surfaces.  
6. So, I think there may be mutual interest in trying to reduce risk.  It may not need to be super adversarial or conflicting interest.  
7. Given the advantage in optimizing home-team player safety, any team would selfishly want minimum-risk surface... UNLESS the cost was prohibitive.  It perhaps speaks to the technical difficulty and massive expense of replacing riskier surfaces that any still exist?
8. Technology is always changing.  What's used today and tomorrow may be less problematic than turfs of years past?  Or perhaps greenhouse lighting in domes might become more efficient, less costly, and not prohibitively expensive?  

[craig]

In Rodgers' case, is there any real reason to attribute his injury to turf?  Large forceful defender lands directly on his leg.  Not sure attributing the injury to the surface is necessary.  Not saying it didn't factor, just wondering whether he wouldn't have had the same injury if he was on grass and got the same hit.  

Edited September 14, 2023 by craig

[ThatJerkDave]

9 minutes ago, Leader said:

A negotiating tactic for the next CBA?

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/newsmax-host-rodgers-tore-achilles-because-he-ignored-god

So the TT draftee twitter profile has merit!?  Jesus saves, he also protects!  If only they could make a Jesus pill... where is big pharma at?  They are sitting on a gold mine!

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, craig said:

In Rodgers' case, is there any real reason to attribute his injury to turf?  Large forceful defender lands directly on his leg.  Not sure attributing the injury to the surface is necessary.  Not saying it didn't factor, just wondering whether he wouldn't have had the same injury if he was on grass and got the same hit.  

I'm honestly not certain which calf he'd injured during preseason / training camp, but he'd been nursing it through his activities. If it was the same leg - which given results is likely - he got in a real time / full speed situation....and it gave way.

[AlexGreen#20]

23 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

https://nflpa.com/posts/nfl-approach-field-surface-uneven

Here's some data in an essay written by our beloved JC Tretter

TLDR: the statistics compiled from 2015 onwards show higher lower body non contact injury rates for turf vs grass all years except 2021, which is deemed an outlier.

Correct me if I'm reading this chart wrong. Without the actual study itself in front of me, I can't be 100% about this.

Looking at this data, on field turf, for every 100 player-plays we have .045 incidences. On field grass we have .037 incidences. So for every player play we have .00045 incidences on turf and .00037 incidences on grass

The league will play roughly 633,600 player plays in a given season

(Ball park me here: 22 players/play * 100 plays/game * 16 games per week * 18 weeks (for playoffs) = 633,600)

All turf = .00045 x 633600 = 285.12 injuries per season.

All grass = .00037 x 633600 = 234.43 injuries per year. 

So you're looking at roughly 50 injuries per year difference. I find that number to be shockingly high. 

It certainly is worth investigating further.

That said, without controlling for variables like cleat type and weather conditions, I don't know what you can really draw from this. 

I suspect you could probably achieve much the same rate of injury diminishment by requiring turf cleats on turf than you could with completely removing turf from the league.

I also suspect that as turf technology gets better, you'll see these gaps closing. 

I'd like to see the full study before commenting further.

 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

31 minutes ago, Leader said:

A negotiating tactic for the next CBA?

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/newsmax-host-rodgers-tore-achilles-because-he-ignored-god

Did you post the wrong link?

Also, never read Meidastouch. 

[AlexGreen#20]

25 minutes ago, craig said:

In Rodgers' case, is there any real reason to attribute his injury to turf?  Large forceful defender lands directly on his leg.  Not sure attributing the injury to the surface is necessary.  Not saying it didn't factor, just wondering whether he wouldn't have had the same injury if he was on grass and got the same hit.  

The question is whether his foot would have come up and spared his Achilles the full loading, on grass. We'll never know for sure, but it's possible

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Did you post the wrong link?

Also, never read Meidastouch. 

I've never heard of Meidastouch either...but Newsmax I have.

[Packer_ESP]

3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Correct me if I'm reading this chart wrong. Without the actual study itself in front of me, I can't be 100% about this.

Looking at this data, on field turf, for every 100 player-plays we have .045 incidences. On field grass we have .037 incidences. So for every player play we have .00045 incidences on turf and .00037 incidences on grass

The league will play roughly 633,600 player plays in a given season

(Ball park me here: 22 players/play * 100 plays/game * 16 games per week * 18 weeks (for playoffs) = 633,600)

All turf = .00045 x 633600 = 285.12 injuries per season.

All grass = .00037 x 633600 = 234.43 injuries per year. 

So you're looking at roughly 50 injuries per year difference. I find that number to be shockingly high. 

It certainly is worth investigating further.

That said, without controlling for variables like cleat type and weather conditions, I don't know what you can really draw from this. 

I suspect you could probably achieve much the same rate of injury diminishment by requiring turf cleats on turf than you could with completely removing turf from the league.

I also suspect that as turf technology gets better, you'll see these gaps closing. 

I'd like to see the full study before commenting further.

Yeah, that match checks out.

Bear in mind that this comes from someone in the NFLPA, but apparently this study is done every year by some playing field committee that includes the NFLPA so I'd assume both sides agree on this report.

It would indeed be nice to have access to the full thing.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, turf toe said:

turf is faster, and cheaper, thats why the league likes it, WR and RB's like it because it allows them to play faster, people adore speed, and tend to be willing to pay any cost to get it, thats why teams use turf, player health has always come in second place

players would still be using leather helmets if the Doctors didn't get involved, now we improved the helmets and concussion protocol.

it'll be the same concerning turf, it's not just joint problems it's soft tissue injury's too, (Bakhtiari) turf allows no cushion, and wont allow the cleats to break free as grass does, so injury's of all sorts increase, money will win as usual, the findings will show that it is cheaper to change the field then having costly talent on the side lines

there have already been a bunch of studies on this, maybe we should just listen to science

The last time we "Just listened to science" it turned out that "science" was just a bunch of women calling each other over wine and shooting from the hip about which of our civil libraries we would be allowed that day. Spare me "just listen to science". 

Without the per field injury data, there isn't much to conclude from this. If Panther Stadium is a hell hole but Cowboy stadium has no discernible difference, there's nothing to it. 

Should basketball be played on field turf because there's more give than wood laminate?