OT: Player Safety

[APB]

Aaron Rodgers was in the news this week advocating for the league to immediately ban use of slit-film artificial playing surfaces in stadiums and practice facilities. This follows the loss of Rashan Gary to a non-contact ACL injury in Detroit last week. Player's union president JC Tretter has asked for the same ban based upon statistical analysis that, apparently, the league does not dispute. Tretter recently posted his message on the player's union page.

No link was provided to the study mentioned by Tretter, however, I'd assume his claims hold water based upon the eye test and continued high profile non-contact injuries to players occurring on these surfaces.

When you consider the money being made by owners, it's really hard to justify why this hasn't already happened. Hell, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles is one of the newer stadiums in the league, costing over $5B dollars to complete and spares no expense for the fan experience, yet they installed the same turf Jerry Jones settled upon for his brand new no-expense-spared-for-the-fan-experience-but-to-hell-with-the-players stadium back in 2009.

As I understand it, the technology already exists to maintain grass fields even within indoor stadiums, as evidenced by the stadiums in Arizona and Las Vegas. The Packers and Steelers both maintain hybrid grass playing surfaces despite the cold weather environment of their home stadiums.

The issue, as always with owners, comes down to cost.

As is typical, player safety is paramount...unless it affects the owner's bottom line. We'll continue to see absurd in-game penalties enforced for naturally occurring hits to QBs, all with accompanying fines for the players guilty of the asinine "infractions", all while the league ignores the one obvious thing they could do to enhance player safety yet refuse to do because it'd impact their bottom line.

[Pugger]

With the money these owners are paying players one would think they would want to keep them on the field healthy. If you lose a player to IR you then have to replace him with a FA via the waiver wire or promote a guy from the PS. If you promote someone don't you have to pay him more? So now because of crappy playing surfaces your payroll goes up affecting their bottom line.

[go pak go]

With the money these owners are paying players one would think they would want to keep them on the field healthy. If you lose a player to IR you then have to replace him with a FA via the waiver wire or promote a guy from the PS. If you promote someone don't you have to pay him more? So now because of crappy playing surfaces your payroll goes up affecting their bottom line.

If I'm an owner it doesnt' really matter because any new player just goes against the salary cap. All teams have a limit of how much they can spend. So in the long run, having more players on the payroll through the season doesn't mean much because the salary cap number was already calculated in the prior spring.

[go pak go]

Aaron Rodgers was in the news this week advocating for the league to immediately ban use of slit-film artificial playing surfaces in stadiums and practice facilities. This follows the loss of Rashan Gary to a non-contact ACL injury in Detroit last week. Player's union president JC Tretter has asked for the same ban based upon statistical analysis that, apparently, the league does not dispute. Tretter recently posted his message on the player's union page.

No link was provided to the study mentioned by Tretter, however, I'd assume his claims hold water based upon the eye test and continued high profile non-contact injuries to players occurring on these surfaces.

When you consider the money being made by owners, it's really hard to justify why this hasn't already happened. Hell, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles is one of the newer stadiums in the league, costing over $5B dollars to complete and sparing no expense for the fan experience, yet they installed the same turf Jerry Jones settled upon for his brand new no-expense-spared-for-the-fan-experience-but-to-hell-with-the-players stadium back in 2009.

As I understand it, the technology already exists to maintain grass fields even within indoor stadiums, as evidenced by the stadiums in Arizona and Las Vegas. The Packers and Steelers both maintain hybrid grass playing surfaces despite the cold weather environment of their home stadiums.

The issue, as always with owners, comes down to cost.

As is typical, player safety is paramount...unless it affects the owner's bottom line. We'll continue to see absurd in-game penalties enforced for naturally occurring hits to QBs, all with accompanying fines for the players guilty of the asinine "infractions", all while the league ignores the one obvious thing they could do to enhance player safety yet refuse to do because it'd impact their bottom line.

Not only that, but most of these bum owners build these beautiful stadiums on the city/county/state's dime and then also the owners are the ones who are buying the land surrounding the stadium funded by the public so they can profit further.

I'm honestly getting really sick of NFL economics. The public needs to stand up for this crap.

Green Bay is an outlier.

1. Green Bay and the Fox River area truly does depend on the Packers.
2. Brown County only funded the stadium once and the residents are still reaping benefits today.
3. The Packers fund Cap X projects from people who actually care and support the Packers. It is voluntary.

The league needs to be more like the Packers and less like the Bills.

The grass growth idea is interesting. I could see problems with stadiums like US Bank where land is limited around the stadium to be able to pull the turf out and actually grow grass. There might be room on the east side of the building to do it but I can't remember. It's been a few years since I lived there.

[Yoop]

Aaron Rodgers was in the news this week advocating for the league to immediately ban use of slit-film artificial playing surfaces in stadiums and practice facilities. This follows the loss of Rashan Gary to a non-contact ACL injury in Detroit last week. Player's union president JC Tretter has asked for the same ban based upon statistical analysis that, apparently, the league does not dispute. Tretter recently posted his message on the player's union page.

No link was provided to the study mentioned by Tretter, however, I'd assume his claims hold water based upon the eye test and continued high profile non-contact injuries to players occurring on these surfaces.

When you consider the money being made by owners, it's really hard to justify why this hasn't already happened. Hell, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles is one of the newer stadiums in the league, costing over $5B dollars to complete and sparing no expense for the fan experience, yet they installed the same turf Jerry Jones settled upon for his brand new no-expense-spared-for-the-fan-experience-but-to-hell-with-the-players stadium back in 2009.

As I understand it, the technology already exists to maintain grass fields even within indoor stadiums, as evidenced by the stadiums in Arizona and Las Vegas. The Packers and Steelers both maintain hybrid grass playing surfaces despite the cold weather environment of their home stadiums.

The issue, as always with owners, comes down to cost.

As is typical, player safety is paramount...unless it affects the owner's bottom line. We'll continue to see absurd in-game penalties enforced for naturally occurring hits to QBs, all with accompanying fines for the players guilty of the asinine "infractions", all while the league ignores the one obvious thing they could do to enhance player safety yet refuse to do because it'd impact their bottom line.

Not only that, but most of these bum owners build these beautiful stadiums on the city/county/state's dime and then also the owners are the ones who are buying the land surrounding the stadium funded by the public so they can profit further.

I'm honestly getting really sick of NFL economics. The public needs to stand up for this crap.

Green Bay is an outlier.

1. Green Bay and the Fox River area truly does depend on the Packers.
2. Brown County only funded the stadium once and the residents are still reaping benefits today.
3. The Packers fund Cap X projects from people who actually care and support the Packers. It is voluntary.

The league needs to be more like the Packers and less like the Bills.

The grass growth idea is interesting. I could see problems with stadiums like US Bank where land is limited around the stadium to be able to pull the turf out and actually grow grass. There might be room on the east side of the building to do it but I can't remember. It's been a few years since I lived there.

good post
but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

[go pak go]

Aaron Rodgers was in the news this week advocating for the league to immediately ban use of slit-film artificial playing surfaces in stadiums and practice facilities. This follows the loss of Rashan Gary to a non-contact ACL injury in Detroit last week. Player's union president JC Tretter has asked for the same ban based upon statistical analysis that, apparently, the league does not dispute. Tretter recently posted his message on the player's union page.

No link was provided to the study mentioned by Tretter, however, I'd assume his claims hold water based upon the eye test and continued high profile non-contact injuries to players occurring on these surfaces.

When you consider the money being made by owners, it's really hard to justify why this hasn't already happened. Hell, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles is one of the newer stadiums in the league, costing over $5B dollars to complete and sparing no expense for the fan experience, yet they installed the same turf Jerry Jones settled upon for his brand new no-expense-spared-for-the-fan-experience-but-to-hell-with-the-players stadium back in 2009.

As I understand it, the technology already exists to maintain grass fields even within indoor stadiums, as evidenced by the stadiums in Arizona and Las Vegas. The Packers and Steelers both maintain hybrid grass playing surfaces despite the cold weather environment of their home stadiums.

The issue, as always with owners, comes down to cost.

As is typical, player safety is paramount...unless it affects the owner's bottom line. We'll continue to see absurd in-game penalties enforced for naturally occurring hits to QBs, all with accompanying fines for the players guilty of the asinine "infractions", all while the league ignores the one obvious thing they could do to enhance player safety yet refuse to do because it'd impact their bottom line.

Not only that, but most of these bum owners build these beautiful stadiums on the city/county/state's dime and then also the owners are the ones who are buying the land surrounding the stadium funded by the public so they can profit further.

I'm honestly getting really sick of NFL economics. The public needs to stand up for this crap.

Green Bay is an outlier.

1. Green Bay and the Fox River area truly does depend on the Packers.
2. Brown County only funded the stadium once and the residents are still reaping benefits today.
3. The Packers fund Cap X projects from people who actually care and support the Packers. It is voluntary.

The league needs to be more like the Packers and less like the Bills.

The grass growth idea is interesting. I could see problems with stadiums like US Bank where land is limited around the stadium to be able to pull the turf out and actually grow grass. There might be room on the east side of the building to do it but I can't remember. It's been a few years since I lived there.

good post
but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

Yeah I don't think we start it from seed. But we at least keep it alive once we bring it into the stadium.

Sorry I didn't get on that level yoop.

[Pckfn23]

but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

What?? No... That Packers sod can't easily be replaced as it is a live grass field stitched with synthetic turf. This happened in 2007, I believe, and was replaced in 2018. This time of year the grounds crew even uses grow lights on the field overnight.

[Yoop]

Not only that, but most of these bum owners build these beautiful stadiums on the city/county/state's dime and then also the owners are the ones who are buying the land surrounding the stadium funded by the public so they can profit further.

I'm honestly getting really sick of NFL economics. The public needs to stand up for this crap.

Green Bay is an outlier.

1. Green Bay and the Fox River area truly does depend on the Packers.
2. Brown County only funded the stadium once and the residents are still reaping benefits today.
3. The Packers fund Cap X projects from people who actually care and support the Packers. It is voluntary.

The league needs to be more like the Packers and less like the Bills.

The grass growth idea is interesting. I could see problems with stadiums like US Bank where land is limited around the stadium to be able to pull the turf out and actually grow grass. There might be room on the east side of the building to do it but I can't remember. It's been a few years since I lived there.

good post
but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

Yeah I don't think we start it from seed. But we at least keep it alive once we bring it into the stadium.

Sorry I didn't get on that level yoop.

according to this we do start from seed, I was wrong, but it's also synthetic, this is a good article concerning the up keep of Lambeau grass, we rip out the old and reseed every spring

https://wisconsinlife.org/story/green-b ... beau-turf/

[Yoop]

but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

What?? No... That Packers sod can't easily be replaced as it is a live grass field stitched with synthetic turf. This happened in 2007, I believe, and was replaced in 2018. This time of year the grounds crew even uses grow lights on the field overnight.

OK, I just remember aq PO game in Jan. one year ( so many PO appearances the last 30 year) forget which year when we had to replace a lot of the field with trucked in sod that we did that.

[Pckfn23]

but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

What?? No... That Packers sod can't easily be replaced as it is a live grass field stitched with synthetic turf. This happened in 2007, I believe, and was replaced in 2018. This time of year the grounds crew even uses grow lights on the field overnight.

OK, I just remember aq PO game in Jan. one year ( so many PO appearances the last 30 year) forget which year when we had to replace a lot of the field with trucked in sod that we did that.

I am almost certain that was 1996. Remember this game?

[Yoop]

I am almost certain that was 1996. Remember this game?

vaguely, the mud bowl????, I'll have to look it up later

[Pugger]

With the money these owners are paying players one would think they would want to keep them on the field healthy. If you lose a player to IR you then have to replace him with a FA via the waiver wire or promote a guy from the PS. If you promote someone don't you have to pay him more? So now because of crappy playing surfaces your payroll goes up affecting their bottom line.

If I'm an owner it doesnt' really matter because any new player just goes against the salary cap. All teams have a limit of how much they can spend. So in the long run, having more players on the payroll through the season doesn't mean much because the salary cap number was already calculated in the prior spring.

True. I forgot about the cap. But they should care about the product on the field. Not every franchise has 1000s on their ticket waiting list so if their squad loses key players and the team starts losing fans will find other things to spend their money on.

[Pugger]

Aaron Rodgers was in the news this week advocating for the league to immediately ban use of slit-film artificial playing surfaces in stadiums and practice facilities. This follows the loss of Rashan Gary to a non-contact ACL injury in Detroit last week. Player's union president JC Tretter has asked for the same ban based upon statistical analysis that, apparently, the league does not dispute. Tretter recently posted his message on the player's union page.

No link was provided to the study mentioned by Tretter, however, I'd assume his claims hold water based upon the eye test and continued high profile non-contact injuries to players occurring on these surfaces.

When you consider the money being made by owners, it's really hard to justify why this hasn't already happened. Hell, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles is one of the newer stadiums in the league, costing over $5B dollars to complete and sparing no expense for the fan experience, yet they installed the same turf Jerry Jones settled upon for his brand new no-expense-spared-for-the-fan-experience-but-to-hell-with-the-players stadium back in 2009.

As I understand it, the technology already exists to maintain grass fields even within indoor stadiums, as evidenced by the stadiums in Arizona and Las Vegas. The Packers and Steelers both maintain hybrid grass playing surfaces despite the cold weather environment of their home stadiums.

The issue, as always with owners, comes down to cost.

As is typical, player safety is paramount...unless it affects the owner's bottom line. We'll continue to see absurd in-game penalties enforced for naturally occurring hits to QBs, all with accompanying fines for the players guilty of the asinine "infractions", all while the league ignores the one obvious thing they could do to enhance player safety yet refuse to do because it'd impact their bottom line.

Not only that, but most of these bum owners build these beautiful stadiums on the city/county/state's dime and then also the owners are the ones who are buying the land surrounding the stadium funded by the public so they can profit further.

I'm honestly getting really sick of NFL economics. The public needs to stand up for this crap.

Green Bay is an outlier.

1. Green Bay and the Fox River area truly does depend on the Packers.
2. Brown County only funded the stadium once and the residents are still reaping benefits today.
3. The Packers fund Cap X projects from people who actually care and support the Packers. It is voluntary.

The league needs to be more like the Packers and less like the Bills.

The grass growth idea is interesting. I could see problems with stadiums like US Bank where land is limited around the stadium to be able to pull the turf out and actually grow grass. There might be room on the east side of the building to do it but I can't remember. It's been a few years since I lived there.

good post
but I dont think we grow the grass in Lambeau, it's trucked in from a sod farm, or at least thats what I've read some years back, has that changed?

I seem to recall seeing videos large sets of grow lights illuminating the field at Lambeau several years ago on local TV up there.

[Pugger]

What?? No... That Packers sod can't easily be replaced as it is a live grass field stitched with synthetic turf. This happened in 2007, I believe, and was replaced in 2018. This time of year the grounds crew even uses grow lights on the field overnight.

OK, I just remember aq PO game in Jan. one year ( so many PO appearances the last 30 year) forget which year when we had to replace a lot of the field with trucked in sod that we did that.

I am almost certain that was 1996. Remember this game?

Is this that playoff game in a monsoon? I was there and got soaked to the bone. I'd rather go when it is snowing than in a cold rain with wind. I'm now shivering just thinking about that day.

[Labrev]

My folks were at that game! Anytime my mom has to brave some inclement cold weather or heavy rain, she talks about that game. I have heard the story so many times.

[Crazylegs Starks]

I am almost certain that was 1996. Remember this game?

Yes, it was 1996. They gave away chunks of the old sod in this special box. My dad still has one.

[Crazylegs Starks]

And here's the article from the 2018 re-sod (with photos):

https://www.packers.com/news/new-turf-r ... 018-season

[Scott4Pack]

Aaron Rodgers was in the news this week advocating for the league to immediately ban use of slit-film artificial playing surfaces in stadiums and practice facilities. This follows the loss of Rashan Gary to a non-contact ACL injury in Detroit last week. Player's union president JC Tretter has asked for the same ban based upon statistical analysis that, apparently, the league does not dispute. Tretter recently posted his message on the player's union page.

No link was provided to the study mentioned by Tretter, however, I'd assume his claims hold water based upon the eye test and continued high profile non-contact injuries to players occurring on these surfaces.

When you consider the money being made by owners, it's really hard to justify why this hasn't already happened. Hell, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles is one of the newer stadiums in the league, costing over $5B dollars to complete and spares no expense for the fan experience, yet they installed the same turf Jerry Jones settled upon for his brand new no-expense-spared-for-the-fan-experience-but-to-hell-with-the-players stadium back in 2009.

As I understand it, the technology already exists to maintain grass fields even within indoor stadiums, as evidenced by the stadiums in Arizona and Las Vegas. The Packers and Steelers both maintain hybrid grass playing surfaces despite the cold weather environment of their home stadiums.

The issue, as always with owners, comes down to cost.

As is typical, player safety is paramount...unless it affects the owner's bottom line. We'll continue to see absurd in-game penalties enforced for naturally occurring hits to QBs, all with accompanying fines for the players guilty of the asinine "infractions", all while the league ignores the one obvious thing they could do to enhance player safety yet refuse to do because it'd impact their bottom line.

FYI, the park in Arizona actually takes the grass field (in its entirety) to the OUTSIDE of the stadium between events. It is literally mounted on a number of ball bearings that enable the entire field to be moved between indoor and outdoor, and vice versa. So, it isn’t actually technology that allows the grass to be grown indoors, but tech that allows the field to be moved outside, where natural light benefits growth of the grass.

Popular Mechanics magazine did an article about that long ago. Good reading.

As for whether to demand natural turf or not, I’m of the opinion that football is and always was intended to be played outdoors, in the natural elements. It grieves me to see more stadiums providing indoor football, in air conditioning and unnatural turf/cement. I will support every measure that would move NFL to a natural experience, especially since it is less strain on the athletes.

[AmishMafia]

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

[Pckfn23]

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

Don't think it is as cut and dry as the NFLPA makes it out to be, but I don't doubt there is an added risk to turf over grass.