Concussion Report Highlights Field Maintenance

[LeopardBall10]

A new report from the Concussion Legacy Foundation that is based on more than a dozen previously completed concussion studies cites a specific link to concussions and the playing surface. This isn't a surprise for those of us who watch football, we see guys heads hit the turf all the time. But it does bring up some questions that end up largely overlooked in most concussion discussions (Link to the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/sports/football/concussion-report-highlights-field-maintenance.html?_r=0)):

1. Is your school keeping up with the maintenance on your new turf field?
2. Are the grounds keepers following the "owners manual" to make sure it lasts as long as it is supposed to?
3. How many turf fields are being used past their recommended life spans?

At Lafayette these issues were brought up by the fans after another season with a huge number of serious injuries as the turf nears the end of it's recommended life. Is this viewed as a problem other places? Is there a school in conference where you see a noticeable drop off in field quality?

[ngineer]

I have always hated 'turf' fields--going all the way back to the late 60's-early 70's of the 'astro turf' that was like playing on concrete. I am huge fan of a good draining sod field, always have been.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One of the most underrated benefits of a sod field and injuries is how sod slows the game down. People move faster and cut faster on turf, meaning more MPH of bodies crashing into one another and more extreme angles on cuts.

[Andy]

Synthetic turf makers say that their products are safe when used correctly and point to academic research that shows that injury rates of synthetic fields and natural grass are roughly similar, and nearly indistinguishable for concussions.
“Statistically, there’s no difference between the two when it comes to concussions,” said Michael C. Meyers, an associate professor in the Department of Sport Science and Physical Education at Idaho State University. “When you break it down player to player, there is not a field turf problem.”


A 2010 study looking at collegiate football injuries showed that FieldTurf may actually be safer than natural grass for injuries in general. This study also found no significant difference in knee injuries between surfaces.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sportsdoc/Grass-vs-Turf-does-it-affect-injury-rate.html#gGF4VdtaGCZPIkRt.99

10, you played and coached under Frank, right? Is it your experience that Jack B. would allow his investment to be neglected by the college? Would he allow the kids to play under unsafe conditions?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/23/nfl-reaction-concussion-movie-will-smith-bennet-omalu


Goodell was speaking after a presentation announcing the three winners of the second Head Health Challenge, an open innovation program sponsored by the NFL and GE to invest up to $20 million in new technologies that may be able to better diagnose or prevent traumatic brain injuries. The winners announced that day included an underlayer for synthetic turf to soften blows against the playing surface; a new impact-mitigating helmet designed by the University of Washington; and a tethering system designed by the Army Research Laboratory (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/24/nfl-concussions-army-research)to reduce violent head whips.

[Andy]

There have been very few direct empirical comparisons of concussion risk on grass and artificial turf fields, and those limited investigations have produced varied findings.


Meyers 2010

In the 2010 study of 24 collegiate football teams over a three-year period (230 games on FieldTurf, 235 games on grass), the injury rate for grass was 5.1 injuries per team game and 4.5 for FieldTurf.
There were slightly less minor injuries and severe injuries on FieldTurf. There were no differences in head, shoulder, or knee injuries between the two groups.


Meyers and Barnhill 2004
In the 2004 study, eight collegiate football teams were followed over five competitive seasons. For every 10 games, 15.2 injuries occurred on natural grass versus 13.9 on FieldTurf (results not statistically significant however). Other results:
Worse/more common on FieldTurf: same day return injuries, noncontact injuries, skin injuries (abrasions), muscle trauma
Worse/more common on grass: ligament injuries, injuries with more than three weeks lost time, injuries causing one to two days of lost time, head and nerve injuries

I don't see any data on increased risk of head whip concussion on grass vs artificial turf. Was the doubled risk of concussion to the paratroopers your article sites a result of their jumping onto turf fields behind enemy lines?

[ngineer]

"If a horse can't eat it, I'm not playing on it."---Dick Allen,cira. late 1960's with Philadelphia Phillies.

[Andy]

"If a horse can't eat it, I'm not playing on it."---Dick Allen,cira. late 1960's with Philadelphia Phillies.

Old enough to remember when he was "Richie." 40-something ounce bat. Quite a character.

[PantherRob82]

UNI used our astroturf for way too long. The new systems don't work for our dome some we tried to make it work and the field is garbage after a short time and needs replaced.

[clenz]

UNI used our astroturf for way too long. The new systems don't work for our dome some we tried to make it work and the field is garbage after a short time and needs replaced.

It's in the world works

Dannen refused to listen to the company that installed it and cheaper out on the removal system, including cutting the turf rather than getting the proper rolling system. From what I've heard, that won't happen with the next turf we get, which should be by 2017 season

[Catsfan90]

This stuff is good, but not widely used in the US. Many European soccer fields utilize it, most notable Old Trafford of Man United:

"Desso GrassMaster is a sports playing field surface composed of natural grass combined with artificial fibres. The artificial grass fibres are injected 20 centimetres (7.9 in) deep, and cover about 3% of the surface. While the grass is growing, the roots intertwine with the artificial fibres. The designers claim this anchors the field to create a solid, even structure with good drainage and 'playing comfort'."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desso_GrassMaster

[LeopardBall10]

Synthetic turf makers say that their products are safe when used correctly and point to academic research that shows that injury rates of synthetic fields and natural grass are roughly similar, and nearly indistinguishable for concussions.
“Statistically, there’s no difference between the two when it comes to concussions,” said Michael C. Meyers, an associate professor in the Department of Sport Science and Physical Education at Idaho State University. “When you break it down player to player, there is not a field turf problem.”

A 2010 study looking at collegiate football injuries showed that FieldTurf may actually be safer than natural grass for injuries in general. This study also found no significant difference in knee injuries between surfaces.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sportsdoc/Grass-vs-Turf-does-it-affect-injury-rate.html#gGF4VdtaGCZPIkRt.99

10, you played and coached under Frank, right? Is it your experience that Jack B. would allow his investment to be neglected by the college? Would he allow the kids to play under unsafe conditions?

Sorry I'm just responding... holidays xdrunkyx

Anyway, I have seen and heard about all of the data sighting that the turf fields are just as safe *when maintained properly*, and nothing about this article disputes that. This article is saying that the quality of the field has a direct correlation with the number of concussions. Fields that are in worse condition generate more concussions, synthetic or sod. I think that is a very reasonable finding.

I did play under Frank and had a great relationship with Mr. B. But I can't say that he would really have all that much say over how the school treated his investment. Let's be honest, the school has done everything in it's power to ruin that relationship by taking advantage of his gifts and generosity. Frank is the only reason that building still looks the way it does, the school does nothing to maintain it on their own. So even if he did see them mismanaging the maintenance could he change it? He and Frank would try, but would only be successful if the cost were low enough or covered by Jack himself.

I can also speak to several incidents, personally where "low spots" were discovered in the field, either after a big snow or a lacrosse game. We would be on the field for practice with a cone on the field to show you where not to step to lose an ankle. Eventually the rubber would be raked into the hole, but it eventually took its toll. There are has marks coming unsewed, tears along the sidelines. As we know it is reaching the end of its life, and it needs replaced. But I am asking if we could have managed it better to keep it safer throughout its usable life?