Grass vs Plastic

Try getting the Seahawks to convert to grass and see what happens. The field would be absolutely unplayable.

spending $1M would need to be justified. how would the FO recoup this cost? it certainly isn’t going to be through ticket sales

possibly, the long term hope woudl be to attract a more talented squad…

from grass surface backgrounds. The advantage comes through extensive experience on the surface which I am not sure we have just yet.

Dave has said multiple times that the FieldTurf surface has not shown itself to cause more injuries than grass. I can accept that for the most part as I have played on every surface known to man and FieldTurf is second only to grass in my opinion as far as playing surfaces go.

The biggest reason I have for not liking it though is that it plays way too fast. This is even worse when the field is wet. When athletes are trained to just let their muscles react such a difference can cause problems. A pass that may well be perfect on grass becomes an ugly overpowered pass on FieldTurf. A player expecting a ball to go to one spot looks like he was lazy because the ball shoots past him.

This may seem minor to some, but it is the biggest reason players and managers at the highest level will complain about the surface.

Tottenham plays on Desso GrassMaster, which is a partial (admittedly only 3%) artificial surface. Still, if you’re in a glass house…

I think the different type of injuries is a valid issue, also according to players at RSL who played at Rice Eccles the severity and recovery was harder on the turf. I don’t believe one causes more injuries than the other, but there must be a reason why TFC chose to spend the money to go with grass, and not a single SSS in the US is turf?

I do think the bigger issue is the impact on play, and you can simply ask anyone who came to Rice Eccles to play a match if there was a difference playing on turf from grass. Even the best turf out there will be subject to the ball playing differently than it will on grass, of course the ball also plays differently on various lengths of grass, so of course it is fairly subjective.

I was a bit confused by your option 3, as concerts and other events have long taken place in stadiums with grass fields, why would installing grass at Qwest prevent concerts or other events?

The real issue is the smell of freshly cut grass on game day, there is nothing like it.

but it does play consistently. A ball played in the corner will interact with the surface more or less the same as a ball played at mid-pitch. Even a well-maintained grass field will have irregularities: low spots, divots created during play, worn grass in the mid-field and in the box. Anyway, the Seahawk and Sounder front offices are committed to it, so it’s not going anywhere.

I just can’t imagine Qwest ever permanently moving to grass at this point. Most of the people that make decisions here, I think, are pretty convinced the benefits outweigh any negatives.

The one exception I could foresee is if the World Cup comes here. In that case, I think they’ll bring in temporary grass, but it would only be for the summer of the tournament.

…are going to become more and more accepted and the traditionalists will never stop crying about it, its just the way it goes. Frankly, grass in tip-top condition will always be the superior playing surface, but keeping it in tip-top condition is actually virtually imposible, and that’s just the way it is as well. I’ve always said, i would rather play on artificial turf than a grass field in poor condition…