Injuries on Turf vs Grass

[hulkrogan]

Forgive me if this has been rehashed numerous times around here, but seeing posts about keeping guys off of turf due to risk of injury had me curious if there was actual science behind this.

The following study did a meta-analysis of many of the studies already out there and found the following:


In total, the eight studies resulted in nearly 1.5 million hours of play (exposure time) and almost 10,000 injuries. Slightly less than two-thirds of the exposure time was spent on grass while more that 75% of the injuries occurred on grass. When we combined all injuries across both matches and training, we found that the risk of injury on turf was 10-14% lower that on grass. This was the case for males and females as well as youth and adults. As for specific injuries, there was a lower risk of knee, ankle and foot injuries on turf. The risk of muscle strains was similar for both surfaces.

http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com/2013/06/injury-risk-artificial-turf-vs-natural.html

Is this turf propaganda? Or is the notion that turf causes more injuries than grass outdated?

[Cashcleaner]

All the information I've seen on this topic does tend to suggest that the negative effects of playing on turf are exaggerated, and that there is no substantial increase of injuries when a modern artificial surface is involved.

That said, I do recall a study that found higher levels of bacteria and fungi on artificial turf and thus an increased risk of infection from them when exposed to open wounds. And that makes sense to me as natural grass grows and is cut regularly, meaning any blades of grass with those potentially hazardous microbes have a limited time to spread before they are removed.

But all and all, I would agree that there is likely no significant increase in injuries when playing on an artificial surface.

[Red CB Toronto]

The Reds have two games on artificial turf this season, the first and last game on their schedule, being Seattle and New England. If someone is completely health, one game on it really should not have an effect.

[JuliquE]

Many will have you believe it's all propaganda, but, the reality is, you can't move the same way you would on grass, when playing on turf. For me, the problems that do arise come from a relative lack in familiarity for some players, as far as playing competitively and at top speed on turf (read: not training); this is why I think the results of the above study might be a bit skewed.

If the sample of games on turf come from sides that play regularly on it, at top speed (not just training), then it's not a fair representation for sides that maybe train on turf, but aren't the most familiar with what it's like playing competitively on the surface. Injuries in sport are an inevitability, so it's not like, when playing on grass, they shouldn't have suffered any.

I'm just not so sure I'm ready to say suck it up and get out there, because of this.

[james]

well if we get BMO field expansion that MLSE wants, Argos will move in, and we will most likely end up with field turf. So lets hope its not true. But either way, true or not, there is a negative approach about it for players.

[JuliquE]

well if we get BMO field expansion that MLSE wants, Argos will move in, and we will most likely end up with field turf. So lets hope its not true. But either way, true or not, there is a negative approach about it for players.
This is an interesting perspective, if we assume it is propaganda, and it's just down to players, psychologically convinced of the dangers, going half-heartedly into challenges, and injuring themselves like that. Still a huge risk, though, however you slice it.

[Justin10000]

well if we get BMO field expansion that MLSE wants, Argos will move in, and we will most likely end up with field turf. So lets hope its not true. But either way, true or not, there is a negative approach about it for players.

MLSE will install hybrid turf/natural grass mix.

A lot of top-level European clubs use this mix, so don't worry about it too much.

[smtavare]

wiki for hybrid grass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desso_GrassMaster

Check out the installation site list



e.g. (can't be that bad)

Anfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfield)
Liverpool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_F.C.)
Association football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football)

[Pookie]

It would be hard for a meta analysis to be biased since it is essentially a summary of a number of other studies.

There is simply no conclusive evidence to suggest playing soccer on turf is more dangerous than playing on grass.

An important variable is the quality of the turf/grass in question.

In the end though, the turf TFC plays on is NFL quality. Good enough for billion dollar stadiums and their multimillionaire investments.

Some say that soccer players use it differently. Cutting east west while football players go north south. Obviously, these people have never been wide receivers or a defensive back (my old position). Routes are stop, starts. Posts and flags. Button hooks and generally trying not to get hit any way you can.

In the end, this argument holds no water as studies comparing soccer players to other soccer players shows no difference in injuries on either surface. Some even suggest turf is safer.

Some do suggest that the friction created on both surfaces makes the selection of footwear more critical and that you shouldn't automatically assume a grass cleat and a turf cleat are the same.

Regardless, I prefer grass. Has nothing to do with injury it is just the way I know the game. Same with golf. I would hate to see a turf golf course. It just isn't right.

We point to these injury risks as a way to try to justify our preference for grass. We don't have to justify it. It's natural and so what if we prefer grass just because. The Jays are putting in grass just because. Teams build "old time" stadiums just because. The Cowboys built the biggest one just because Texans have that reputation. No need for it to be that big. It's big just because.

So argue for it but don't take this injury fear too far and hold out players for no reason. That costs points.

[ensco]

It
So argue for it but don't take this injury fear too far and hold out players for no reason. That costs points.

We live in a world awash with data but lacking in information.

You ask any 100 professional players of any sport, and 95 will tell you they don't like how turf feels on their knees. It feels funny, not right, at game speed, and with game levels of contact (I am not talking about practicing on it.) It's not a gigantic figment of their imagination.

The only people with the incentive to do these studies are people who sell turf.

Some things are common sense. Just because something cannot be proven by a statistical analysis, does not make it a cheesy superstition.

[Pookie]

The author is a PhD and professor at Virginia Tech. It was published in the Journal of Sports Medicine, which is presumably peer reviewed.

In the scientific community, a meta analysis is about as good as it gets in terms of hiarchy of evidence (case study -> ... -> randomized control trial - > meta analysis).

He would have to disclose any industry support and I don't see any of that in this. He could be but don't see any disclosure.

[Globetrotter]

Almost every college football team plays on turf.
I remember playing all sports on asphalt and concrete growing up.
People play soccer on the beach in Brazil/Caribbean.
People play soccer on hard red soil in Africa.
Games are played in a boggy soaked up mess in rainy Britain.
Some times it's windy, sometimes you play indoors.

Suck it up and just play. It's the same sport. If you can't play on turf, get a desk job or go delivery some newspapers for a living.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Is turf safe? Could be. Does it play the same? Sure don't.

[flatpicker]

Grass smells better.

[Oldtimer]

It seems to depend on the type of injury. Some injuries seem to be aggravated or more frequent on turf.

[prizby]

look at 2012; lost Frings on turf...lost Koevermans on turf

[Phil]

look at 2012; lost Frings on turf...lost Koevermans on turf

Even bigger combining agent is they were playing football, and wearing red.

I like grass, a well kept field can be tailored to your playing style, tends to react better and is overall a better surface for ball bounces and whatnot.

I can't find anything other than our own impressions that prove turf is more damaging to an athlete. Injuries happen on turf or grass.

[Oldtimer]

Even bigger combining agent is they were playing football, and wearing red.

I like grass, a well kept field can be tailored to your playing style, tends to react better and is overall a better surface for ball bounces and whatnot.

I can't find anything other than our own impressions that prove turf is more damaging to an athlete. Injuries happen on turf or grass.

My son's own testimony as a former rep player is that apart from the injury factor turf does tend to make you more tired after a match so it takes longer to recover. For a pro player it would be more a concern if you have another match in a few days (say a midweek match). He told me that BMO's old turf was the worst he had played on.

[prizby]

Even bigger combining agent is they were playing football, and wearing red.

I like grass, a well kept field can be tailored to your playing style, tends to react better and is overall a better surface for ball bounces and whatnot.

I can't find anything other than our own impressions that prove turf is more damaging to an athlete. Injuries happen on turf or grass.

all i got to go on is that our key injuries to key players have been happening on turf; not grass

[brad]

I always felt more beat up after playing a game on turf vs grass. Noticed it more as I moved into my 30's. Other thing that sucks about turf. Slide tackling. Do you remember how no one bu Robbo would slide tackle at BMO (not that it is directly related to this topic)

[C.Ronaldo]

I always felt more beat up after playing a game on turf vs grass. Noticed it more as I moved into my 30's. Other thing that sucks about turf. Slide tackling. Do you remember how no one bu Robbo would slide tackle at BMO (not that it is directly related to this topic)

my shins hurt alot more on turf.....the smaller muscles in ankles and lower legs feel exhausted. And the turf heats up in the sun.

might be just that some people were raised on turf and the body isnt use to it.

[Pookie]

my shins hurt alot more on turf.....the smaller muscles in ankles and lower legs feel exhausted. And the turf heats up in the sun.

might be just that some people were raised on turf and the body isnt use to it.

Just asking, how many field turf venues that you and I play on around here are NFL quality?

Our local dome might as well be concrete.

[james]

wiki for hybrid grass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desso_GrassMaster

Check out the installation site list



e.g. (can't be that bad)

Anfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfield)
Liverpool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_F.C.)
Association football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football)




that is interesting. I would of never thought Anfield, i thought pretty much every team played on grass in the premiership minus maybe Wigan because I think they share with rugby team on turf. But question is would we be even using the same turf as Anfield? also Anfield does not share with the Argos, my question would be would sharing the stadium with a pointy ball team wear and tear the turf down fast? I swear no sport ruins grass like pointy ball does. And I wouldn't be surprised if the wear and tear on turf has some sort of affect.

[Auzzy]

Just asking, how many field turf venues that you and I play on around here are NFL quality?

Our local dome might as well be concrete.

Speaking of "NFL quality" -- actually you hit the nail on the head here, but not the way you wanted. I saw the quoted study a while ago, and had an immediate concern. It's clear that lots of that data was collected from youth games, community fields, all kinds of locations. It's a no-brainer that a poorly-maintained grass field can be quite dangerous, with bumps & clumps, holes, mud, or very hard dry soil, etc. That's why artificial turf is used more & more for youth & community sports, school fields etc. It makes sense as those types of fields are extremely hard to maintain in top shape if they're grass, so artificial turf can be a better choice, much more consistent. (I do worry about the heat issue though, the dust from the recycled tires & other crap commonly used as a filler, and the rug burns which can be brutal.)

Top-quality professional surfaces are in a completely different league, if you know what I mean. They really need their own study, and some of those have been attempted.

Read the concerns & caveats in the article above as well: players tend to be more tired on artificial surfaces; it likely affects the way the game is played; etc.

Another study I found on the web looked at elite European soccer leagues, and found pretty good results for artificial turf (in terms of injury risk). However, most of those fields are likely not very comparable to MLS either. The European elite artificial turf fields are not heavily shared, if it all. If it's shared with rugby, that has a very different wear pattern than gridiron. Also I don't think any of those European fields have to deal with the monster truck shows like in Seattle, where tons of dirt get dumped on the turf. Seattle's own fans complain about the awful impact such events have on their surface.

You also mentioned "NFL-quality field." That's a question itself. NFL & CFL tend to like much firmer artificial turf surfaces than soccer teams would like.


For sure it's also a matter of being used to a surface. Pro athletes often play at the limit. Small changes in environment & movement can be the difference between success and failure or injury. Someone has calculated that the artificial turf teams seem to have more of a home field advantage than the other teams do.

Finally there's Sigi Schmid, maybe I'll take his word for this: "I think we all prefer to play on natural grass." He defends CenturyLink Field Turf only as not being worse than the other artificial turf surfaces in MLS. He mentions the negative effect heavy rain can have on a grass field (but that also really depends on the quality of the grass, the substrate, and the drainage system). He mentions the no-brainer "A good turf field is not more dangerous than a bad grass field, necessarily."

Yet he practices with his team on natural grass, whenever he can.

[Carts]

The Reds have two games on artificial turf this season, the first and last game on their schedule, being Seattle and New England. If someone is completely health, one game on it really should not have an effect.

Isn't it 4 games?

May 7th & July 16th we're in Vancouver...

They have Ploytan Synthetic Turf under the white sheets...

Carts...

[tfcleeds]

Isn't it 4 games? May 7th & July 16th we're in Vancouver... They have Ploytan Synthetic Turf under the white sheets... Carts... July 16th is a home game (at least, according to the TFC website). As far as league matches go, first and last are the only ones where we play on turf.

[Carts]

July 16th is a home game (at least, according to the TFC website). As far as league matches go, first and last are the only ones where we play on turf.

It is - I pooched that one...

It'll be interesting to see if the big guns play in the CC matches at all... Let alone the turf in Vancouver...

[brad]

Just asking, how many field turf venues that you and I play on around here are NFL quality?

Our local dome might as well be concrete.

Where do BMO Field (when it was brand new) Downsview & Lamport rank - those were my experiences. Pretty sure BMO at least when it was new and not packed down was the best you could get. Think Downsview was close as well.

[Canary10]

The author is a PhD and professor at Virginia Tech. It was published in the Journal of Sports Medicine, which is presumably peer reviewed.

In the scientific community, a meta analysis is about as good as it gets in terms of hiarchy of evidence (case study -> ... -> randomized control trial - > meta analysis).

He would have to disclose any industry support and I don't see any of that in this. He could be but don't see any disclosure.

There are a lot of studies saying fake turf is worse for injuries than grass. Also some saying there is no difference. Holes can be found in all of them. It's not conclusive. I can say this, after tearing my knee on turf (after already tearing it once on grass), and looking at studies after that.

I can also say that my physiotherapist told me that he sees way more people of all ages coming in with joint related injuries playing on fake turf (particularly knee). Told me never to wear regular 13 stud boots on it - grips way too much. Turf shoes also grip too much, but better at least. That's totally anecdotal, but he has a good view of it on the ground, so to speak.

Personally, I do believe there are more severe injuries on fake turf. It's inevitable with the amount of grip you get on it. When I tore my knee, I thought I actually stepped in a small hole when I turned and tore it. When I looked at it after I realized there was no hole. The amount of grip makes it feel that way.

[Canary10]

Fake grass also leaves annoying rubber pellets all over your house and your gym bag.....

[james]

well I know this isn't the "Argos out" thread, but anyone who thinks Fake turf vs real turf is a big issue for player injuries exc, maybe we really should be pressing to not go through with this BMO field renovation, because with this renovation MLSE wants to share it with the Argos, no doubt about it, ignore what they said in the passed. We would become only the 4th team to play on Turf is that correct? we also would be the first team to go from having grass to going back to turf. We are one of the richest clubs in this league, why do we need to share it with the Argos? Houston spent over $95 million and New York and Kansas went and spent over $200 million on bran new awesome stadiums. We are looking to spend $100 -$120 million to redevelop our $70 million stadium of which didn't the city pay a lot of the money for? MLSE is just looking to make maximum profits in this stadium share but not necesarily best interest for the club players. MLSE could surely do this renovation without even sharing the stadium like most other teams have in MLS.

[ensco]

Not to beat this to death, but forget the studies. As a society we are way too hung up on these, they reveal what the designer of the study wants far more than the "truth", there usually is no scientific truth, but only common sense. Studies are wrecking society, leading to all kinds of bad outcomes in pharmacology, road safety, climate change, you name it, we're asking statistics to do things they can't/won't do.

Turf sucks. Just ask a player.

[Alonso]

The Reds have two games on artificial turf this season, the first and last game on their schedule, being Seattle and New England. If someone is completely health, one game on it really should not have an effect.

We also play in Vancouver on May 5th


NEVERMIND I see it's already been brought up

[Pookie]

Come on ensco. Peer reviewed scientific journals are a little more rigorous than 4 out of 5 dentists recommending a stick of gum.

[Voodooman]

Personally as a goalie, it is very painful playing on turf. Besides the burns you get on your legs and arms, the ground is very hard, and especially when its raining outside, makes the turf very difficult.

For sure grass >>>> turf

[brad]

Come on ensco. Peer reviewed scientific journals are a little more rigorous than 4 out of 5 dentists recommending a stick of gum.

While I do agree with this - there are also holes and biases found in these as well - despite review

[Cashcleaner]

Not to beat this to death, but forget the studies. As a society we are way too hung up on these, they reveal what the designer of the study wants far more than the "truth", there usually is no scientific truth, but only common sense. Studies are wrecking society, leading to all kinds of bad outcomes in pharmacology, road safety, climate change, you name it, we're asking statistics to do things they can't/won't do.

Turf sucks. Just ask a player.

You are way off base here, ensco. Stick to football and leave ethics in science to someone else. Researchers and scientists don't generally give a rat's ass what the outcome of a particular study is. They get paid regardless of their conclusions, and what people decide to do with their results is usually completely out of their hands.

Your remarks points to nothing more than confirmation bias on your part. You don't accept the conclusion, so you reject the methods in which it was determined.

There are fantastic arguments that can be made in opposition to the use of artificial turf for soccer - and I happen to agree with many of them. But again, this study confirms others we've seen that concludes there is no significant increase or reduction of injuries played on turf as opposed to grass. That's just how it is regardless of how you feel about it.

Turf does suck. And there is a mountain of testimony as you noted from players who don't like playing on it for a number of reasons. However, that does not negate the conclusions of this and other studies which suggest that despite the disadvantages of playing on it, it's still not inherently unsafe relative to natural grass surfaces.

[ensco]

Come on ensco. Peer reviewed scientific journals are a little more rigorous than 4 out of 5 dentists recommending a stick of gum.

Sorry. You are wrong. I have learned this lesson the hard way. Peer review is actually especially useless.

The fact that statistics have many good uses does not mean that they are inherently useful, or the right tool to use.

Einstein said it a hundred years ago: Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

[Canary10]

There are studies showing far greater incidence of serious ACL injuries on turf. How do you square that Pookie?

[ensco]

You are way off base here, ensco. Stick to football and leave ethics in science to someone else. Researchers and scientists don't generally give a rat's ass what the outcome of a particualr study is. They get paid regardless of their conclusions, and what people decide to do with their results is usually completely out of their hands.

Your remarks points to nothing more than confirmation bias on your part. You don't accept the conclusion, so you reject the methods in which it was determined.

There are fantastic arguments that can be made in opposition to the use of artificial turf for soccer - and I happen to agree with many of them. But again, this study confirms others we've seen that concludes there is no significant increase or reduction of injuries played on turf as opposed to grass. That's just how it is regardless of how you feel about it.

What kind of post is this? Who is off base here? What do you actually know about researchers and scientists? What do you know about what I know about researchers and scientists? Who are you to say what my reasons are for believing what I believe?

Oh but I don't understand that "it's just how it is".

This is an offensive post. But I would suggest you are making my point for me. There is an appeal to some kind of certainty that just isn't there, and intimidating anyone who disagrees.

[Cashcleaner]

^ Well then, feel free to be offended. And, I guess intimidated.

[ensco]

Not intimidated in the slightest. It's not my first experience with bullying.

[james]

Does anyone know since Seattle and Vancouver joined the league have any players complained about the turf or even not signed for them based on that they did not want to play on turf? I wonder. I would hate if we were to get turf and then have big name players that might question playing for us based on turf. But if players didn't care, I wouldn't care if we played on turf and got a bran new looking stadium out of it. But if players hate it, don't want to join the team based on turf and if it caused more injuries to players that could hurt us missing players through out the season, then I would never want turf and never want to share it with the Argos.

[flatpicker]

Look... what are we so concerned about?
We aren't getting turf (like the days of BMO past).
We will get the same stuff that big clubs around the world get.
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

[tfcocd]

Look... what are we so concerned about?
We aren't getting turf (like the days of BMO past).
We will get the same stuff that big clubs around the world get.
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

In general if the pitch is plastic the game seems to suffer. The ability to work on the surface when it is grass seems to allow for a better consistency and performance. If our pitch is the equivalent of hybrid pitches apparently in use at emirates or anfield then I don't think I have a concern. Can those surfaces hold up to pointy ball? No idea?

There must have been good reasons that real Madrid demanded a temporary grass pitch over the plastic few years back?

[tiberius]

The author is a PhD and professor at Virginia Tech. It was published in the Journal of Sports Medicine, which is presumably peer reviewed.

In the scientific community, a meta analysis is about as good as it gets in terms of hiarchy of evidence (case study -> ... -> randomized control trial - > meta analysis).

He would have to disclose any industry support and I don't see any of that in this. He could be but don't see any disclosure.

WOW - is this is supposed to impress us or somehow convince us about the accuracy of the findings?? Uh, No. If you worked in the research field you would know how flakey the "research industry" is. Corporate or University, finding "no difference" is the same as saying "our research was completely useless" for any number of reasons - bad data, poor research design, difficulties in measurement, complexity of the problem, incompetence in the researcher (ooo this is big!!), and the list goes on... No need to even look at the possibility of researcher bias... Why did it take many, untold decades to find "research evidence" that smoking would kill you big time? You don't think PhD's were working on that research? Controlled studies? Peer review? Just because they could not prove a difference didn't mean the cigarettes didn't kill you just as quick!

Ensco is right - use your common sense, use your eyes - use your experience if you have played on turf. Ask Koevs. Ask Brennan about his "turf toe". Ask Ronnie O'Brien... These are injuries that just would not have happened on grass. What injuries on grass can you point to, that would have been prevented if they were playing on turf??? There is probably a grass injury out there that fits the bill, but I don't know what it could be...

The first rule of science is that you cannot prove a negative - research that can't find a difference in injury rates between the two surfaces does not, in any way, support or prove that grass is not the safer surface.

That being said - I am not too worried about the new "grass" that Tim is talking about putting in. I think the new stuff is almost assuredly safer then the old crap that we use to play on, or the stuff that used to grace BMO field...

[tiberius]

You are way off base here, ensco. Stick to football and leave ethics in science to someone else. Researchers and scientists don't generally give a rat's ass what the outcome of a particular study is. They get paid regardless of their conclusions, and what people decide to do with their results is usually completely out of their hands.

Your remarks points to nothing more than confirmation bias on your part. You don't accept the conclusion, so you reject the methods in which it was determined.

There are fantastic arguments that can be made in opposition to the use of artificial turf for soccer - and I happen to agree with many of them. But again, this study confirms others we've seen that concludes there is no significant increase or reduction of injuries played on turf as opposed to grass. That's just how it is regardless of how you feel about it.

Turf does suck. And there is a mountain of testimony as you noted from players who don't like playing on it for a number of reasons. However, that does not negate the conclusions of this and other studies which suggest that despite the disadvantages of playing on it, it's still not inherently unsafe relative to natural grass surfaces.

I have been involved in research for a long time - about all I can say is that the your comments above are almost complete bunk. Research cannot prove a negative - research that can't find a difference in injury rates between the two surfaces does not, in any way, support or prove that grass is not the safer surface. Ensco is bang on, you are putting way to much credence in "supposed research". The funny part of all this is that you conclude that turf does suck g:D

[Ivy]

:leaving:

[Cashcleaner]

I have been involved in research for close to 35 years - about all I can say is that the your comments above are almost complete bunk. Research cannot prove a negative - research that can't find a difference in injury rates between the two surfaces does not, in any way, support or prove that grass is not the safer surface. Ensco is bang on, you are putting way to much credence in "supposed research".

To be honest I find it somewhat odd that you say you've been involved in research yourself but don't seem to mind when your ethics are put into doubt, and even denigrate your profession as well.

Anyway, the aim of the study was to determine if there was an increase in injuries suffered by athletes who played on artificial turf over those that played on grass. The study observed eight separate cases with a total of roughly 1.5 million hours of exposure time and found that there is no increase in risk. It's pretty cut and dry if you ask me. And it's been concluded elsewhere as well. Here's two other papers on the subject I was able to quickly find online:

British Journal of Sports Medicine (http://bjsportmed.com/content/40/12/975.full)

Sports Medicine Journal (http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/11593190-000000000-00000)

I believe you are making an assumption that the researchers are wanting to prove a particular hypothesis, but that does not seem to be the case. Does playing on artificial surfaces contribute to an increase in injuries? Well, the data suggest that the numbers from observations are pretty even, so no, not likely.

Understand that in the past, artificial surfaces were indeed pilloried for causing more injuries that natural ones. I believe in some instances injured players and their unions even went to court over the matter. But this study and the others above were conducted with newer third and fourth generation surfaces versus grass and again, the results all seem to indicate no real change in the number of injuries.


The funny part of all this is that you conclude that turf does suck g:D

Absolutely. It does. Ball control and spin are affected. And because most players are used to traditional grass pitches, there is a period of adaptation to it. I don't like turf. I also don't believe it results in any significant increase in injuries because there's no evidence to suggest it's significantly better or worse. Though as I mentioned earlier, there does appear to be a somewhat larger risk of infection from abrasions suffered on turf.

[Cashcleaner]

Look... what are we so concerned about?
We aren't getting turf (like the days of BMO past).
We will get the same stuff that big clubs around the world get.
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

For me, turf is the point of no return for the club and stadium. The minute MLSE installs an artificial or hybrid surface is the minute that BMO Field stops becoming the home of Toronto FC. It is the act that seals the deal with the Argos and Maple Leafs and makes us really just one tenant out of three. For the club, it's one big step backward and I'm equally angered and disappointed by that fact. We all know the decisions regarding all this have pretty much been made, but when they start ripping out that grass and laying down the new pitch - I think that's when the realization is gonna hit most of us.

I'm not particularly worried over the pitch itself, I'm worried about the implications of the change.

[Pookie]

There are studies showing far greater incidence of serious ACL injuries on turf. How do you square that Pookie?

Which studies, when were they published, what variables did they control for, etc?

I am not a proponent of turf. As a father with kids playing this game on turf more and more, I am certainly very interested in the answer to the safety question.

As it stands now, there is conflicting evidence. There is anedotal experience, opinions and preference. No scientific evidence of direct causation and increased risk.

Therefore, I don't agree with holding players out of a game because of an unfounded fear.

As I stated awhile back, I prefer grass. I think they should keep it. I think players prefer it. It looks better. I think they should stop watering it on game days when it is raining but that's another question.

I do think though that in the end this new stadium will have some variety of turf. Be it a 90:10 turf:grass mix or something heavily weighed towards turf.

In the end, it probably won't be more dangerous.

[tiberius]

...
Anyway, the aim of the study was to determine if there was an increase in injuries suffered by athletes who played on artificial turf over those that played on grass. The study observed eight separate cases with a total of roughly 1.5 million hours of exposure time and found that there is no increase in risk. It's pretty cut and dry if you ask me. And it's been concluded elsewhere as well. Here's two other papers on the subject I was able to quickly find online:

British Journal of Sports Medicine

...



I am hesitant to respond because I have a funny feeling this topic has been flogged to death in past years, and I just didn't read the threads. That being said,
you made a comment regarding my ethics, so here goes...:)


You don't have to dig very far into the first research abstract you cite, to
prove my point and disprove yours...

A few quick quotes from the author of your hand picked article...

"The relationship between artificial surfaces and a greater risk of
injury, however, is poorly documented because the few studies reported
have been small with methodological limitations."

"Comparison of injury incidences between surfaces for specific injury
sub-groups is restricted by small numbers, and we must consider the
possibility of type II error resulting from limited data"

"Wounds, burns and friction injuries have been reported to be more common
on artificial turf.1,2,16 Injuries that did not result in absence from full
training or matches were not included in this study, and we may therefore
have underestimated this problem."

"The injury risk on third-generation artificial turf is not known."

and finally: "the tendency was that fewer severe injuries occurred on grass in training"

- this is your selected article, not mine...


A few observations, after reviewing your hand picked article:

The research did not, or could not address some critical factors that may come into play
in researching and understanding the relationship between injury and playing surface. Things
like:

- how many hours/years a player has played on turf - was not examined or controlled for
- perhaps if you grew up playing on turf you have less likelihood of injury
- perhaps the more "miles" you put on turf, the more likely you are to be injured
- perhaps the less experience you have on turf the more likely you are to get injured

- Age of player was not examined or controlled for
- perhaps the older you are the more likely to be susceptible to a turf injury, compared to grass
- for any number of reasons, a young player may be more protected from a "turf" injury

- the role of the player - was not examined or controlled for
- perhaps turf does not affect defenders as much as it affect strikers. They have different
movement patterns, kicking patterns, collision patterns and sometimes different body makeups
- could strikers physiology be different and thus somehow make them more vulnerable to a turf injury?

- differences in climate, precipitation, pitch protection, condition and quality of the pitch, pitch drainage
was not examined or controlled for

- possible differences in training regiment, length of season, number of games - all not examined and
not accounted for, or controlled for

- past injury and medical history of players was not examined, not accounted for and not controlled for...

- age of the artificial turf was not examined, not accounted for and not controlled for...
The research was done all on brand new turf installations. There could be a hell of
a difference in injury rates, when that turf has aged 3-4 years...

- were there data reporting problems? This is very common. This can bias results - the author does
mention, by-the-by that they took measures to "increase the reliability of the records" ... hmmm Tell
us more about the language problems they encountered in trying to get consistent reporting

- bias in the turf team samples - players opted out of the study. How many? How old were they? What was
their past injury history? Were they injured at the time they refused to participate? There appears to be
be no examination of the refusers to determine if this caused sample bias, that in turn, might skew the research findings

- 4 ot of 14 teams dropped out of the study - potential for biasing results...

- Power analysis - the author does not appear to have done a power analysis to determine the sample size required to
detect the nuances in injury patterns he is looking for. His sample sizes are completely inadequate
once a few factors/variables are controlled for... Only a couple hundred people in each of his two samples... He
acknowledges in writing that he cannot even do a comparison of injury incidences between sub-groups (as he had planned to do in
his initial research design) because he is restricted by the small number of subjects in his research study...


Please note: I am not saying you selected a bad article/abstract. This is typical research. Designing and executing good
research that gets to the bottom of complex issues such as "turf effect" can be extremely challenging, if not impossible to do. When
researchesr sum it up by saying they "could find no difference", they are not saying "there is no difference". They are saying that
the difference could easily be there, they just could not find it, because of factors like those that I cited above.

Finally: for you to say that the research is cut and dried is misleading, and completely untrue. The article you quoted
proves this.

/end crazy research rant

Turf injury opinions aside, you and I are in sync that it will be a sad day if/when hybrid grass is installed. The end of an era. I can
think of no positives for Toronto FC directly related to this.

[Graeme]

<amazing clinical research comments snipped>

Finally: for you to say that the research is cut and dried is misleading, and completely untrue. The article you quoted
proves this.

/end crazy research rant

I work in research and it is impossible to describe quite how much science reporting drives me insane. I wish media had people who understand science and grasped that just regurgitating an abstract is not sufficient. Some studies are better than others and many are biased junk.

Thank you for your comment and I wish you were a science reporter, but those jobs were canned long ago.

[ensco]

^Tiberius has a great discussion above about the complexity here.

That is twice Cashcleaner has made offensive comments about the ethics/intentions of posters. I hope somebody is policing that.

There are so many vested interests. This is such a monstrously huge industry in university, government and the media. Even if an individual's motives are pure (which they often are), there isn't honesty about the limits of what can be accomplished (because no one gets funding for that) and access to data drives behaviours. Plus let's not kid ourselves - motives quite regularly aren't pure - researchers are compensated, often indirectly, by participants with agendas.

Attempts to discuss methodology usually get met pretty quickly with bullying and religious ridicule (see earlier in this thread).

Very few things in life lend themselves to regression, the questions being asked are mostly too complex for the methodology.

I swear that in 200 years, they will be describing us as a bizarre cult of worshippers of regression analysis.

[ManUtd4ever]

Not to beat this to death, but forget the studies. As a society we are way too hung up on these, they reveal what the designer of the study wants far more than the "truth", there usually is no scientific truth, but only common sense. Studies are wrecking society, leading to all kinds of bad outcomes in pharmacology, road safety, climate change, you name it, we're asking statistics to do things they can't/won't do.

Turf sucks. Just ask a player.


Personally as a goalie, it is very painful playing on turf. Besides the burns you get on your legs and arms, the ground is very hard, and especially when its raining outside, makes the turf very difficult.

For sure grass >>>> turf

Agreed.

As a goalkeeper myself, I've also played in indoor leagues on turf and there's absolutely no comparison. While I don't necessarily doubt the authenticity of the studies referenced in this thread, I think the conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt because of the reasons mentioned by Ensco. Let's not pretend that there aren't vested interests at play.

Perhaps the modern incarnations of artificial turf have improved substantially over the years, but there is absolutely no substitute for the real thing, and we witnessed it first hand here in Toronto.

[molenshtain]

^Tiberius has a great discussion above about the complexity here.

That is twice Cashcleaner has made offensive comments about the ethics/intentions of posters. I hope somebody is policing that.

There are so many vested interests. This is such a monstrously huge industry in university, government and the media. Even if an individual's motives are pure (which they often are), there isn't honesty about the limits of what can be accomplished (because no one gets funding for that) and access to data drives behaviours. Plus let's not kid ourselves - motives quite regularly aren't pure - researchers are compensated, often indirectly, by participants with agendas.

Attempts to discuss methodology usually get met pretty quickly with bullying and religious ridicule (see earlier in this thread).

Very few things in life lend themselves to regression, the questions being asked are mostly too complex for the methodology.

I swear that in 200 years, they will be describing us as a bizarre cult of worshippers of regression analysis.

gotta disagree with you there. The whole point of research studies performed in public institutions such as universities and governemnt research programs/labs is to eliminate the possibility of outside influence. Now, lot's of private research is very manipulative, but lot's of it is actually very helpful too. I'm not sure how you think we should advance as a society and make bigger and better things and discover new things with out scientific studies and research. for instance, lot's of my family worked or have worked in both public and private research settings, mostly researching different things revolving around education and agriculture, and let me tell you neither of them ever had an inkling of being forced to show their research in a manner they thought wasn't faithful to the facts. because nobody ever asked them to because nobody really cared.

I get where your going with this study. people are trying to sell something so the people who created the product are releasing studies suggesting it's a good product. wow! sucha a novel concept. does that mean all studies done everywhere by everybody are doing the same thing? absolutely not.

you seem to be making out that the massive majority of research is corrupt and that most people who do research are being bought off by external sources with motives behind the research. Let me tell you that 99% of research done worldwide is of complete un-importance to private sources. Sure, some industries have serious issues (as you mentioned the pharmaceutical industry is about as fucked up as can be). But most research done is completely useless to the public and is not tainted for that reason so to suggest that the idea of research studies as a whole are useless is a little bit, I don't know, fucked up don't you think? where exactly did you get this idea that research is a bad thing?

"studies are wrecking society". really? come on, man.

I never thought I'd have to defend scientific research.

[Cashcleaner]

I am hesitant to respond because I have a funny feeling this topic has been flogged to death in past years, and I just didn't read the threads. That being said, you made a comment regarding my ethics, so here goes...:)

Yes. I was defending them.

Tiberius, you put together a great argument. At the end of the day, there is indeed a lot of missing data from all the studies. And it's likely impossible to take it all variables into account in any reasonable fashion, which is why there is no overwhelming certitude in the findings nor in my own position. All I can say is; "here's the observations and findings, and the conclusions suggest this". Personally, if we could get a report which deals exclusively with injury occurrences on MLS grass and turf pitches only, that would be more pertinent to us.

[ensco]

I never thought I'd have to defend scientific research.

I have been involved in all kinds of scientific research for 25 years. It's a big part of what I do for a living.

You are conflating regression analysis and scientific research. Regression analysis is not "scientific research".

It is a tool, a really small part of scientific research, and it's often misused. Or more precisely, misrepresented. Because if people understood statistics, they wouldn't allow government grants to pay for the studies that purport to solve problems, but are actually a waste of time.

I think your view that "99% of research done worldwide is of complete un-importance to private sources" is pretty hard to defend. I'd put that number at 10% myself.

[Alonso]

gotta disagree with you there. The whole point of research studies performed in public institutions such as universities and governemnt research programs/labs is to eliminate the possibility of outside influence. Now, lot's of private research is very manipulative, but lot's of it is actually very helpful too. I'm not sure how you think we should advance as a society and make bigger and better things and discover new things with out scientific studies and research. for instance, lot's of my family worked or have worked in both public and private research settings, mostly researching different things revolving around education and agriculture, and let me tell you neither of them ever had an inkling of being forced to show their research in a manner they thought wasn't faithful to the facts. because nobody ever asked them to because nobody really cared.

I get where your going with this study. people are trying to sell something so the people who created the product are releasing studies suggesting it's a good product. wow! sucha a novel concept. does that mean all studies done everywhere by everybody are doing the same thing? absolutely not.

you seem to be making out that the massive majority of research is corrupt and that most people who do research are being bought off by external sources with motives behind the research. Let me tell you that 99% of research done worldwide is of complete un-importance to private sources. Sure, some industries have serious issues (as you mentioned the pharmaceutical industry is about as fucked up as can be). But most research done is completely useless to the public and is not tainted for that reason so to suggest that the idea of research studies as a whole are useless is a little bit, I don't know, fucked up don't you think? where exactly did you get this idea that research is a bad thing?

"studies are wrecking society". really? come on, man.

I never thought I'd have to defend scientific research.

I think maybe Ensco is touching on a good point though.

We have entered an era of information glut with no gatekeepers to weed out the nonsense and no one willing, or increasingly, capable of doing it for themselves.

Great book here on this subject that my sister shared with me from one of her university courses:http://www.amazon.ca/Technopoly-The-Surrender-Culture-Technology/dp/0679745408

I thought it was a great read.

[molenshtain]

I have been involved in all kinds of scientific research for 25 years. It's a big part of what I do for a living.

You are conflating regression analysis and scientific research. Regression analysis is not "scientific research".

It is a tool, a really small part of scientific research, and it's often misused. Or more precisely, misrepresented. Because if people understood statistics, they wouldn't allow government grants to pay for the studies that purport to solve problems, but are actually a waste of time.

I think your view that "99% of research done worldwide is of complete un-importance to private sources" is pretty hard to defend. I'd put that number at 10% myself.

I agree with you that regression analysis is a tricky thing specifically because the whole point is your trying to prove a point based on variables. and sure, I'll accept that maybe I was a bit hyperbolic on the 99% claim (thought I'll still argue it's closer to 99% than it is to 10%). I also should be more clear in saying, It's not that I don't think most research done is of irrelevance to the public but just that most of it is not used in a way that affects the public, and are in fact normally thrown to the side as the researchers get on with their next project and the study becomes a footnote in history.

I think the real problem you have is not with the people doing research at all, but the people who find the research and use it out of context to prove a point. Now that is something I definitely agree with you is a problem when it's done. but the only resolution to that is just to be more informed on the topic than the other person, don't let them try to bullshit you that way.

[ensco]

I think maybe Ensco is touching on a good point though.

We have entered an era of information glut with no gatekeepers to weed out the nonsense and no one willing, or increasingly, capable of doing it for themselves.

Great book here on this subject that my sister shared with me from one of her university courses:http://www.amazon.ca/Technopoly-The-Surrender-Culture-Technology/dp/0679745408

I thought it was a great read.

Alonso, nice! I am busted. Postman is absolutely the writer who got my thinking about this stuff (I'm talking 20 years ago)

That book is an absolute must read.

[tiberius]

...
There is simply no conclusive evidence to suggest playing soccer on turf is more dangerous than playing on grass.
....
So argue for it but don't take this injury fear too far and hold out players for no reason. That costs points.

Here's the thing Pookie - we both agree there is no conclusive evidence (that is because it is almost impossible to design a proper study without spending tens of millions of dollars), however, if there is a 10% or 20% chance that turf will take out our DPs, why take the chance? We have Hard, hard evidence on our own team, with our own eyes of key players going down with turf related injuries. Why take these risks with our 3 DPs and Dero etc. if we don't have to? Why? FOR the EFFING ARGOs is WHY. Is that a good reason? I think not. Is this making a mountain out of a mole hill? I think not. I THINK IT IS A BLOODY BIG DEAL!!

Tim and TIM are gambling with our players, our team and the club's future. Why? Probably a combination of reasons:
- they may be making the mistake of interpreting "no conclusive evidence" as meaning it is safe to expose your DPs to turf in game situations on a regular basis
- there is pressure to make money across all enterprises and the Argos could help that situation (maybe)
- from a pure soccer perspective you need a filled 30K stadium to pay for a $100 Million in DPs, that produces a winning team
- to fill a 30K stadium, you may need a roof, and a roof makes real grass harder and more expensive to grow and maintain

I really hope TIM and Tim truly understand the risks to the players and have factored this in to their thinking- Our DPs and best players are likely to fall because of the turf. Do they really have to take this risk? I hope they are not working from the position that turf is safe - if they are, their calculations are all wrong - they need to start over by assuming they will loose Bradley or Defoe because of the turf. Does their business case still fly with that factored in? It may - I can't crawl inside TIM's head...

Lastly - Handball Henri is no headcase - he has seen tons of turf injuries first hand, a real student of the game - he refuses to play on turf because it is in his best business interest not too. He knows that turf is more dangerous. I would probably make that same business decision if I was in his shoes - you would too - I bet TIM L. would too. It is funny how people's behaviors sometimes change when they are gambling with their own money.... Unfortunately most soccer players don't have the luxury of avoiding the risks by refusing to play on a more dangerous field type.

[Pookie]

^ assuming there is a 10-20% increased risk (and I don't think there is) you'd have to apply that same logic for a variety of factors.

Eg. Playing in the cold could increase chances of muscle injuries. Playing against a team with a reputation for playing recklessly. Playing in extreme heat. Playing in altitude. Playing in the rain. Etc etc.

The "hard evidence" on our team also suggests that injuries happen more frequently to guys over 30. That may be more of a factor. And continually signing guys over 30 means we are likely to see more injuries.

Think of all the preseason knocks. Did they occur on grass or turf?

[ManUtd4ever]

We only have 5 players over 30 though, and one of them is our keeper...Defoe, DeRo, Caldwell, Orr, and Cesar.

We actually have a fairly young team overall.

[tiberius]

We only have 5 players over 30 though, and one of them is our keeper...Defoe, DeRo, Caldwell, Orr, and Cesar.

We actually have a fairly young team overall.

Agreed - over the course of a couple of seasons tho, I do wonder what the chances are that we miight see one of our dps or a player of deros caliber go down with a serious turf related injury. I do think 10% chance is not that far off...

[james]

For me, turf is the point of no return for the club and stadium. The minute MLSE installs an artificial or hybrid surface is the minute that BMO Field stops becoming the home of Toronto FC. It is the act that seals the deal with the Argos and Maple Leafs and makes us really just one tenant out of three. For the club, it's one big step backward and I'm equally angered and disappointed by that fact. We all know the decisions regarding all this have pretty much been made, but when they start ripping out that grass and laying down the new pitch - I think that's when the realization is gonna hit most of us.

I'm not particularly worried over the pitch itself, I'm worried about the implications of the change.


I agree, and I do believe MLSE made this decision over a year ago. I did mention that I knew someone who was in construction and they mentioned that they already had plans drawn up about the renovations with the Argos, but anyways I had so many people in here message me as if I was a lie and I had no proof and I couldn't show evidence so there for I am making it up and blah blah, anyways not getting into that again. But yes I think once that grass gets ripped up we will start to notice we are just another tenant. But if the turf is as good as Anfield or Emirates I don't think any of us would complain. Question is will the turf be as good as that? will the turf beable to hold up after the Argos play a few games on the turf? its the wear and tear that would make worry, can it really take a beating like that?

[namebutler]

The one issue with the study is the level of play. At the top, top level on a perfect, only game day grass field, grass field would win.

But at the lower level grass field which are being used and abused by all types of users, grass likely loses. There are so many bad spots on multiuse grass fields. If they included these types of fields in the study thats why turf would win.

The turf at the new Monarch Park stadium is awesome on my old knees. But once you hit the turf scraps are almost automatic.

[Alonso]

Alonso, nice! I am busted. Postman is absolutely the writer who got my thinking about this stuff (I'm talking 20 years ago)

That book is an absolute must read.


It totally blew my mind.

One of the few books that I reread every few years.

Not overly technical but opens the doors to many thoughts I hadn't considered.

A book for the layman, if you will.

EDIT: this book (Technopoly) turned me on to Marshall McLuhan's: The Medium is the Message

I couldn't get through this book though, way too abstract. But apparently the guy is a genius so I don't know if it's half gibberish or if I'm half retarded.

Probably a bit of both. I should make one final attempt at it, after ten years maybe some of it will sink in.

[hulkrogan]

Great discussion.

I've never played any sport on artificial turf before, so its interesting reading some first hand accounts. I did step foot on the first generation astroturf they put in McMahon stadium years and years ago, and could tell it was horrible without even taking a jog on it. It was basically indoor/outdoor carpet over asphalt.

Injuries aside, grass has some fairly universally agreed upon advantages.

-players prefer it
-it looks way better (Seattle's turf just looked awful on TV)

The first being the most important. If players are at all more likely to sign somewhere with grass, you need to consider that when installing it in a professional sporting facility.