Leveling the Playing Field: A Look Into Issues and Controversies With Synthetic Grass Fields
19 seasons and 231 games later, the only defender standing in between Aaron Rodgers and a fresh start with the New York Jets is a 120 yard “grass” field. Only four snaps into the season, the fifth was Aaron Rodgers achilles making his new drive with the Jets a short one.
MetLife Stadium, home to the New York Jets and Giants, and home to ending players seasons is ranked one of the worst fields to play on. The complaints about the stadium were so negative that they were pushed to change their field to a newer and improved synthetic surface.
The possible season-ending injury for Aaron Rodgers occurred during their season opener game at MetLife Stadium against the Buffalo Bills. The disheartening news of Rodgers injury put into question previous concerns regarding the safety of players when on turf vs. synthetic fields.
Some may say that the type of field does not contribute to the number of non-contact injuries but others are determined to have the NFL place a ban on teams using synthetic fields. Stadiums like MetLife and 14 others using turf beg the question: does changing the field to better a synthetic surface aid in lowering player injuries or does it further prove that regardless of the turf being “top tier,” it is still unsafe for players to play on?
To measure the hardness of a field, the NFLPA (National Football League Players Association) uses the “Clegg” Test. In order for a field to pass this test it must be below 100g (units per gravities), the max for the meter 150g.
You might be thinking that surely a team has never gotten to the 150g range. Unfortunately, for the Carolina Panthers sake, they have. Last year on Christmas Eve the Panthers received an early Christmas gift from the NFLPA. After testing the hardness of the field, the “Clegg Test” showed it was at the max 150g, making it was too hard to play on.
Players reached out to the NFLPA expressing their concerns with the conditions of the field, some describing it feeling like concrete. NFLPA reported their test scores to the NFL and instead of delaying the game for player safety, the NFL green-lit the game and the scheduled kick off time.
It wasn't until late in the first half that the NFLPA was informed that the field finally tested below 100g. This poses the question: did the NFL knowingly put the safety of their players at risk having them play on failed field tests or did the conditions actually get better before the game? The supposed negligence of the NFL added to the NFLPA argument that the safety of the players is not being prioritized in regards to the condition of the playing surfaces.
There are two sides to every argument. In this case, the NFL argues that the surface of the field does not contribute to any non-contact injuries players may face. On the other side, the NFLPA argues the latter, believing that it does play a role. With each standpoint, lies pros and cons that justify both stances.
Pros to having synthetic VS. natural grass fields
Turf/Synthetic Fields
Easier to maintain because it doesn't need to be watered and tended to as frequently
Water conservation
More revenue over the course of time is generated for those in control of the stadiums
Doesn't require treatment with pesticides and fertilizers
Natural Grass Fields
Water conservation (if the proper irrigation practices are followed)
Improved atmospheric conditions
Overall increase in human health (mentally and physically)
Enhanced entrapment and biodegradation of compounds (blood, vomit and saliva).
Cons to having synthetic and natural grass fields
The NFLPA’s driving argument for why the NFL needs to ban synthetic fields is the number of non-contact injuries it's causing. Outside of 2020, 10 of the 11 years in the below data shows that the number of non-contact injuries taken place on a synthetic field are greater than the amount on a natural playing surface.
Source: NFLPA
The players of the league are in agreement with the NFLPA and the need to ban synthetic playing surfaces. Travis Kelce, tight end for the 2023 Super Bowl champs, the Kansas City Chiefs, spoke on his podcast, New Heights, about his stance on playing on synthetic fields. He agrees that there needs to be a ban in place because it is unsafe for players.
On the contrary, Super bowl LVII was deemed the worst game played on a natural grass surface. George Toma, ex-NFL groundskeeper nicknamed the “Sodfather,” told Sporting News, “him and the league are finished” after seeing the biggest stage in the NFL treated with such terrible care. The field was over watered and not given enough time to dry, causing the conditions of it to rot.
A game many athletes dream of making it to in their career was a slipping fest. Jake Elliot, kicker for the Philadelphia Eagles, slipped on a kickoff, almost causing him an ankle injury.
Hasson Reddick, Eagles defensive end, said "I'm not going to lie, it's the worst field I ever played on." With the cost of the field at $750,000 and the high stakes of the game, the overall conditions of the field was unacceptable.
A day before Aaron Rodegrs tore his achilles, J.K. Dobbins, running back for the Baltimore Ravens, also tore his achilles playing on the Ravens’ natural grass field. With the same injury happening back to back, one on a synthetic turf field and the other on a natural grass field, the question then becomes whether the specific surface of the field is causing injuries. Or is it just the overall conditions of each field that need to be looked at and monitored?
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below!