Posted on

Reader say, “pro teams when asked what surface they prefer to play on, choose grass”

RHSfieldflood2_theridgewood+blog

“So grass is unrealistic? We played on it for years and something upwards of 90 percent of professional players [soccer,baseball, football ] prefer grass to artificial turf. We have a bigger problem in Ridgewood. We put turf in active floodplains. It was not made for that. Environmentally it is a disaster. Financially, it is more costly to install and to maintain. It needs to be sanitized which they left out of the scenario when they decided to sell us on it. “

“Multi use is not a benefit of artificial turf. More playing time was considered the benefit. However, not in an active flood plain. It is environmentally unfriendly, needs much maintenance, is not ideal for children’s health and safety,etc. Today’s hearty grass blends that are drought and pest resistant also make it the fiscally responsible thing to do. In addition, all pro teams when asked what surface they prefer to play on, choose grass.”

9 thoughts on “Reader say, “pro teams when asked what surface they prefer to play on, choose grass”

  1. I’m with you James. Lower cost, fewer injuries – sounds like a winning combo.

  2. Multi-use is not a benefit of atificial turf? Come on, now. How so? The grass/natural turf RHS football field really was the altar of the Ridgewood school district, the Holy of Holies into which few were permitted entry, and then only for specific purposes/activities. But now, the sheer number of people and purposes/activities has expanded exponentially. Why downplay the value of this salutary change? How can you advocate a return to natural turf without admitting the steep cost of reintroducing the previous restrictions?

  3. Multi use is most definitely a huge benefit for artificial grass. I remember those fields before artificial turf. They were mud pits and unusable. Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to maintain grass fields??

  4. “pro teams when asked what surface they prefer to play on, choose grass”. Well duh!

    Unfortunately we don’t have the budget to maintain a grass field to pro standards. Additionally, most pro teams that play on grass fields don’t actually practice on that field. It’s a game day field only.

    If you have a plan for creating practice fields so we can have the luxury of only playing games on the HS grass field, I’m all ears.

  5. Suspected carcinogen…

  6. or course they “choose grass” ….. grass like at Yankee Stadium, untouched and perfectly maintained. Or maybe Augusta National for some nice real grass. Unfortunately those of us that played on the old field know it sucked and had very little grass by mid September and forget Stevens Field / mudpit or dust bowl (depending on the weather week to week).
    All of that is besides the point. The cheaper option and less cost is artificial turf. Being a cheapskate first, choose turf. The fact that it is also better to play on and used by more kids makes it a double win and easy choice.

  7. Funny – all the comments talk about the cost of turf. But no one talks about the increase in number of injuries to the HS students who use the field.

  8. I don’t believe there has been an increase in injuries. More likely a decrease in injuries from the horrible conditions of Stevens and RHS stadium fields

  9. Grass has similar but higher rate of injuries in this study.
    http://www.pacosm.com/specialtopics/Incidence,%20Causes,%20and%20Severity%20of%20HS%20Football%20Injuries%20on%20FieldTurf%20v.%20Nat.%20Grass%205%20yr.%20Study.%20%20AJSM%202004,%20vol.%2032%20p.1626.pdf

    But if they had studied Stevens field I can tell you from personal experience that the new artificial turf would have compared better. Old Stevens was like playing on a cement surface with a little dust sprinkled around.
    Go with the cheaper option; artificial field turf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.