Fieldturf Becoming Successful Ground For RSL

Deuce · 07-31-2005, 02:59 PM

On June 4, RealSaltLake and the Utah soccer community hosted the biggest international event to hit the BeehiveState since the 2002 Winter Olympics when the United States Men’s National Team defeated Costa Rica 3-0 in front of 40,589 fans in a World Cup Qualifier. RSL laid 93,000 square feet of natural grass sod in Rice-Eccles Stadium in preparation for the June 4 World Cup soccer qualifier between the United States and Costa Rica with an installation and maintenance cost of $130,000.

With the exception of two home games played on grass within seven days of the World Cup Qualifier, RSL has played nine games on the Rice-Eccles FieldTurf during its inaugural season, boasting a home record of 4-0-3 and earning 15 of its 16 total points. The lone remaining point earned also came on turf this season, as Real Salt Lake’s single road point came at Giants Stadium in the team’s April 2 inaugural game. Turf is a popular choice for Real, but is apparently becoming an increasingly popular choice for UEFA and FIFA, as UEFA recently approved the use of artificial turf for the Champions League, UEFA Cup and Inter Toto Cup for the 2005/06 season. UEFA’s adoption of artificial turf will not include the 2006 World Cup in Germany as the decision was made after the competition regulations for the finals were written. Despite this, a number of qualifying matches have been played on artificial turf, including San Jose in Costa Rica, where FieldTurf again laid the pitch. FIFA is hoping that more surfaces will be laid after UEFA agreed on March 1, 2005 to adopt the world body’s quality mark for artificial turf.

Blondie · 07-31-2005, 06:46 PM

Hi Deuce,

The primary reason that grass is preferred over field turf is injuries.

Fielf turf looks good. Field turf works for American football, where the players wear helmets, shoulder pads, hip pads, knee pads, and who knows what else.

When soccer players go up and come down on covered up concrete or asphalt, the players get hurt. Look at our team and all of the injuries sustained.

Also, I know that you go to practices. That turf heats up. The players not only have to combat the heat of the day, they have to withstand the additional of heat that rises from that surface.

The difference is shockingly different with grass. It and the dirt surface below, is cool as well as forgiving. If we value our players, we should fight for grass. That is how we best can protect our player's health and ability to represent us.

I heard just yesterday on TV, that in Europe, they sometimes water down the field in advance of a game. Damp, cool, slippery and forgiving. It is not just tradition, it is what is best for the sport and the athletes.

Deuce · 07-31-2005, 06:53 PM

Oh believe me i want grass.
I just posted an article from a press release. I can't wait til we get grass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blondie

Hi Deuce,

The primary reason that grass is preferred over field turf is injuries.

Fielf turf looks good. Field turf works for American football, where the players wear helmets, shoulder pads, hip pads, knee pads, and who knows what else.

When soccer players go up and come down on covered up concrete or asphalt, the players get hurt. Look at our team and all of the injuries sustained.

Also, I know that you go to practices. That turf heats up. The players not only have to combat the heat of the day, they have to withstand the additional of heat that rises from that surface.

The difference is shockingly different with grass. It and the dirt surface below, is cool as well as forgiving. If we value our players, we should fight for grass. That is how we best can protect our player's health and ability to represent us.

I heard just yesterday on TV, that in Europe, they sometimes water down the field in advance of a game. Damp, cool, slippery and forgiving. It is not just tradition, it is what is best for the sport and the athletes.

Aerick · 07-31-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blondie

Hi Deuce,

The primary reason that grass is preferred over field turf is injuries.

Fielf turf looks good. Field turf works for American football, where the players wear helmets, shoulder pads, hip pads, knee pads, and who knows what else.

When soccer players go up and come down on covered up concrete or asphalt, the players get hurt. Look at our team and all of the injuries sustained.

Also, I know that you go to practices. That turf heats up. The players not only have to combat the heat of the day, they have to withstand the additional of heat that rises from that surface.

The difference is shockingly different with grass. It and the dirt surface below, is cool as well as forgiving. If we value our players, we should fight for grass. That is how we best can protect our player's health and ability to represent us.

I heard just yesterday on TV, that in Europe, they sometimes water down the field in advance of a game. Damp, cool, slippery and forgiving. It is not just tradition, it is what is best for the sport and the athletes.

If it's so dangerous to the health of the players, then why would UEFA and FIFA be pushing it?

Stucki · 07-31-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

If it's so dangerous to the health of the players, then why would UEFA and FIFA be pushing it?

The new field turf is much better than previous alternatives, but the harder surface is worse on the players than grass as well as the heat conducting properties of the turf make life difficult. With the new stuff, I would say the heat is the worst part.

FIFA is probably pushing the field turf because it is much more cost effective than grass, which is why you see local high schools starting to use it.

All in all, grass is a better alternative for the players, but turf may be more responsible fiscally.