Field Turf arguments part 2.

[DarnCherry]

Just brought this up again after the events of this weekend.

First was this Fridays debacle in Seattle. Did anyone who saw any of that game think that the FieldTurf looked in decent shape? Well it didn't. It looked like the turf had devolved back into astroturf, with fast running balls and high bounces. As Jeff Clarke told a southsider who was at the game "it was like playing on green cement".

Then there was the Ottawa football game at Frank Clair. The FieldTurf used to resemble grass, now it's so flat that it resembles astroturf. Perhaps the Brazilian women were right.

Now here's the point I have. When FIFA approves FieldTurf, they are doing so when it is first installed and not considering the wear it gets when used in a multi-use stadium. They are not thinking about the condition it will be one or two years down the road.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[mattbin]

That's a really good point about the wear factor. I thought the Seattle turf looked horrible too--I was surprised to see the spray of rubber pellets when I turned it on because otherwise it looked like astroturf.

However, Ivor Wynne's field in Hamilton still looks good. There are two possible explanations for that: first, because it's easier to tell when you're playing soccer than football, and second, because in Ti-Cats games this year, only one team tends to bother playing...

Allez les Rouges,

M@

[DJT]

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Now here's the point I have. When FIFA approves FieldTurf, they are doing so when it is first installed and not considering the wear it gets when used in a multi-use stadium. They are not thinking about the condition it will be one or two years down the road.

FIFA approval of an artificial surface installation lasts for only three years, at which time it must be re-evaluated. Both Frank Clair and Seahawks Stadiums, for example, are approved only until December 16, 2005. Perhaps this approval period is too long, but, really, if these surfaces are already worn out then that's pretty pathetic.

[Bill Ault]

The difference seems to be in the maintainence - comparing the U of O field and Frank Clair in Ottawa. They "rake" (I'm not sure what the actual process is called) the U of O surface more frequently and it stays "softer" and more realistic than the Frank Clair field. The Renegades - I've spoken to a number of the players and coaches seem to prefer the surface a bit firmer... Both fields in Ottawa have been in place a number of years now and make good training (and playing IMO) surfaces. Maybe not perfect, or ideal in the eyes of many but certainly better than 98% of our grass fields unfortunately.

[Daniel]

Kent Park in Montréal has hardened up a bit, but just enough so that it's not "too" soft, which tends to be the case with newer fields. KP has seen extensive community action and still looks great after (I think) 3 years.