injuryupdate
13-09-2003, 09:09 AM
The surface-injury debate is at least as ferocious in the USA as it is in Australia, with the issues re-surfacing (pardon the pun) every time a player suffers a season-ending non-contact injury. Injury statistics from the NFL recently released show that Astroturf is a higher injury risk for knee and ankle injuries than natural grass (Click to read a full .pdf paper). However, the relatively new product FieldTurf (see picture) has been heavily promoted as a new variety of artificial turf that is 'similar in look and feel to natural grass' but with lower injury rates (see promotion). Some neutral reviews have been promising (see example) whilst some are neutral (ProFootball Weekly). The promises sound great but time will tell whether there is indeed such a product that can feel great and also have a low injury rate. Read Time Magazine's investigation of FieldTurf use in soccer. It is worth remembering that in the 1970s, AstroTurf was marketed as a product that could reduce injuries, and whilst the relative risk between AstroTurf is still a matter for debate, it is virtually proven that natural grass has, at worst, slightly less overall injuries than AstroTurf. It may be that an artificial product can one day be safer than grass, but remember that grass can tear and regenerate whereas an artificial product must always remain intact, which can possibly limit the safety of all artificial products. In the NFL pre-season, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick suffered a non-contact fibula fracture on the team's newly installed FieldTurf surface, making some NFL observers question whether the surface would live up to its promises. If indeed FieldTurf can indeed reduce injuries, it may be an option down the track for the indoor Telstra Dome, where natural grass has difficulty growing.