The Paycor Stadium field has been criticized as a poor surface for player safety. Last November, the NFLPA has called on the field to be replaced immediately.

https://www.wcpo.com/sports/football/bengals/nfl-players-association-calls-paycor-stadiums-field-unsafe-wants-immediate-replacement

I see that today one of the other stadiums criticized for having the same unsafe turf announced they did in fact complete the replacement of their turf. That was MetLife Stadium, where the Jets and Giants play.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36003498/new-field-turf-installed-metlife-stadium-home-giants-jets

I am hoping that the Bengals put on their agenda replacing their turf, so that the Bengals can cut down on an injuries that might result from such.

(03-30-2023, 12:50 PM)Nepa Wrote: The Paycor Stadium field has been criticized as a poor surface for player safety. Last November, the NFLPA has called on the field to be replaced immediately.

https://www.wcpo.com/sports/football/bengals/nfl-players-association-calls-paycor-stadiums-field-unsafe-wants-immediate-replacement

I see that today one of the other stadiums criticized for having the same unsafe turf announced they did in fact complete the replacement of their turf. That was MetLife Stadium, where the Jets and Giants play.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36003498/new-field-turf-installed-metlife-stadium-home-giants-jets

I am hoping that the Bengals put on their agenda replacing their turf, so that the Bengals can cut down on an injuries that might result from such.

Katie already addressed this and said they are keeping it and it will be replaced on the normal replacement schedule. The Bengals suffered more injuries on opponent's grass fields than they did playing on their own. 

(03-30-2023, 12:53 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Katie already addressed this and said they are keeping it and it will be replaced on the normal replacement schedule. The Bengals suffered more injuries on opponent's grass fields than they did playing on their own. 

Horrible when facts get in the way of opinions.

Thanks for the info.

Can anyone remember in the past couple of years a serious injury?

At worst you could say Jonah but his knees appear to be held together by cheese strings.
What are they going to say if the field was better Hamlins heart may not have stopped, idiots.

McAfee has just been on his high horse about the state of the stadium again.

(03-30-2023, 01:24 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Horrible when facts get in the way of opinions.

Thanks for the info.

There was a league wide anaylsis done and it was pretty evident that the grass that paycor uses causes more non contact injuries than that of the other grass version available. 

Cherry picking a sample size isn't really a good way to analyze things. 

When they do replace it on "normal schedule" will the Bengals be moving to the "safer" turf or sticking with the same?

(03-30-2023, 01:24 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Horrible when facts get in the way of opinions.

Thanks for the info.

I haven't seen the statistics to be able to determine the facts versus anecdotal reports. 

The NFLPA and some players says the statistics show the field used at Paycor and similar stadiums provide greater risk to players. For the Giants, their former team captain said, "the stats have shown we are on one of the worse fields in the league, " and the NFLPA says  the type of field at Paycorr "has statistically higher in-game injury rates compared to all other surfaces."  (both from the links provided above.) 

But others dispute this. One should be able to produce the research. Whatever enhances player safety. If we are going anecdotal, Buffalo Bills are always among the least injured teams in the league and their big injury last year, Von Miller, was on the Detroit field with its surface similar to Paycor.

It also is encouraging that that the new MetLife stadium surface was substantially tested by Penn State's Center for Sports Surface Research. I would hope the Bengals, when they do change the field, go to the one with the best safety rating for players.

Dont know the #'s but if it's unsafe then hope it is done with the most safest surface possible next time.

Yet would think the league would have banned it if it was so unsafe.

Here is a 2019 study I found conducted by IQVIA which I guess is the company that has been doing these studies for the NFL recently:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0363546518808499

Quote:Results: Play on synthetic turf resulted in a 16% increase in lower extremity injuries per play than that on natural turf (IRR, 1.16;
95% CI, 1.10-1.23). This association between synthetic turf and injury remained when injuries were restricted to those that re-
sulted in 8 days missed, as well as when categorizations were narrowed to focus on distal injuries anatomically closer to the
playing surface (knee, ankle/foot). The higher rate of injury on synthetic turf was notably stronger when injuries were restricted
to noncontact/surface contact injuries (IRRs, 1.20-2.03; all statistically significant).

Conclusion: These results support the biomechanical mechanism hypothesized and add confidence to the conclusion that syn-
thetic turf surfaces have a causal impact on lower extremity injury.

The full article linked above has all the stat stuff I'm too lazy to read through. :)

(03-30-2023, 12:50 PM)Nepa Wrote: The Paycor Stadium field has been criticized as a poor surface for player safety. Last November, the NFLPA has called on the field to be replaced immediately.

https://www.wcpo.com/sports/football/bengals/nfl-players-association-calls-paycor-stadiums-field-unsafe-wants-immediate-replacement

I see that today one of the other stadiums criticized for having the same unsafe turf announced they did in fact complete the replacement of their turf. That was MetLife Stadium, where the Jets and Giants play.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36003498/new-field-turf-installed-metlife-stadium-home-giants-jets

I am hoping that the Bengals put on their agenda replacing their turf, so that the Bengals can cut down on an injuries that might result from such.

i dont think the turf is the issue...  just the violent nature of the game that leads to injuries

are more non contact injuries per game  occuring at our stadium than others?

(03-30-2023, 02:53 PM)Nepa Wrote: I haven't seen the statistics to be able to determine the facts versus anecdotal reports. 

The NFLPA and some players says the statistics show the field used at Paycor and similar stadiums provide greater risk to players. For the Giants, their former team captain said, "the stats have shown we are on one of the worse fields in the league, " and the NFLPA says  the type of field at Paycorr "has statistically higher in-game injury rates compared to all other surfaces."  (both from the links provided above.) 

But others dispute this. One should be able to produce the research. Whatever enhances player safety. If we are going anecdotal, Buffalo Bills are always among the least injured teams in the league and their big injury last year, Von Miller, was on the Detroit field with its surface similar to Paycor.

It also is encouraging that that the new MetLife stadium surface was substantially tested by Penn State's Center for Sports Surface Research. I would hope the Bengals, when they do change the field, go to the one with the best safety rating for players.

I'm a bit confused.  There were no statistics provided?  Just XField with XTurf was bad, and all turf of that type is bad?  Were there statistics on every field with the same turf provided to prove the point?  Also, did the study take into account the quality of drainage?  Weather?  Frequency and type of multi-use (baseball, football, monster truck rallies, etc.)?  All of that has to contribute to how well the turf holds up and it's condition at the end of the day.

If it's pure analog data (X Truf is bad - period) with no other considerations, then I don't blame the owners for ignoring the NFLPA.

(03-30-2023, 03:01 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Dont know the #'s but if it's unsafe then hope it is done with the most safest surface possible next time.

Yet would think the league would have banned it if it was so unsafe.

Same opinion on this, safest surface possible is all everybody should want.

(03-30-2023, 03:01 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Yet would think the league would have banned it if it was so unsafe.

 Yeah the same league that added Thursday games, 17th game and now allows a team to play 2 Thursday games to appease Amazon.  Player $afety front and center.    

(03-30-2023, 03:30 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote:  Yeah the same league that added Thursday games, 17th game and now allows a team to play 2 Thursday games to appease Amazon.  Player $afety front and center.    

You saying the NFL is a bit hypocritical George? Nah. 

Man, this off-season is dragging. Is it the draft yet??

I really don't see a problem. Our field is on a normal replacement schedule. If slit film is a problem, then next time we replace it we can go with one of the other two types. Until then, evidently it doesn't bother our guys, so tough...

This is always a fascinating discussion because even the data can be misleading and must be evaluated much more thoroughly to make actual decisions. For years FedEx field was undoubtedly the worst stadium for injuries in the league and it was a grass field. The issue with data studies on this subject is the snapshots tend to be limited and therefor lacking accountability for weather variance. Cold weather, rain, snow, and even heat can all impact grass much differently than turf and the associated injuries that can come with it. In the data we have, If I remember correctly, there is no real discussion or consideration for the weather those grass fields were exposed to and the resulting injuries.

If we were playing in a vacuum there is probably a very good chance that grass is better, the reality however is many NFL stadiums are still outside and exposed to weather and not enough studies have been done on the rate of injuries on grass specifically as it relates to weather variance. Many of the stadiums in bad weather areas for instance use artificial turf, which means there is no way we can properly account for what the variance for injuy between synthetic and real grass in these conditions are. Heck we saw in the Super Bowl a grass field being needlessly unsafe as players could not keep their footing as shallow roots cause the field to come apart underneath them.

I think in general both sides of this discussion oversimplify the issue. I think anyone who thinks they actually know the best approach here is frankly just guessing.

(03-30-2023, 03:30 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote:  Yeah the same league that added Thursday games, 17th game and now allows a team to play 2 Thursday games to appease Amazon.  Player $afety front and center.    

It's not coming from the league its coming from the NFLPA. Big difference.

(03-30-2023, 05:18 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It's not coming from the league its coming from the NFLPA. Big difference.

Wasn't my point given the post I replied to specifically mentioning the league being concerned with player safety, that being the NFL. As Nate noticed I was bringing to light what I see as hypocrisy in the NFL. They talk about player safety but add games to the season and more short week games. I think the NFL cares about the safety of their star players that sell the tickets and get viewers. My guess is they don't give a shit about Bob the easily replaced player that plays on special teams and is almost never noticed.

(03-30-2023, 05:22 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: My guess is they don't give a shit about Bob the easily replaced player that plays on special teams and is almost never noticed.

Nor does the NFLPA in the end.  More games = more TV Revenue = higher cap = more money for players

In the end, the owners and players care about the same thing - money.

I trust the players and their union far more than GODell

Requiring teams to play 2 thursday games ( or really any) shows that money is way more important than player safety.