Astro turf VS field turf?

I just finished reading a great article on Apparently the Riders' stadium is the only one using "Astro turf"; all the other artificial playing field stadiums use "field turf". Players complain that the "Astro turf" is hard and causes injuries; and this seems to be true.
"Field turf" on the other hand, is praised by players! Judging as a fan who watches the CFL on TV, I am dissapointed...
The Riders' field is the most beautiful on TV; it has a wonderful green color with great white lines and the contrast between green and white is great! On TV, it is THE most beautiful playing surface. "Field turf" looks awful. The best example of bad looking "field turf" on TV is at the Rogers Center. Even in HD, the field is absolutely horrendous to look at! The field looks like a green mess spattered with gray colors. It is so drab and it lacks contrast and good ole green saturation.
Can't they come up with a comfortable playing surface that looks good on TV? That, would be something!

I also detest the yellow soccer field lines on a football field...

you are kidding right? Who cares what it looks like green carpet sucks and field turf responds more like natural grass. You want your team to have more injuries at home?

Natural grass is my favourite.

Iirc, only Ottawa and Edmonton have natural grass fields.

I agree about the soccer lines looking unsightly.

They should be removed or coloured over for CFL games.

I disagree about the field turf looking bad.

It looks fine to me.

ottawa does not have natural grass. they have field turf:

[url=] ... ofileID=62[/url]

Field Turf may look ugly on TV but as far as I am concerned if the new field turf cuts down on injuries that I am glad that they are going to replace it at Taylor Field.

the green bay packers have field turf that has different shades of green every 5 yards, like sask. astroturf...maybe the riders can install similar looking field truf next year?

Actually drummer, Green Bay plays on grass. There was an article about this issue that I read in the Leader Post. One interesting stat that I found out was that the Riders actually have more injuries on the road, then at home. Also, Geroy Simon said that he liked astro turf better because its faster. However, he also stated that the field turf didn't hurt to get tackled on, and didnt burn your skin. I do agree that it looks like crap on TV, but I have personally played on the turf that was installed last summer at the University of Regina and it is awesome. When you walk on it without shoes it even feels like real grass.

[quote="drummer_god"]the green bay packers have field turf that has different shades of green every 5 yards, like sask. astroturf...maybe the riders can install similar looking field truf next year?

Green Bay claims to have a 100% natural grass field with a synthetic turf base. It apparently is some kind of state of the art system that incorporates the best features of both, combining the durability of field turf while keeping the asthetics of natural grass. NFL officials are studying the stuff in order to use it as a template for future applications. If that in fact is the case, then the CFL should follow suit (cost permitting of course)

And their stadium looks good as well. In fact, the field turf looks just fine in this picture.

According to Wikipedia:

Commonwealth is expected to replace it’s grass surface with FieldTurf for the 2007 CFL season, or in the near future.


Is this true?

If so, then there will be no natural grass stadiums left in the CFL.

why would the BC Lions complain about the turf in Regina, when everybody in the league knows we are replacing it next year? Sure its hard and old, thats the reason we are replacing it. It makes no sense about complain about something that u know is goin to be replace :roll: i guess they just like to complain or just lookin for an excuse ahead of time for when they lose and blame it on the turf :cowboy:

ok, if not green bay, then the colts have field turf with different shades of green every 5 yards...sask should use this turf:

[url=] ... ofileID=89[/url]

they’re talking about removing the grass from Commonwealth…

just so you know

Many players in the CFL hate to play on it, because it is hard! and slippery, you have no grip!

Some fieldturf does look like crap, depending on 2 factors:

1- Is it always being removed & "replaced": Look at McGill compared to Rogers Centre & BC Place. They look weird since you can see the seems....McGill looks far more better & clean.

2- We also have to know which "generation" of FieldTurf is being used...again...look at the one at Frank-Clair stadium (used in season 2005), it cannot compare to the one at McGill, as it's not from the same generation.

I can attest to the fact that some players do love Field Turf.

3 weeks ago, I overheard a small conversation (after the game) between Jason Clermont & a fieldturf rep that was @ McGill for the game.

Clermont basically told the FieldTurf rep, he loves the turf, and never gets hurt on it, compared to the "other" stuff around !

I also remember Dave Stala last year, cursing at the "astroturf" @ Big O, when he got the "turftoe"...saying this would never happen on FieldTurf.

As far as I'm concerned: The league should make it a requirement to have FieldTurf, if you want your stadium to host the Grey Cup game !

Not this again! Look to this subject in Aprils threads for a good laugh!

i think the 5 yd shading is due to being brushed in oppostie direction prior to the game. they always rebrush the turf the same direction and makes the light come off differently. in it is never brushed it looks how it does at most stadiums.

Ya, Lambeau is totally natural grass. after actually being on it, ya, it's grass. And this argument is not even worth while. Field turf is way better. 100% of players prefer field turf over astro, no doubt.

Field turf (made in Quebec :wink:) over Astro or Grass anyday!