Turf Or Grass: Which Is The Safer Football Surface?

The playing surface might not have been real, but there was nothing artificial about the knee injuries Alabama players Siran Stacy and Craig Sanderson suffered the past two weeks.

Stacy, the Tide's leading running back last year, suffered a torn posterior cruciate ligament in the team's season-opening loss to Southern Mississippi. He is lost for the season and said he believes the Legion Field turf contributed to his injury.

Sanderson, the Tide's best wide receiver, tore an anterior cruciate ligament the against Florida. He, too, is out for the year.

These injuries have raised the often-asked question of whether artificial turf might be a culprit. Though the controversy never has been answered conclusively, it appears a trend toward grass fields is growing, while artificial turf is losing ground.

It's conceivable, in fact, that Alabama, which plays its home games in two stadiums, each with artificial turf, could be playing all of its home games on natural grass within two years.

Alabama athletic director Hootie Ingram said Monday he will decide to replace the turf at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa with natural grass, provided the cost isn't unreasonable.

``This is not a spur of the moment thing,'' Ingram said. ``This is something we've been looking into since I got here.

``In my opinion, the grass surface is the best surface. I think most everybody involved wants to do it. That's where we stand.''

Meanwhile, Melvin Miller, director of the Birmingham Park and Recreation Board, which manages Legion Field, said he will recommend to the board on whether to replace the stadium's worn artificial turf with a newer model, or switch to grass.

``Idealistically, natural grass is the way to go,'' Miller said. ``But we also have to look at it from a cost-effective standpoint.''

From a safety standpoint, most studies measuring frequency of injuries on artificial turf compared to grass fail to show one surface is more dangerous than the other.

``The research is very controversial,'' said Herb Waldrop, longtime trainer at Auburn, which plays its home games on natural grass. ``And a lot of it is based on who is doing the research.''

Waldrop said he believes grass is safer but stresses, ``that's just my opinion. We certainly have our share of injuries on grass.''

Drew Ferguson, director of administration and athletic training at University of Alabama Birmingham Sports Medicine, agrees that most of the research is inconclusive but says at least two aspects of artificial turf are not:

Playing on an artificial surface results in more turf burns on the knees and elbows. It also can cause turf toe, which results when a player tries to plant his foot and hits his shoe hard into the turf. The toe is jammed into the shoe, causing a sprain of the toe joint.

Artificial turf tends to be hard and unyielding.

``When you play and practice on it,'' Ferguson said, ``you develop overuse injuries,'' such as tendinitis and joint inflammation.

Researchers also note that turf - the most common consists of a bottom layer of asphalt covered by a foam pad, with synthetic turf glued down on top - is a faster surface than grass.

Players hit each other at greater speeds, which results in a greater risk for injury.

One recent independent study to draw a definite conclusion indicates that playing on turf leads to higher injury rates.

The study, which collected data from more than 6,000 college football players over two seasons, was prepared by Dr. Eric Zemper, a member of the American College of Sports Medicine.

The study indicated that data compiled from two separate sources showed a consistent pattern of injury rates that were 50 percent higher on artificial turf, whether looking at total injuries or knee injuries.

``The data,'' Zemper said, ``indicates the need for a thorough investigation of this question.''

Zemper acknowledged that brand, age or recent improvements in turf were not considered and noted, ``the injury rate may be greatly affected by a particular brand and by the age of the surface.''

Alabama trainer Bill McDonald says more Tide players suffer injuries on turf than grass - but with good reason. The team plays most of its games on turf fields.

``If you play more on the turf, you're going to have more turf injuries,'' McDonald said. ``I was at Georgia Tech where we played on grass and turf. Some of the worst injuries we had were on grass.''

Stacy, one of the Southeastern Conference's top running backs, crumpled to the turf when taking a pitchout.

After his release from the hospital this week, Stacy said, ``I don't think the injury would have knocked me out of the season if it happened on natural grass.''

Alabama coach Gene Stallings, who would welcome a change to grass, remembers a time when everyone wanted to play on artificial turf but says the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Stallings said that while he was an assistant coach at Texas A&M from 1965 to 1971, ``if you didn't have the artificial surface, it was hard to recruit a good running back. They felt like they could run faster, last longer and do better on an artificial surface.

``Now we're finding out that's not true at all.''

Ingram, who as athletic director at Florida State was responsible for the installation of a $350,000 natural prescription athletic turf two years ago, said he wasn't prepared to say grass is safer than artificial turf.

``I don't have all the facts on that,'' Ingram said. ``But I do believe that most of the coaches and players, if they were able to have grass, would rather have it. There's no doubt in my mind about that.''

Legion Field also is host to high school football games two nights each week and will be the home of the Birmingham franchise in the new World League of American Football.

All of that use - coupled with the high cost of maintaining grass, which needs daily manicuring, compared to turf, which is hosed down five or six times per year - makes turf the more practical surface.

But other factors need to be considered, Miller said.

For example, the turf at Legion Field must be replaced approximately every 10 years.

The current surface, installed in 1983, cost approximately $400,000. Miller says the next installation will cost twice as much.

``And 10 years from then, it will be a lot more than that,'' Miller said. ``There's a lot of factors to consider. This is not an easy issue.''