Skip to navigationSkip to content
LEADER MONDIALE NELLA PRODUZIONE DI MANTI ERBOSI SINTETICI
Perché FieldTurf/Sicurezza comprovata

SICUREZZA COMPROVATA

Non è possibile impedire gli infortuni, ma è possibile limitarne l’entità

La sicurezza degli atleti è da sempre la nostra principale priorità. La nostra continua ricerca dell’innovazione ci spinge a progettare i sistemi in erba sintetica più avanzati del settore. Anche se nessuno sport è completamente a prova di infortuni, continuiamo a escogitare nuove soluzioni per ridurre il rischio e la gravità degli incidenti. La nostra attenzione alla sicurezza ha prodotto numerose innovazioni e miglioramenti per la riduzione degli infortuni. Ciò significa che abbiamo i prodotti e l’esperienza necessari per rendere ogni campo da gioco il più sicuro possibile per gli atleti. Una ricerca pluriennale indipendente convalida i nostri sforzi per fornire campi da gioco il più sicuri possibile.

FOOTBALL COLLEGIALE

FIELDTURF O ERBA NATURALE

Studio triennale

I sistemi FieldTurf hanno portato al:

  • 13% in meno di stiramenti/strappi muscolari
  • 11% in meno di commozioni cerebrali
  • 31% in meno di strappi dei legamenti
  • 24% in meno di distorsioni alle caviglie
  • 21% in meno di infortuni gravi
  • 23% in meno di infortuni su una superficie vecchia di 4-8 anni+

Football liceale

FieldTurf o erba naturale

Studio quinquennale

I sistemi FieldTurf hanno portato al:

  • 44% in meno di infortuni con commozione cerebrale
  • 43% in meno di infortuni con lesione del legamento crociato anteriore
  • 25% in meno di tempo perso per lesioni a lungo termine (22+ giorni)
  • 16% in meno di tempo perso per lesioni a breve termine (1-2 giorni)

HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL

FIELDS WITH SHOCK PADS VS FIELDS WITHOUT

7-year study

Fields without pads led to:

  • 53% less player-to-turf collision injuries
  • 39% less shoulder girdle trauma
  • 63% less lower leg injuries
  • 73% less neck trauma

See the full study

When are shock pads recommended?
There are some situations where a shock pad is highly recommend. When installing light-weight infill systems, common with alternative / natural infills like cork, coconut and/or olive, there isn’t enough material in the system to provide the necessary shock absorption. To meet the needed industry safety requirements, a shock pad is added under the system to provide the adequate performance.

HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL

heavyweight infill VS other infill weight surfaces

7-year study

Systems with >9 lbs per square foot of infill compared to all other infill weight surfaces led to:

  • 19%-29% lower incidence of total injuries
  • 35%-55% lower incidence of Substantial injuries
  • 19%-26% lower incidence of severe injuries
  • 32%-47% lower incidence of player-to-turf injuries
  • 17%-22% lower incidence of Ligament Sprains and Tears
  • 58%-63% lower incidence of injuries on surfaces aged 8+ years, vs systems with 0-5.9 lbs per square foot

See the full study

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

FIELDTURF VS NATURAL GRASS & COMPETING SYSTEMS

4-year study

ACL Injury Rate per Team Games Played:

  • .048 FieldTurf
  • .050 Natural Grass
  • .053 Competing Turf Systems

See the full study

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

FIELDTURF VS NATURAL GRASS

7-year study

Achilles Tendon Injuries:

When analyzing the rates of achilles tendon tear while comparing ground surfaces (grass and artificial turf), we revealed no significant difference in tear rates.

See the full study

COLLEGE men's soccer

FIELDTURF VS NATURAL GRASS

6-year study

FieldTurf systems led to:

  • 25% Fewer Total Injuries
  • 20% Fewer Severe Injuries
  • 33% Fewer Concussions
  • 15% Fewer Injuries due to player-to-surface collisions

See the full study

COLLEGE women's soccer

FIELDTURF VS NATURAL GRASS

5-year study

FieldTurf systems led to:

  • 11% Fewer Total Injuries
  • 33% Fewer Severe Injuries
  • 57% Fewer Injuries on Surfaces 8+ years old
  • 17% Fewer Injuries in Rain-Field Conditions

See the full study

United Soccer League, League 1

Artificial Turf vs Grass

Three Seasons - 2020-2022

Study concluded: Overall, the incidence of injuries per athlete exposure was significantly lower on artificial turf than natural grass. Injuries subdivided into location demonstrate statistically lower rates of head/neck, upper limb, and lower limb injuries on artificial turf. Additionally, with regards to type of injury, the rate of contusions and central/peripheral nervous system injuries were statistically lower on artificial turf.

See the full study

Amateur Soccer

Artificial Turf vs Grass

Skin Abrasions Due to Sliding on Playing Surface

Study concluded: No evidence of more skin related traumatic injuries when a slide was performed on artificial turf compared to natural grass.

See the full study

MLS Soccer

Erba sintetica o erba naturale

Studio quadriennale

Conclusioni dello studio: Il tasso complessivo di infortuni sull’erba sintetica era “non inferiore”, o equivalente, a quello sull’erba naturale.

Guarda lo studio completo.

College Men's & Women's Soccer

Artificial Turf VS Natural Grass

10-year study

Study concluded: NCAA soccer players who practice on natural grass have increased risk of ACL injury (8.67 times more likely) compared with the risk of those practicing on an artificial surface, regardless of sex or NCAA division of play. No difference in risk of ACL injury between playing surfaces was detected during matches.

See the full study

Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological and Perceptual Responses

artificial vs grass

Study concluded:

  • An improved physical performance on artificial turf compared to natural grass.
  • Performance tasks incorporating greater reliance on agility and change of direction ability are more likely to be enhanced on artificial turf compared to natural grass.
  • The improved physical performance on artificial turf was accompanied by improved perceptual and some blood biochemistry (Lac, Neu and LYM) responses.

See the full study

Italian Major League - Soccer

Artificial Turf vs Grass

One Season of Division I Play

Study concluded: No difference in injury risk on natural grass and artificial turf in elite professional soccer athletes.

See the full study

Pitch Impact Markers of Fatigue, Recovery and Readiness to Play

artificial vs grass

Study concluded:

  • Players covered significantly more distance per minute on artificial turf (222.59 ± 18.93 meters/min) compared to natural grass (215.89 ± 17.80 meters/min)
  • Countermovement jump (CMJ) parameters and subjective wellness questionnaires (fatigue, sleep quality, muscle soreness, stress, and mood) showed no significant differences based on pitch surface.
  • Artificial turf pitches do not elicit more fatigue, impede recovery, or impact readiness to play, though they may lead to small differences in activity patterns and styles of play.

College Football

FieldTurf vs Natural Grass

Study concluded:

  • The use of a heavyweight artificial infill system [>9 lbs. of infill /sq. ft.]in collegiate football competition was associated with a reduction in the incidence and severity of surface-related sport trauma, resulting in a significantly lower incidence of imaging and surgical procedures when compared with natural grass fields.

See full study

Introduzione