Steyn van Ark

University of Charleston

Why Science Matters

February 3, 2019

Essay One

It is Saturday afternoon, and we play an away soccer game in Ohio. When we arrive, we

conclude that we have to play on artificial grass. All the players around me are grumbling

because they say that the chance of an injury is greater now than it would be on natural grass.

My teammates clearly have no preference for playing on artificial grass, studies have been

done that have looked at the effects of playing on artificial grass or normal grass.

One study surveyed 6 different teams of the Major Soccer league (MLS) in America. The

questions were based on the perceptions that soccer players have about playing on artificial

grass and natural grass, especially the chance of injuries from playing on one of the fields.

The questionnaire is completed by 99 percent of the soccer players during the 2011 MLS

season. The result showed soccer players feel less safe on an artificial grass pitch compared to

a natural grass pitch (Poulos, et al., 2014).

Another study looked at American college and university soccer teams. The number of

injuries on natural grass and artificial grass were recorded in The National Collegiate Athletic

Association Injury Surveillance system. The matches were played in 2005 and 2006. In 2005

participants were 52 men teams and 64-woman teams. In 2006 54-men teams and 72-woman

teams were studied. Athletic trainers conducted details about the severity and duration of the

sustained injury in the matches. (Fuller, Dick, Jill, & Schmalz, 2007). Another similar study

was performed by the same teams and years. This study, however, looked at practice instead

of matches. (Fuller C. W., Dick, Corlette, & Schmalz, 2007). There is a concern of players

about playing on an artificial grass pitch, but the other references don’t support this concern.
Based on this information the scientific method will be used to evaluate injury rates on

artificial grass and natural grass.

The hypothesis is part of a study, where the hypothesis is the expected answer to the research

question. It is important that research and/or experiments reflect the hypothesis. The

hypothesis in this case is as follows; playing soccer on an artificial grass pitch causes more

injuries compared to a natural grass pitch.

An Experiment is a carefully designed and accurate observation of a piece of reality that can

be performed to test a scientific hypothesis. In this case an experiment to see if playing on a

certain kind of field affects injuries. This experiment was conducted in the Eredivisie, the

highest professional soccer competition in the Netherlands. In the Eredivisie, the number and

severity of the injuries on an artificial grass pitch and nature grass were recorded in two

seasons namely in 2016 and 2017. The data of all the matches were recorded in a database. In

total, there are 18 different teams in the Eredivisie, of which 7 teams play their home games

on artificial grass and 11 on natural grass. In a season all teams play against each other twice,

one away game and a home game. This means that a total of 612 matches were played over

two seasons, 374 on natural grass and 238 on artificial grass. The physiotherapists of the clubs

indicated the severity and duration of the injuries so that there is a good indication of a

possible injury.

The results are showing the outcomes of the experiment. The results of this experiment show

that in the 612 matches a total of 122 players had to leave the game injured. Of these injuries,

49 were on artificial grass and 73 on natural grass. This means that the chance of an injury on
artificial grass is 20.5% and on natural grass is that 19.5%. The duration of the injury on

artificial grass averaged 15 days and on natural grass 17 days.

The Conclusion is that the hypothesis is not correct, playing on artificial grass or natural grass

hardly makes any difference in the number and duration of the injury. The results are almost

equal and do not show any major differences. However, we can conclude that soccer players

feel better and more secure on natural grass. They feel and think that they are less likely to get

injured there, but the results do not support the perceptions of the players.

The study can be improved to do it over many more countries to get an even better and more

global picture. Also, to look specifically at whether there are differences in the type of injuries

incurred on artificial grass or natural grass can improve this study.

Bibliography

Fuller, C. W., Dick, R. W., Corlette, J., & Schmalz, R. (2007). Comparison of the incidence,

nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by

male and female football players. part 2: training injuries. British Journal of Sports

Medicine .

Fuller, C. W., Dick, R. W., Jill, C., & Schmalz, R. (2007). Comparison of the incidence,

nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by

male and female football players. Part 1: match iniuries. British Journal of Sports

Medicine .

Poulos, C. C., Gallucci Jr, J., Gage, W. H., Baker, J., Buitrago, S., & Macpherson, A. K.

(2014). The perceptions of professional soccer players on the risk of injury from

competition and training on natural grass and 3rd generation artificial turf. BMC

Sports Science, Medicine & Rehabilitation, 1-14.