NFLPA vs. NFL -- LEAGUE ACCUSED OF "FORCING" TEAMS TO PLAY ON "UNSAFE" FIELDS

In case you haven't seen it yet.....

The NFLPA is accusing the NFL of forcing the Lions and the Panthers to  play on an "unsafe" playing surface. IE... The relatively new 'Turf' surface in BofA stadium.

The game in question happened last fall on Christmas Eve. It WAS a severely COLD day, and the field was extremely hard because of the ambient temperature. As the game continued and was played on, the field gradually softened up and became much better.

The real question here is.... Will the Panthers continue forward playing on Turf, or will they revert back to a grass surface.??  Tepper says the move to Turf was in part because of the need for a good surface for the Charlotte FC (Soccer club).  I don't know what is going to happen, but it's not like there aren't other teams playing on turf. There are currently fourteen stadiums with Turf and sixteen stadiums with grass surfaces. Two of the "turf" locations  share a stadium with two teams.  So there are sixteen teams playing on grass and sixteen teams playing on turf.

CAT SCRATCH READER:  NFLPA Accuses NFL Of Forcing Teams To Play On Unsafe Surfaces

Yeah, I thought that was "old new"? Has it come up again, or is this someone following up on the story? I personally dont blame the players for hating to play on it. It's like dancing on ice.

Well, not really "old news" I guess. The game in question happened only four (4) months ago.  And yes, there were some comments and discussions around that time period about the playing surface. ((Apparently..), this latest brouhaha started this past Thursday with the NFLPA re-igniting the controversy...)

However the NFLPA getting involved at this level is something new. They have (apparently) filed a notice or 'letter' (or maybe a grievance.??) with the league over their handling the situation at game-time.  There are (again - APPARENTLY..) official procedures in place to determine if a playing surface is 'appropriate' or possibly (maybe.??) "safe." Also, that procedure may have been utilized correctly, but after 'testing' the surface before the game, the results of the testing protocol may have been ignored or over-ruled.

I don't know. I have NOT read the official 'rules' or procedure required to be followed, but it seems like there may be a rule in place with no "teeth." In other words, there may be no "enforcement" protocol or penalty tied to the testing.....hence, no "teeth."  Just like in all facets of life, a law with no method of enforcement or no penalty or consequence for "breaking" or "ignoring" the law or rule, is worthless.  There must be an 'enforcement action' in the rule or there is no reason to have the rule.

The real concern here (IMHO..) involves HALF of the league. Fully sixteen teams, half of the thirty-two, play on artificial surfaces. IF, I say again, IF, there is a need for a "rule" about the playing surface, then there must be a method of enforcement tied to the rule.  If the rule is broken, there must be consequences.!!

I tell my 60some kids everyday, there are consequences for actions. Most have never heard it.

I tell my 60some kids everyday, there are consequences for actions.  Most have never heard it.

How many classes is that.??  Maybe 4.??
Surely not all in one class.!!!

20 in one 40 in another. Usually less

---

Middle school n elementary.

---

After school n summer camp

---

Anyways u shouldn’t have to play on “concrete.”

---

20 in one 40 in another.  Usually less

---

Middle school n elementary.

---

After school n summer camp

---

Anyways u shouldn’t have to play on “concrete.”

20 in one 40 in another.  Usually less

---

Middle school n elementary.

---

After school n summer camp

---

Anyways u shouldn’t have to play on “concrete.”

---

20 in one 40 in another.  Usually less

---

Middle school n elementary.

---

After school n summer camp

---

Anyways u shouldn’t have to play on “concrete.”

OMG... 40 in one class. That is a recipe for an aneurism. 

I'm flabbergasted. I''d be dead after one day.!!