The grass at ND....

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:24 pm

I've been on the SC boards on and off since the game ended and there's been a lot of posting about how the length of the grass contributed to Desmond Reed's injury. I'm just not sure that the length of grass has anything to do with a knee injury. It's not like his foot got caught and wrapped around one of those strong blades to cause the injury. I'm just curious because the asshats (as Jimmy likes to call them) are whining and moaning about the grass and how it contributed to an injury.
Do you think ND is stupid enough to have the field be unsafe? If it's unsafe then it's the same for both teams. Chris Frome was also injured but I don't see anyone over there having any sympathy for his knee, nor do you see ND fans bitching that the grass contributed to his injury.
Just curious to get thoughts of some rational thinking people.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:31 pm

growing the grass longer would probably take some of the speed advantage away from a fast team. SC is kinda fast, aren't they? As for danger, the deeper turf is probably more prone to tripping players up, which could cause more injuries. But, the overall slowing effect and added padding might decrease injuries.

If ND did this, it was good thinking. For a really nasty example of taking advantage of home turf, just look at last years AFC championship game. The pats ground crew let it get as shitty as possible, with a little help from the weather. Poor fukking Air Peyton never had a chance.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:32 pm

It is ignorant to think that the length of the grass on a natural turf field could contribute to an injury.

That is all.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:45 pm

The grass at Notre Dame is/was a disgrace. Seeing it reminded me that I really do need to cut mine though.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:49 pm

I think it really slowed down most of the grounders and forced the infielders play in close most of the time.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:55 pm

Yeah, kinda surprised we didn't see more bunts.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:57 pm

BTW, just how does one get grass to grow that well in mid october in N. indiana? Must be some fukkin hearty strain of siberian grass.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:58 pm

I don't think any sensible SC fans (no, it's not necessarily an oxymoron) are griping about injuries as a result of the intentional absurdly long grass.

Nobody in their right mind would think ND planned to injure anybody with it.

The gist of it is that ND is being accused of using their home field advantage to reduce SC's advantage in team speed, which was obviously exactly what ND was doing with that long grass.

The thing is...so what? Teams always do that. It's their right, and such gamesmanship is part of what makes up a home field advantage.

How many baseball teams have rigged up their pitcher's mounds and infields to best suit their own team, or to diminish the advantage of another team?

Certainly we've seen many a first and third base line shaped to keep bunts and slow rollers either in the field of play or to roll foul, and we've seen infields and outfields extensively watered down to keep balls from skipping through too easily...

The old Boston Garden, and their stupid parquet floor with the specific dead spots used to great advantage by guys like DJ and Ainge...

Yeah, ND intentionally made sure the grass was overly long. Smart move.

Par for the course, and a non issue.

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:04 pm

Nobody in their right mind would think ND planned to injure anybody with it.

go to http://www.wearesc.com and you'll see it.

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Notre Dame is known for doing that to their grass!

they said when Dorsett and Pitt came in, the grass looked like it was weeds, it was so deep. They have also been accused of watering the field down also.

thats why they call it home field advantage. Both teams have to play in it, but it can slow a speed team down!

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:13 pm

Laxplayer wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would think ND planned to injure anybody with it.
go to http://www.wearesc.com and you'll see it.

Oh, I don't doubt such people exist, but like I said, "...people in their right minds..."

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:15 pm

You want to see some sore losers?

http://bwi.rivals.com/forum.asp?sid=890 ... 2&items=75

You must smack your own.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:12 pm

Don't see where the advantage came into play, other than SC not being used to playing on the high grass.

If you have two cars and one is going 90 and the other is going 80, that's no different than the faster car dropping down to 80 and the slower car to 70. It's still an advantage for the inherently faster.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:15 pm

Yeah, I mean if it would have been normal length, maybe Reggie's ypc would have been 15?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:19 pm

'Cept one team's normal strengths aren't diminished nearly as much as the other's by the possibility of high, loose footing...

Theory being, if Reggie Bush and Dwayne Jarrett aren't confident in their ability to plant and make cuts and use their speed then the high turf will hurt USC's weapons more than ND's, which ostensibly rely more on power than speed.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:57 pm

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:03 pm

smackaholic wrote:growing the grass longer would probably take some of the speed advantage away from a fast team. SC is kinda fast, aren't they? As for danger, the deeper turf is probably more prone to tripping players up, which could cause more injuries. But, the overall slowing effect and added padding might decrease injuries.

If ND did this, it was good thinking. For a really nasty example of taking advantage of home turf, just look at last years AFC championship game. The pats ground crew let it get as shitty as possible, with a little help from the weather. Poor fukking Air Peyton never had a chance.

That good thinking cost ND three of their own.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:33 am

Hard to blame the length of the grass for an injury but when you look at how Desmond Reed tore up his knee, running backwards when his foot got caught up and there was nobody near him, you can see how people might blame the 4-5 inch long grass, but you cant say for sure that he wouldnt have got his foot caught up in the 3/4 to 1 inch long grass that they should have been playing on. But I dont blame the grass.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:42 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:Hard to blame the length of the grass for an injury but when you look at how Desmond Reed tore up his knee, running backwards when his foot got caught up and there was nobody near him, you can see how people might blame the 4-5 inch long grass, but you cant say for sure that he wouldnt have got his foot caught up in the 3/4 to 1 inch long grass that they should have been playing on. But I dont blame the grass.

Yes you are, and why "should" the grass be 3/4 to 1 inch long?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:40 pm

The grass at ND....

...was bright green and looked good on TV.

T1B

The grass at ND....

The grass at ND....

Has the Charlie Weis lovefest ended yet?