From what I understand these unnatural surfaces are more dangerous to play on. But in any event, there is no good reason to waste money on an artificial surface. Let's save our money for useful things (like a skate park) and real improvements.

When the movie was in town they wanted to pay big money for use of field. The people refused the deal. And now their talking about spending money, what a joke!

IMHO I don't think it's a good idea to take an ecosystem, which a grass lawn is, and replace it with a synthetic, non-living system.

Mike and joe
What if the turf was paid for and maintained completely using private funding so that it wouldn't cost our town or its citizens anything?
Im fact the town may realize a tremendous savings in maintenance and irrigation.

Would that make the prospect of a turf field appealing

Also... can I ask you folks a serious question and I'm not trying be confrontational in the least . Do any of you have a child that has attempted to play a youth football season at Gatchells or a soccer season at Green st field? If you have a child in either program you would know them challenges

...The challenges those fields present in terms of field conditions. You would know about the cancellations due to saturation and mud that those fields cause on a routine basis.

Header Dad,

Although I wrote mostly about costs, the fact is that I basically regard artificial surfaces as inherently worse than grass. I've heard announcers on TV sports games (mostly baseball) talk about how the unnatural surface is harder on the athletes' bodies than natural ones. I agree with Missy Scarlet. There's also the matter of having lots of runoff which would normally soak in on the spot. An artificial surface is inherently a degradation of the field.

And BTW, what's this with calling it "turf?" I know what they mean, but it's a misnomer. Turf is "a surface layer of earth containing grass plants with their matted roots." Calling synthetics "turf" without a qualifier, like Astroturf, is a potentially misleading use of the word.

Unfortunately this is probably not the best forum to discuss and debate the pros and cons of a synthetic field. I can present a ton if data collected over the last decade that points to the new synthetic surfaces being safer to the athlete than a grass surface.

Header Dad,

Crossing posts. I hadn't seem your 3:01 and 3:05 posts while I was writing mine that got finished at 3:09. No doubt the problems you mention are real. If there's no way of improving the drainage at those locations or using other venues, then it's a question of which is the lesser evil — missing games or destroying the grass field.

Marblehead needs turf fields as soon as possible. We have limited playing fields that are heavily over used and as a result their conditions are deplorable. I would love to see a turf field at the high school and a larger one at upper or lower Village. Modern turf fields are fantastic - durable, safe, nice to play on, mimic actual grass quite well.

This is a good read for those with questions posed in this forum.

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=209

We had the chance for a FREE NEW FIELD from paramount and marblehead refused it because people were afraid the construction might delay the start of the sports season. First of all, huge mistake, good for swampscott for having the common sense and smarts to take the deal. Secondly, when was the last time Marblehead had top-tier athletes? Last time I checked we were not ever known for our athletics, maybe an exception here and there, but never the program or athletes as a whole (no offense). We are known for academics. It was in very poor judgement that the people of Marblehead did not take the offer to rebuild our sports field...a little delay in starting the season would not make or break us. To complain or even discuss needing turf or field improvements is embarrassing.