Ealing pitch

oneagainstthehead wrote:

Westcoaster wrote:

I don't know enough about artificial pitches to comment but my son plays a senior level of hockey, where artificial pitches have been the norm for many years. He often gets a nasty graze from a tumble but says that it is the older sand based pitches which are an issue. Falling on a sandy, gritty surface is never going to be fun. The best hockey surfaces seem to be water based , e.g. London 2012 and since, and I don't think the falls are as bad. Makes me wonder whether top sports e.g. professional rugby and hockey ever compare notes ....?

A water soaked artificial pitch clearly benefits hockey, providing a slick, fast and consistent surface in a sport where heavy falls are a rarity. These conditions would be good for rugby were it not for the elephant in the room - playing with a permanently wet ball.

Hold onto the ball!! lol

Rucks and mauls may bust my balls, but whips and chains excite me!!

This is a fascinating subject.
My small club has had a 3G pitch for approx. 8 seasons and we feel that we see fewer injuries.
Kendal and Penrith both have 3G pitches and in conversation have the same story.

It shouldn't be beyond the capability of anyone who desperately needs to know to collate these things.

In our opinion, maintenance of the pitch plays a big part.
At our club the rubber crumb is regularly "plumped up" and regularly cleaned and re-laid. The pitch is busy every day of the week with school soccer, adult soccer, Aussie Rules, university American football and rugby (adult and mini/junior).

We put our 3G pitch in at sixways in 2016 http://www.limontasport.com/en-us/products/infill/geo-plus/

The main difference between our pitch and the ones at Newcastle and Sarries is probably the infill.

Whereas the other two use a reclaimed rubber crumb the worcester one is made up of shredded coconut fibre and cork.

It is watered before every game and the water is absorbed by the infill meaning players tend to get muddy rather than friction burns. Also, there is very little evidence of the spray you see at Hockey, meaning the game isn't played with a wet ball.

with regard to safety, I don't believe we have had any significant increase in lower limb injuries in the three years it has been down. The fact that the scrums are more stable means we have probably had less.

It needs maintenance after every ten hours playing time

Downsides

It doesn't look as nice as the more expensive, higher maintenance desso pitches used at Ashton Gate, Sandy Park and HQ and the bounce, although close isn't probably as true if I'm honest.

I suppose it boils down to whether it's a playing or commercial decision and, ultimately, how much a club can afford.

Edited by Garvey4England - 27 Apr 2019 at 05:23

B&I cup winners and play-off escapologists 2015

The Blues wrote:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/top-players-call-rugby-chiefs-16236787

Wales on line
Top players call on rugby chiefs to halt installation of plastic pitches immediately amid mounting evidence

Data gathered over the past five seasons in England showed there were more injuries on artificial surfaces compared to traditional grass pitches.

Is this correct ?
I've not seen any evidence on the few for a I visit

islander

I can see how that might be misconstrued but my intention was to ask whether the quote from Wales on-line was correct.

It would appear that it is, thanks for posting the link.

Raider999 wrote:

Article in the Telegraph the other day re artificial pitches stats suggesting injury lengths are longer on artificial pitches.

There are now 2 in the Premiership and 2 in the Championship?

Not sure how many in N1 and N2N but 1 in N2S.

Yes 2 + 2 with Newcastle moving to GKIPAC

Loughborough also had one

There'll be another one in the Champ directly.
Apparently.

Our City,
Our Club

Does any club ever ask their own players whether they want grass or plastic ?

I'm sure the answer would be grass even with all its weather prone considerations.

I believe the decision to have one therefore is based purely on economics, nothing to do with what the players want which is about as far as you can get from the idea of rugby being a game for the players.

The players then, are looked on as commodities, to be told when & where to play and to hell with what they want or the consequences.

How can any committee man look his players in the eye and say he has their interests at heart when in reality they are just pound note generating machines to him ?