RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf
As mentioned in another thread, concussion and hamstring injuries appear to be the biggest concern, "For the first time hamstring injuries and concussion feature in the top three injuries resulting in more than 84 days absence"
Also, interesting to see that, with a greater data set than in previous years (3 pitches instead of 2), 2016/17 was the first year that injuries on plaggy pitches exceeded those on grass and by some margin. More details at the link for them what wants 'em.
"match injury incidences of 89.6/1000 hours for grass and 129.1/1000 hours for artificial turf. The average severity for match injuries on grass was 32 days, compared with that of 37 days for artificial turf"
As mentioned in another thread, concussion and hamstring injuries appear to be the biggest concern, "For the first time hamstring injuries and concussion feature in the top three injuries resulting in more than 84 days absence"
Also, interesting to see that, with a greater data set than in previous years (3 pitches instead of 2), 2016/17 was the first year that injuries on plaggy pitches exceeded those on grass and by some margin. More details at the link for them what wants 'em.
"match injury incidences of 89.6/1000 hours for grass and 129.1/1000 hours for artificial turf. The average severity for match injuries on grass was 32 days, compared with that of 37 days for artificial turf"
In my defence, I was left unsupervised….
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
and yet they keep allowing more plastic pitches both at elite and amateur level.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Thank you for sharing. Probably too early for firm conclusions, but it'd be interesting to see if same pattern has been found in other countries.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
It's remarkable that a group of highly educated individuals can come up with such a report and completely fail to recognise the impact of the gym monkey approach to rugby.
We are constantly fed video's on social media of teenage male elite players taking part in heavy weights sessions and all they can come up with is this rubbish!
Does anyone else not find it the slightest bit pathetic that these educated folk can't see that the women's game does not have such a big issue!
We are constantly fed video's on social media of teenage male elite players taking part in heavy weights sessions and all they can come up with is this rubbish!
Does anyone else not find it the slightest bit pathetic that these educated folk can't see that the women's game does not have such a big issue!
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Welcome the report.
But will it change clubs attitudes. I feel that clubs will keep these Plastic pitches.
I'd like to see a report done on Cancer risk because of the prills( if that's what they are called).As I believe they are made of tyre waste and may have a adverse effect on health.
But will it change clubs attitudes. I feel that clubs will keep these Plastic pitches.
I'd like to see a report done on Cancer risk because of the prills( if that's what they are called).As I believe they are made of tyre waste and may have a adverse effect on health.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
There's nothing in the report that should change their mind yet. This is the first time out of 4 years that there has been an increase in injuries on the artificial pitches. So far there is no difference between the two types on average. They've noted the fact that the increase has occurred, and will monitor if the trend continues.wellstiger wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:46 am Welcome the report.
But will it change clubs attitudes. I feel that clubs will keep these Plastic pitches.
I'd like to see a report done on Cancer risk because of the prills( if that's what they are called).As I believe they are made of tyre waste and may have a adverse effect on health.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
These reports are just endless pages to inform us of what Cockerill can inform of in just one sentence.wellstiger wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:46 am Welcome the report.
But will it change clubs attitudes. I feel that clubs will keep these Plastic pitches.
I'd like to see a report done on Cancer risk because of the prills( if that's what they are called).As I believe they are made of tyre waste and may have a adverse effect on health.
Players are bigger and faster.
England are obsessed by size, and IMO they are also less skilled.
Regarding plastic pitches it's pretty obvious, big players + more grip = increased forces.
As you say though if there are other potential health risks then they should be investigating those and not wasting time and money telling us nothing but stats.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Lies, damned lies and statistics - you fail to mention that incidence was lower on artificial pitches for the previous three seasons. More date needed to find the real common themes here.loretta wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:55 am http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf
As mentioned in another thread, concussion and hamstring injuries appear to be the biggest concern, "For the first time hamstring injuries and concussion feature in the top three injuries resulting in more than 84 days absence"
Also, interesting to see that, with a greater data set than in previous years (3 pitches instead of 2), 2016/17 was the first year that injuries on plaggy pitches exceeded those on grass and by some margin. More details at the link for them what wants 'em.
"match injury incidences of 89.6/1000 hours for grass and 129.1/1000 hours for artificial turf. The average severity for match injuries on grass was 32 days, compared with that of 37 days for artificial turf"
And before you go with the larger data set thing, there's more games in the three previous seasons combined on artificial than in last season, so the bigger data set is actually prior to last season. Neither data set really big enough to make a call. (2013/14 - 2015/16 c. 55 games, 2016/17 c. 33 games)
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Would you care to read that again?biffer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:04 pmLies, damned lies and statistics - you fail to mention that incidence was lower on artificial pitches for the previous three seasons.loretta wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:55 am http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf
As mentioned in another thread, concussion and hamstring injuries appear to be the biggest concern, "For the first time hamstring injuries and concussion feature in the top three injuries resulting in more than 84 days absence"
Also, interesting to see that, with a greater data set than in previous years (3 pitches instead of 2), 2016/17 was the first year that injuries on plaggy pitches exceeded those on grass and by some margin. More details at the link for them what wants 'em.
"match injury incidences of 89.6/1000 hours for grass and 129.1/1000 hours for artificial turf. The average severity for match injuries on grass was 32 days, compared with that of 37 days for artificial turf"
And, yes, you could lump all 3 previous years together if that's the way you wanted to do it. Or, you could break it down game by game, or month by month, to find the outcome you're looking for. As you say, lies, damned lies and statistics.
In my defence, I was left unsupervised….
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Yeah, that's kind of the point I was making, no way that amount oof data tells us a story either wayloretta wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:43 pmWould you care to read that again?biffer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:04 pmLies, damned lies and statistics - you fail to mention that incidence was lower on artificial pitches for the previous three seasons.loretta wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:55 am http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf
As mentioned in another thread, concussion and hamstring injuries appear to be the biggest concern, "For the first time hamstring injuries and concussion feature in the top three injuries resulting in more than 84 days absence"
Also, interesting to see that, with a greater data set than in previous years (3 pitches instead of 2), 2016/17 was the first year that injuries on plaggy pitches exceeded those on grass and by some margin. More details at the link for them what wants 'em.
"match injury incidences of 89.6/1000 hours for grass and 129.1/1000 hours for artificial turf. The average severity for match injuries on grass was 32 days, compared with that of 37 days for artificial turf"
And, yes, you could lump all 3 previous years together if that's the way you wanted to do it. Or, you could break it down game by game, or month by month, to find the outcome you're looking for. As you say, lies, damned lies and statistics.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Willis out for a year. Further reasoning to abandon this national obsession with plastic pitches. There's enough money in the game to have all top flights build and maintain proper pitches like desso etc.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44208535
just read thiss the beeb then saw this thread, so thought i'd post it.
just read thiss the beeb then saw this thread, so thought i'd post it.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1781
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:55 pm
- Location: Birmingham / Bangor Uni
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Commens in https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44209849 from Ugo Monye also saying that Willis' injury might be partially to blame on Saracens' 4G pitchads wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 12:21 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44208535
just read thiss the beeb then saw this thread, so thought i'd post it.
Monye wrote: "I've played on 4G pitches a lot and I personally don't like it - it's a really hard surface.
"At the time you feel quick but it's putting so much extra pressure through your joints and when you're a big lad like Jack [who is 6ft 3in and weighs nearly 17 stone], you can see it.
"It was fairly innocuous - he just gets hit, his studs get trapped in the ground and unfortunately the ground wasn't going to move so it had to be his knee."
-
- Tiger Cub
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:27 am
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
I actually re-watched the injury today, out of curiosity and it is very innocuous. But I think to blame it solely on the 4G pitch is a bit irresponsible, there are so many other factors. Firstly the impact is to the side Willis' knee, and on any pitch that's a potential ligament injury.
Secondly, if you listen to Flats and Shanks podcast from this week, James Haskell confirms that Willis was playing with a broken ankle! You can see how limited his movement is from kick off, he moves almost duck footed. The impact on his other joints having to compensate for a broken ankle could easily have contributed to the situation he found himself in. The poor guy really had no hope going out there with effectively one leg. If we're going to go down the blame game route (which we really shouldn't, but it is fun to discuss sometimes) you have to question Wasps and their player management. Having a seriously injured player (that they didn't know was injured) out there from kick off isn't a good look. I imagine they had their issues themselves (Nathan Hughes wasn't fit enough to play either IMO). I guess at the knock out stages you have to try anything, but it doesn't read well after the fact.
Secondly, if you listen to Flats and Shanks podcast from this week, James Haskell confirms that Willis was playing with a broken ankle! You can see how limited his movement is from kick off, he moves almost duck footed. The impact on his other joints having to compensate for a broken ankle could easily have contributed to the situation he found himself in. The poor guy really had no hope going out there with effectively one leg. If we're going to go down the blame game route (which we really shouldn't, but it is fun to discuss sometimes) you have to question Wasps and their player management. Having a seriously injured player (that they didn't know was injured) out there from kick off isn't a good look. I imagine they had their issues themselves (Nathan Hughes wasn't fit enough to play either IMO). I guess at the knock out stages you have to try anything, but it doesn't read well after the fact.
Re: RFU injury surveillance report, re plaggy pitches
Great post LondonRich and in regard of the Glasgee pitch. Comments from some of the players suggest they've not had issues with others like Cardiff or Sarries pitches. It seems likely that the Glasgee decided to keep the pitch especially dry and/or theirs is cheap sh-ite.