4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed

[BengalTiger]

Rugby, a game that should be played on grass and or mud nothing else, they talk a lot about reducing injuries but persist with plastic pitches that are faster, harder and catch the studs on quick direction changes, planned or unplanned, many players avoid them to prolong their careers, there should be no debate ban them ASAP.

[loretta]

Wasn't there a fullback from Perpignan(?) that played at Welford Road once in gloves and leggings, and got lots of attention from the crowd that day as he struggled to catch anything despite all the extra gear?

I remember that. He got cat called whenever he went near the ball all through the first half, then came out in the second half sans-leggings and got cheered for that!

[Pellsey]

Rugby, a game that should be played on grass and or mud nothing else, they talk a lot about reducing injuries but persist with plastic pitches that are faster, harder and catch the studs on quick direction changes, planned or unplanned, many players avoid them to prolong their careers, there should be no debate ban them ASAP.

Well put, BengalTiger. Completely agree.

[chris111]

Rugby, a game that should be played on grass and or mud nothing else, they talk a lot about reducing injuries but persist with plastic pitches that are faster, harder and catch the studs on quick direction changes, planned or unplanned, many players avoid them to prolong their careers, there should be no debate ban them ASAP.

Well put, BengalTiger. Completely agree.

Can anyone point me in the direction of studies that provide robust quantitative evidence regarding differences in incidence of rugby injuries (frequency, severity, type) between different types of pitches?

[Scott1]

Rugby, a game that should be played on grass and or mud nothing else, they talk a lot about reducing injuries but persist with plastic pitches that are faster, harder and catch the studs on quick direction changes, planned or unplanned, many players avoid them to prolong their careers, there should be no debate ban them ASAP.

Well put, BengalTiger. Completely agree.

Can anyone point me in the direction of studies that provide robust quantitative evidence regarding differences in incidence of rugby injuries (frequency, severity, type) between different types of pitches?

How about the many players and coaches who have left players/left themselves out as not to further irritate injuries or prevent injuries. Isn’t that enough?! Or was it a genuine question? Sometimes it’s how you come across

“ Conclusion
After a long analysis of the data we received we discovered:
• While both artificial and grass pitches both have similar amounts of injuries
the severity of these injuries is a lot greater when playing on an artificial
surface.
• The main difference is in upper and lower limb injuries which are the most
common types of injuries rather than head and trunk.
• Injuries sustained while running and tackling increase on artificial surfaces
while injuries sustained in rucks and while being tackled increase on grass pitches”

[jgriffin]

Rugby, a game that should be played on grass and or mud nothing else, they talk a lot about reducing injuries but persist with plastic pitches that are faster, harder and catch the studs on quick direction changes, planned or unplanned, many players avoid them to prolong their careers, there should be no debate ban them ASAP.

Well put, BengalTiger. Completely agree.

Can anyone point me in the direction of studies that provide robust quantitative evidence regarding differences in incidence of rugby injuries (frequency, severity, type) between different types of pitches?

I'd be interested in that, if done properly. It's clear that some players are especially susceptible to injury on those pitches, and it would be instructive to look at a series of case studies, as well as a real-time assessment of skin burns, hamstring pulls and other conditions. Merely looking at frequency would not be instructive.

[Old Hob]

To illustrate the article on Rob Baxter's views there was a fairly gruesome picture of someone's shin with the skin removed for about half its length.

[ourla]

Rugby, a game that should be played on grass and or mud nothing else, they talk a lot about reducing injuries but persist with plastic pitches that are faster, harder and catch the studs on quick direction changes, planned or unplanned, many players avoid them to prolong their careers, there should be no debate ban them ASAP.

Well put, BengalTiger. Completely agree.

Can anyone point me in the direction of studies that provide robust quantitative evidence regarding differences in incidence of rugby injuries (frequency, severity, type) between different types of pitches?

When I have researched in the past strangely (given that on social media and in the press it seems a given) I haven't found any studies that were really conclusive.

[Scott1]

Everyone ignoring my copy and paste from a study done? Looks conclusive to me! Similar amount of injuries on both but the injuries are far greater in severity on artificial surfaces. Seems to be more upper body injuries on artificial surfaces and it even tells you how the injuries occur too funnily enough.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Everyone ignoring my copy and paste from a study done? Looks conclusive to me! Similar amount of injuries on both but the injuries are far greater in severity on artificial surfaces. Seems to be more upper body injuries on artificial surfaces and it even tells you how the injuries occur too funnily enough.

You got a link to the study at all or any details? I'd genuinely like to read the full thing

[chris111]

Well put, BengalTiger. Completely agree.

Can anyone point me in the direction of studies that provide robust quantitative evidence regarding differences in incidence of rugby injuries (frequency, severity, type) between different types of pitches?

How about the many players and coaches who have left players/left themselves out as not to further irritate injuries or prevent injuries. Isn’t that enough?! Or was it a genuine question? Sometimes it’s how you come across

“ Conclusion
After a long analysis of the data we received we discovered:
• While both artificial and grass pitches both have similar amounts of injuries
the severity of these injuries is a lot greater when playing on an artificial
surface.
• The main difference is in upper and lower limb injuries which are the most
common types of injuries rather than head and trunk.
• Injuries sustained while running and tackling increase on artificial surfaces
while injuries sustained in rucks and while being tackled increase on grass pitches”

I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of it, Scott - it was a genuine question. I’m a social scientist by profession so I always look to the data!

I sense the vast majority of posters here instinctively dislike the idea of rugby on fully artificial surfaces - and I am one of them, as it happens. However, I recognise that my personal views are based largely on personal inclination, with a little bit of painful recollection of playing hockey on very early astros (30+ years ago, and those surfaces bear no resemblance to modern 4G).

So, no, I’m not on a mission to wind you up by adopting a deliberately provocative position on something there’s a broad consensus on here - I genuinely would be keen to read any studies that have been carried out!

[chris111]

Everyone ignoring my copy and paste from a study done? Looks conclusive to me! Similar amount of injuries on both but the injuries are far greater in severity on artificial surfaces. Seems to be more upper body injuries on artificial surfaces and it even tells you how the injuries occur too funnily enough.

You got a link to the study at all or any details? I'd genuinely like to read the full thing

Seconded - could you provide citation and/or link? Thanks.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Can anyone point me in the direction of studies that provide robust quantitative evidence regarding differences in incidence of rugby injuries (frequency, severity, type) between different types of pitches?

How about the many players and coaches who have left players/left themselves out as not to further irritate injuries or prevent injuries. Isn’t that enough?! Or was it a genuine question? Sometimes it’s how you come across

“ Conclusion
After a long analysis of the data we received we discovered:
• While both artificial and grass pitches both have similar amounts of injuries
the severity of these injuries is a lot greater when playing on an artificial
surface.
• The main difference is in upper and lower limb injuries which are the most
common types of injuries rather than head and trunk.
• Injuries sustained while running and tackling increase on artificial surfaces
while injuries sustained in rucks and while being tackled increase on grass pitches”

I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of it, Scott - it was a genuine question. I’m a social scientist by profession so I always look to the data!

I sense the vast majority of posters here instinctively dislike the idea of rugby on fully artificial surfaces - and I am one of them, as it happens. However, I recognise that my personal views are based largely on personal inclination, with a little bit of painful recollection of playing hockey on very early astros (30+ years ago, and those surfaces bear no resemblance to modern 4G).

So, no, I’m not on a mission to wind you up by adopting a deliberately provocative position on something there’s a broad consensus on here - I genuinely would be keen to read any studies that have been carried out!

Agreed I'd like to see the data. I have played on a 4G about 4 years ago and I was ok but a couple of lads had burns, but it could be my bias, lets face it plenty of times multiple players come off pitches with injuries so was I looking out for it more

[chris111]

In the absence of a comprehensive study, looking at the comparative injury stats for Sarries, Worcester and Newcastle v the rest would be interesting, given they’re playing 50% of the season on plastic, as opposed to everyone else mostly only playing in it 3 times.

[Scott1]

I’ll try and find the link again,should be on my phone history