4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed

[Old Hob]

Letter from Dr David Dixon

"What wasn't mentioned (in the article about Baxter) was the considerable environmental damage associated with plastic pitches in their manufacture, use and disposal. The carbon footprint of such pitches is considerable and once in use they shed microplastics which enter the food chain; worn-out pitches end up as uncompostable landfill."

Yet more reason not to have them.

[chris111]

Letter from Dr David Dixon

"What wasn't mentioned (in the article about Baxter) was the considerable environmental damage associated with plastic pitches in their manufacture, use and disposal. The carbon footprint of such pitches is considerable and once in use they shed microplastics which enter the food chain; worn-out pitches end up as uncompostable landfill."

Yet more reason not to have them.

Excellent point, thank you, Old Hob. As resident Woke Warrior for this forum it was very remiss of me to not bring this into the equation.
Mind you, I’m a little worried that this could cause Scott to flip and become pro-plastic

Just a joke, Scott - in peace across the culture wars barricades!

[Scott1]

Letter from Dr David Dixon

"What wasn't mentioned (in the article about Baxter) was the considerable environmental damage associated with plastic pitches in their manufacture, use and disposal. The carbon footprint of such pitches is considerable and once in use they shed microplastics which enter the food chain; worn-out pitches end up as uncompostable landfill."

Yet more reason not to have them.

Excellent point, thank you, Old Hob. As resident Woke Warrior for this forum it was very remiss of me to not bring this into the equation.
Mind you, I’m a little worried that this could cause Scott to flip and become pro-plastic

Just a joke, Scott - in peace across the culture wars barricades!

Haha

[Cardiff Tig]

Here's a study from 2018 that finds no difference in injury rate, and where there are differences it is mainly due to the very small numbers involved (I'm not sure if everyone will have access to the full report):

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1458588

Interestingly, the authors make the claim that knee injuries are no more likely on artificial surfaces despite general opinion.

"Higher rates of ankle sprains on artificial American (Iacovelli et al., 2013) and association football (Kristenson et al., 2013) pitches were not replicated in the current study. However, there was a higher rate of artificial surface foot injuries, particularly midfoot and toe fractures and dislocations which might be related to greater artificial surface traction, stiffness and rotational torque (Thomson, Rod Whiteley, & Bleakley, 2015). Optimising boot-stud and playing surface interaction should be considered within improved footwear design. Although it occurred on an artificial surface, there was only one knee anterior cruciate ligament rupture across the three seasons and both teams, conflicting the notion that artificial surfaces predispose this injury (Dragoo, Braun, & Harris, 2013)."

There will be more recent studies that I haven't found but it does seem that there is no significant reason regarding injuries to ban 4G pitches.

[Cardiff Tig]

And another study saying that players have a negative bias towards artificial turf even with little evidence of physical differences between the two:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... src=recsys

[Scott1]

Good finds,strange how the one I found contradicts it. Still can't find that link I copy and pasted from.

[Scott1]

Found this one
https://www.csp.org.uk/news/2017-10-17- ... alth-risks

Scotsman stays significantly higher too,but quite old and could've been a one off season
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/increase ... als-309402

Another one that states injuries are significantly higher on artifical grass. Stats at bottom of article
https://lastwordonsports.com/rugby/2020 ... ral-grass/

"The overall burden of injuries on natural grass was 2,481 per 1,000 days compared with 4,740 per 1,000 days on artificial turf, a staggering difference.”

[chris111]

Thanks, all, for the links - some interesting reading here. The contradictions are not strange at all, Scott, that’s how scientific knowledge progresses - in messy, inconclusive steps with different outcomes according to different methodological approaches. To be really confident about this issue, we need many more studies in different contexts - and then a systematic meta-analysis of all of these.

Essentially, the jury is still out - although personally for now I’ll give more weight to the studies reported in reputable peer-reviewed academic journals over the newspaper/magazine pieces.

[Scott1]

Thanks, all, for the links - some interesting reading here. The contradictions are not strange at all, Scott, that’s how scientific knowledge progresses - in messy, inconclusive steps with different outcomes according to different methodological approaches. To be really confident about this issue, we need many more studies in different contexts - and then a systematic meta-analysis of all of these.

Essentially, the jury is still out - although personally for now I’ll give more weight to the studies reported in reputable peer-reviewed academic journals over the newspaper/magazine pieces.

I tend to be very weary when I see the phrase “peer-reviewed”! But like you said it’s quite easy to skew the results either way and it needs many more studies.

[jgriffin]

Thanks, all, for the links - some interesting reading here. The contradictions are not strange at all, Scott, that’s how scientific knowledge progresses - in messy, inconclusive steps with different outcomes according to different methodological approaches. To be really confident about this issue, we need many more studies in different contexts - and then a systematic meta-analysis of all of these.

Essentially, the jury is still out - although personally for now I’ll give more weight to the studies reported in reputable peer-reviewed academic journals over the newspaper/magazine pieces.

That's why I opted for a mix including individual case studies. There may be individual predisposing factors, including structural ones; there may be equipment ones, there may be manufacture ones. Needs a lot more work. However, the environmental point to my mind is the killer blow.

[Cardiff Tig]

The issue with rugby and 4G pitches is that the sample size is always going to be small for any study, and so a conclusive answer is probably a number of years away at least. It does seem that there is little evidence of a difference in injury rates from reliable sources (i.e. not players' opinions in articles). The caveat being burn-like injuries that don't seem to be included in any studies.

However, money talks. Newcastle, Worcester, and Sarries aren't in the business of wasting money on higher insurance premiums, healthcare fees, and injury replacement signings as a result of playing the majority of their games on an artificial pitch. If there was a significant issue with 4G pitches then I would expect it to have come to light already and for teams to avoid installing them.

[Scott1]

The issue with rugby and 4G pitches is that the sample size is always going to be small for any study, and so a conclusive answer is probably a number of years away at least. It does seem that there is little evidence of a difference in injury rates from reliable sources (i.e. not players' opinions in articles). The caveat being burn-like injuries that don't seem to be included in any studies.

However, money talks. Newcastle, Worcester, and Sarries aren't in the business of wasting money on higher insurance premiums, healthcare fees, and injury replacement signings as a result of playing the majority of their games on an artificial pitch. If there was a significant issue with 4G pitches then I would expect it to have come to light already and for teams to avoid installing them.

Little difference?!
"The overall burden of injuries on natural grass was 2,481 per 1,000 days compared with 4,740 per 1,000 days on artificial turf, a staggering difference.”

[Cardiff Tig]

The issue with rugby and 4G pitches is that the sample size is always going to be small for any study, and so a conclusive answer is probably a number of years away at least. It does seem that there is little evidence of a difference in injury rates from reliable sources (i.e. not players' opinions in articles). The caveat being burn-like injuries that don't seem to be included in any studies.

However, money talks. Newcastle, Worcester, and Sarries aren't in the business of wasting money on higher insurance premiums, healthcare fees, and injury replacement signings as a result of playing the majority of their games on an artificial pitch. If there was a significant issue with 4G pitches then I would expect it to have come to light already and for teams to avoid installing them.

Little difference?!
"The overall burden of injuries on natural grass was 2,481 per 1,000 days compared with 4,740 per 1,000 days on artificial turf, a staggering difference.”

Fine, I'll bite.

"The first thing to note is that, over the course of four years that the survey has dealt with artificial pitches, the frequency and severity of injuries on the AGPs is not statistically different to those played on grass. Over the first three years the numbers were slightly lower on AGPs so the spike of injuries in 2016/17 may be just that, a statistical anomaly"

I can selectively quote text as well.

[Scott1]

The issue with rugby and 4G pitches is that the sample size is always going to be small for any study, and so a conclusive answer is probably a number of years away at least. It does seem that there is little evidence of a difference in injury rates from reliable sources (i.e. not players' opinions in articles). The caveat being burn-like injuries that don't seem to be included in any studies.

However, money talks. Newcastle, Worcester, and Sarries aren't in the business of wasting money on higher insurance premiums, healthcare fees, and injury replacement signings as a result of playing the majority of their games on an artificial pitch. If there was a significant issue with 4G pitches then I would expect it to have come to light already and for teams to avoid installing them.

Little difference?!
"The overall burden of injuries on natural grass was 2,481 per 1,000 days compared with 4,740 per 1,000 days on artificial turf, a staggering difference.”

Fine, I'll bite.

"The first thing to note is that, over the course of four years that the survey has dealt with artificial pitches, the frequency and severity of injuries on the AGPs is not statistically different to those played on grass. Over the first three years the numbers were slightly lower on AGPs so the spike of injuries in 2016/17 may be just that, a statistical anomaly"

I can selectively quote text as well.

So you are not right in your statement then,just as I thought

[chris111]

The issue with rugby and 4G pitches is that the sample size is always going to be small for any study, and so a conclusive answer is probably a number of years away at least. It does seem that there is little evidence of a difference in injury rates from reliable sources (i.e. not players' opinions in articles). The caveat being burn-like injuries that don't seem to be included in any studies.

However, money talks. Newcastle, Worcester, and Sarries aren't in the business of wasting money on higher insurance premiums, healthcare fees, and injury replacement signings as a result of playing the majority of their games on an artificial pitch. If there was a significant issue with 4G pitches then I would expect it to have come to light already and for teams to avoid installing them.

Little difference?!
"The overall burden of injuries on natural grass was 2,481 per 1,000 days compared with 4,740 per 1,000 days on artificial turf, a staggering difference.”

Fine, I'll bite.

"The first thing to note is that, over the course of four years that the survey has dealt with artificial pitches, the frequency and severity of injuries on the AGPs is not statistically different to those played on grass. Over the first three years the numbers were slightly lower on AGPs so the spike of injuries in 2016/17 may be just that, a statistical anomaly"

I can selectively quote text as well.

You cracked first, Tig - I was resisting the temptation. However, I suspect this is an unwinnable argument. Selective quotation and confirmation bias provides a comforting sense of rightness for many these days, when compared with the wearisome task of ploughing through peer-reviewed science only to end up with inconclusive outcomes!