4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.
"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.
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.Old Hob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:21 am 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.
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!
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
Hahachris111 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:53 amExcellent 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.Old Hob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:21 am 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.
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!
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.
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.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... src=recsys
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
Good finds,strange how the one I found contradicts it. Still can't find that link I copy and pasted from.
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.”
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.”
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.
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.
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.chris111 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:19 pm 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.
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.chris111 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:19 pm 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.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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.
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.
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
Little difference?!Cardiff Tig wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:28 pm 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.
"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.”
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
Fine, I'll bite.Scott1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:30 pmLittle difference?!Cardiff Tig wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:28 pm 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.
"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.”
"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.
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
So you are not right in your statement then,just as I thoughtCardiff Tig wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:31 pmFine, I'll bite.Scott1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:30 pmLittle difference?!Cardiff Tig wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:28 pm 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.
"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.”
"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.
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Re: 4G Pitch bans? Leggings are allowed
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!Cardiff Tig wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:31 pmFine, I'll bite.Scott1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:30 pmLittle difference?!Cardiff Tig wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:28 pm 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.
"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.”
"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.