If you say so. I say it's as relevant as comparing Widnes' clear ipitch surface with Salford's snow-covered grass surface. As in, not at all.


Yes, there were. At Widnes, for example.


-4°C was quoted in an article. Which article, I don't recall. But it's odd that suddenly the Widnes chairman thinks it was -7°C. Did he had a thermometer? Also odd that according to rlthe local weather stationrl, it was no lower than -4°C (-3°C without dew factor). Oh, perhaps that's where I got -4°C from. The actual weather.

I have to say the games at both Widnes and Salford should have been called off. They were both clearly unplayable and the players involved have suffered.

The ipitch is attracting a lot of controversy, but there is no evidence the pitch was to blame. The ice on the surface was responsible for the injuries I saw from the game and if anything, the injuries suffered by players at Salford were worse than those at Widnes.

The RFL clearly should be asking questions about why either went ahead. Player welfare really should come higher than pleasing Sky.

If you think that comparing a brick wall with a playing surface is just as relevant as comparing two playing surfaces in a discussion about playing surfaces, then you're just being stubborn and difficult. It's not a way to get your point across.


And at Salford. Shall we see what'd any other players post their legs this weekend...


I got mine from an article too. An article from someone who was at the game and from someone who has clearly had someone give him a reading. Trust you to go with the cynical approach here by questioning its validaty because it goes against your point.


Yes, unlike me, you have jumped to a conclusion.
I haven't got a view on the pitch yet because I think it's daft to come to a conclusion after one game played in freezing conditions. I can't be wrong if I haven't decided yet.

I'd like it to be good, as I am a positive person. But that doesn't mean I think it is or will be.


You're embarrassing yourself now.
You do realise that "perspiration evapourating" basically means sweat leaving the body? If you're wearing clothing that keeps the moisture in, you heat up. Certain types of skins draw the sweat away from the body to keep you cool and comfortable. They don't "heat you up" like you're alluding to.


Many do. Many don't. At the moment some don't feel they need to. Some don't feel a significant difference so they don't waste their time with them.
You can exaggerate a point to make yourself feel like you're winning, but saying that players wearing skins run the risk of hyperthermia and overheating is daft and another huge exaggeration to try and prove a point.


If I aired my grievances about my employer out in public, I wouldn't have a job for long (well, I would at the moment as I work for myself, but in previous employment).
There are ways to air your grievances. Twitter is not one of them. I don't quite know what they were expecting to achieve other than cause unnecessary negativity to the club they play for that could easily have been done in the backroom.


And what you have failed to understand is I have never once said it isn't or won't be dangerous.
All I have said is that you can't jump to a conclusion after one game on a frozen pitch. You have. You're willing to be proven wrong, which is fine, but why not wait a little longer to garner an opinion so you give yourself a better chance of being right?

You mean completely different surfaces in different conditions? Yes, entirely relevant.


Someone 'clearly' gave him a reading? You know how he came upon this information, or are you actually making it up? I think I'd rather trust the readings from the local meteorological station than the chief exec of a rugby club.


Am I really?

Oddly, my understanding of, and every definition and explanation of the sweating process I can find explains it as the process of cooling the body by means of the evaporation of perspiration. Or evaporative cooling, as it's known. Not the process of removing of heated fluids from the body as you claimed earlier.

Try rlhererl, rlhererl, rlhererl, rlhererl, rlhererl, or for the easy-to-understand version, rlhere.rl

Of course keeping moisture close to the skin in the heat will heat you up - after all, it can't evaporate - and that's why it's better to have your skin open to the air in order to allow to natural cooling process to take place. It's worked quite well for hundreds of thousands of years and since the conception of summer rugby. Further, wearing one of your wonder tops to draw the moisture away from the skin beneath your playing kit is pointless.

I've yet to see anything backing up your assertion that sweating is the removal of heated fluids from the body. It's not. Or if it is, I would like to see your proof. As I said, you don't understand the mechanisms at work.

Who's embarrassing themselves now?


Many do? Who? Which professional sports-people wear these amazing cooling skins in scorching summer temperatures? Please, point a few out. In fact, find me a few examples of these cooling skins. If they are as wonderful as you say and can cool you in the hottest conditions, I'd expect them to be extremely common.


Or perhaps they were just pretty naffed off. God forbid someone should express their feelings online eh?! Either way they appear to have been instructed to remove their criticism. Matter closed. Doesn't change the fact they felt that way in the first place.


Ahem: "Let's see what a game in more temperate conditions brings."

Seems better than writing down a load of miss-informed for 2 days

You don't appear to be able to take your own advice, before making rash statements though.

As somebody pointed out on the widnes messageboard,any plastic material becomes hard and rigid in cold conditions,like a garden hose pipe in winter for example which then becomes soft and flexible in summer.The blades of 'grass' would have been like spikes on Friday at minus 3 degrees.There was another game played on the i pitch on Sunday afternoon when the temperature was around plus 3 degrees,not heard any complaints from players in that game.Perhaps games should be canceled in extreme conditions or if not advise the use of knee and elbow protection.

It was a local chemist. I'm not sure if he was talking about the pellet infill, the grass or both.

Quote"first post as a chemist of 50 years standing .the problem probably is that all plastics as the temperature drops become harder and brittle giving sharper edges.if you want to prove this place any plastic kitchen utensil that is soft and flexible in the freezer and see what happens. the pitch is still better than turf at the same temperature .surely the answer is under these conditions to wear elasticated knee and elbow bandages job sorted"[/i

You're right with this bit.



But you're wrong, here. So long as body heat is being used to provide the latent heat required for evaporation, heat is being transferred from the body to the evaporating liquid - which is the same thing as saying that the body is being cooled. It doesn't really matter whether the liquid is next to the skin, or whether the skin is open to the air. All that matters is being able to transfer heat.

Also, moisture close to the skin will only heat you up (i.e. transfer heat to you) if the moisture is
hotter than you are (second law of thermodynamics). It will just fail to cool you if there is no opportunity to evaporate.

We're ignoring the efficiency and degree of cooling, so far. It can be more efficient to cool the body without having a layer of material in the way: evaporation is 'easier' when the air into which the liquid evaporates is drier/less humid, but a layer of material can trap vapour, saturating the air and making evaporation impossible; you still sweat, but it just hangs around at about the same temperature you are (this is one reason why the same temperature can feel 'hotter' and 'stickier' when the weather is humid). However, modern 'technical' fabrics that wick moisture from the skin use capillary action to get the moisture out to the material surface and away from the skin (reduces chafing, feels nicer and drier, with more efficient cooling than other materials, like cotton). Here, body heat warms the fabric, and the air between the body and the fabric. Excess body heat results in sweat, which is carried away from the body to the fabric surface, where it evaporates, cooling the material, and the body. Heat transfer and cooling may be less efficient than standing naked, but it's not true that wicking fabrics don't work, or that they don't cool you by evaporating sweat.

That said, there's a time and a place for them, and I wouldn't fancy playing RL in full skins in a hot summer, myself. As it happens, I wouldn't expect there to be too much problem with Widnes' pitch by the time it's that warm, either.

Yes, except that technically heat is only latent when it doesn't affect the temperature of the liquid (it's latent because it's 'hidden', like that). The latent heat of evaporation is - pretty much - 'the heat used to turn liquid into gas', rather than heat used to increase the temperature of the liquid. But ignoring that technical distinction, you're spot on. Once the air next to the skin is saturated, no more moisture can be taken up, which means sweat essentially warms up as heat is pumped in, rather than evaporating. Since it's not a closed system in real life there's always likely to be [isome[/i evaporation going on, but the efficiency of cooling is much lower.



Aye, I'm a pedant, though

Well Chev Walker posted this picture on Twitter last week after playing at the KC, showing that it's not just Widnes and Salford ruining players legs! https://twitter.com/#!/chevwalker/statu ... 52/photo/1

Well Chev Walker posted this picture on Twitter last week after playing at the KC, showing that it's not just Widnes and Salford ruining players legs! https://twitter.com/#!/chevwalker/statu ... 52/photo/1

so we've had 3 players sporting "grazed knees" playing at 3 different grounds.......



now..... im no genius but i'd suggest the common factor was the icy conditions not whether the grass was real or plastic

Look, people have made their minds up. The grass needs to go. Widnes and the RFL are idiots/cheats/etc, and the players should speak up in public immediately after any grievance without a care or thought.

The RFL needs to answer why it's allowing games to go ahead in conditions like this.

has'nt it already been said that if the salford game was'nt on sky it would'nt have been played?