I haven't seen these comments but, if they are as bad as you say they are, I would agree that that is disgraceful behaviour.

Is it true that he has now linked Tommy Coyle's terrible injury as some sort of proof of the ipitch's safety?

I hope not, because that would be a bit sick really.

No, all he has said is that he wishes Coyle a speedy recovery

£500 000 according to Full time.


Barrie Mac suggest 'we need to give this pitch a go' he said from his retirement chair.

Just watched the new programme that rounds up all the tries from the weekend - anyone else notice a Widnes player give Andy Raleigh a sly boot to the head after he'd scored his try? Classy.

FACT the Salford game should have being called off and it would have being if it was not the live sky game player safety should come first

There are none so blind as those who will not see...
Whether the iPitch causes more grazes or cuts than any other pitch is still very much up to debate.
There was little argument an hour or so after the game and I have some sympathy for those players, but the game at Salford has thrown all of that into question now. Maybe this is the reason the player withdrew their comments?
Certainly a number of players complained of grazes but I'm sure having seen the picture I posted above many of them would retract their criticism. It certainly seems as though the injuries sustained on a grass pitch in a game played under similar conditions were a lot worse.

This is a season long experiment. Maybe the grazes might continue beyond the cold weather, maybe players might need to look at wearing base layers to protect their joints? Maybe that will be viewed as an agreeable cost against any benefits it brings. Or it might all lead to the pitch being dug up and re-turfed.

Maybe however the pitch will improve the game speed and protect players from impact injuries during the summer months as previous research has suggested.
Who knows?? I'd suggest no-one at the moment.
Lets wait and see what the Salford game brings on Feb the 10th in hopefully better conditions.

It's a bit easier though I admit to form an opinion based on a single event and then sit in denial of all other evidence to the contrary.

You're a tiresome fellow aren't you?

The statement above could just as easily be describing your own stance on the subject and no matter how many times you post a picture of some scabby knees NOT caused by the i-pitch, it doesn't alter the situation.

In fact, your suggestion is that the injuries sustained on your pitch were due to the sub-zero temperature that the game was played in? Isn't the i-pitch supposed to be an all-weather surface that doesn't behave like grass in the wet/cold/dry conditions? If that's the case, and your theory proves to be correct, then hasn't the i-pitch failed again?

Either way, your own players are the ones who will suffer - along with the fans of every other club who plays there when you arrive on their board with your i-pitch denial.

The game may not have been on bar the ipitch as our surface has always been badly effected by freezing. Annoying cold is effect daft as I said earlier cold effects players not just the pitch!

The surface looked fantastic and made the game what it was, as you saw yourself!

If it's our players to suffer I don't see the determination to write it off based on one game at night in freezing conditions. If we said get rod of Salfords pitch etc you'd be thinking that was ridiculous, no?

No!

i thought the pitch looked fantastic, however seeing players with "skinned" knees and elbows suggests that it's not an appropriate surface for anything other than training. we will see players with leggings and long sleeve t-shirt type tops on under their kit all summer at widnes i'd bet. personally i think widnes have jumped in too soon.

people say it's too early to say, but there seemed to be quite a few players with the kind of grazes that only used to happen on dustbowl pitches come april/may after a full season of being muddy and churned up.

not good enough i'm afraid, we shouldn't by default expect players to risk serious/permanent scaring by just taking the field.

I can appear that way to people losing their argument.
I've yet to see conclusive proof that the injuries sustained were due solely to the pitch and that the -5 degree conditions were not a massive factor. Either the proof will come or it will be dis proven. At the moment in similar conditions if the game was played at Belle Vue it looks like similar injuries would have been sustained. Certainly the evidence at the City of Salford Stadium on Saturday night would support that view.


Well no it couldn't. I was actually thinking that the iPitch was a bad idea when I first saw the pictures and heard the criticism until I heard there were other stories of players being injured in other games. I'll reserve judgement until there is more evidence so I would fall into the looking at all the facts bracket.


I'd say that the pitch made for better conditions than the Salford game and that the grazes suffered by Mathers, Moore and Marsh are nowhere near the injuries sustained to Ashurst. I admit that last statement is a bit subjective though.


Now now now... This is a thread slating the iPitch..we have a right to come on here and offer an alternative view. No need to take your toys home in a huff because people disagree with you.
Ta-ra for now.

i don't think that that is a fair comparison. the game on saturday was on grass which was covered in snow/ice. the game on friday was on an i-pitch in cold conditions.

Corrected for you. It's not an exact comparison in the same way as the injuries on Saturday night looked far worse, but still a worthy one to make.

Positives:
1. It reduces the need to postpone fixtures
2. It can be used 24/7 for any sporting fixture (depending upon H & S)
3. It allows for more open, attacking rugby and a better spectacle
4. It's looked fantastic to all watching

Negatives:
1. It will result in grazes/scars due to the nature of the sport. Those who use Salford v Cas as an example of a grass pitch resulting in the same scars/grazes should bear in mind, that game should never have been played!
2. Grass pitches give more grip. It was quite evident, that because it's very soft and bouncy, it is very hard to change direction when running. You can't dig a stud in and get the grip you would on a grass pitch. The same could be said for conversions, it's harder to generate power, because the non kicking foot isn't as stable as would be on a grass surface, hence why quite a few fell well short
3. Injuries on the surface will being linked to the pitch whether it's down to it or not.

That said, it's in very early stages and i think whilst grass is a more suitable surface for Rugby i don't see why the game can't be played on it with several tweeks to the surface or protection. It's one game and shouldn't be over analysed as such. Give it a season and then we'll know alot more about it