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

^ that's probably it best put in balance

having played football on artificial surfaces and installed a few of them through work i will add my comments

the pitch is obviously a long way from what was known as artificial pitches, however it is not "just like grass"

i know some are comaparing the injuries suffered by players from friday / saturday night, but unless you can see them close up just after they have happened, you cannot tell if they are cuts / abrasions or burns (that have taken the top layer of skin away)

the way mathers has been talking i suspect that his injuries are burns, rather than cuts.

wakefield have served as the guinea pigs for this surface, and i suspect that other teams will now wear knee and elbow protection when playing at widnes. if there is then no further injuries of this type, would it be considered a success?

we do need to see a few games played on the surface before making a decision, but not before making a comment. i also firmly believe that if, for instance, sam tonkins get injured on the pitch, then you will not hear the end of it.

my opinion after the one game is that it would be great to train on, but does not offer the protection that grass does.

widnes players will be the best test of this.

I like the bit about being covered in some kind of lubricant. I can just see the team running out covered in KY gel.
You sound quite knowledgeable

Dunno bud, you would have to offset the cost of maintaining a grass pitch and also the extra costs incurred when games are cancelled. Not to mention the extra income you could potentially generate by sub letting out when the weather is bad.

I was told that he did claim that Coyle's injury was due to to the ipitch. He later deleted it and replaced it by sending he best wishes to Tommyhttp://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_447-ipitch-woe-and-money-again.html?rl

[i'Mathers was particularly out of line when he seemingly implied that an injury to Thomas Coyle in Saturday's academy game was as a result of the iPitch - it wasn't.'[/i

pepe you're talking PAP mate, I follow mathers on twitter and he did not delete anything saying his injury was down tothe pitch, a fan put up a comment following richies twitter wishing Tommy well asking "Was it down to the pitch" his reply was "don't know mate time will tell" that whole thread has been deleted now but you should get your facts right instead of clutching at straws based on a half d report that goes no way to substantiate its claim

That website is utter trash, always stirring and spreading crap. But you believe what you want mate! As already stated Mathers didn't post anything of the sort!