If you are that concerned then write to your local MP.

I think Leigh East have been playing on an I Pitch for a few years.Maybe they can say what think?

And you never will be, no matter what. You have already made up your mind, and probably did so before a game was played on the ipitch. After the events of last weekend, you are now outraged and hysterical. The more people try to reason with you, the more angry and entrenched your opinions become.

I am still sceptical about the ipitch, but the explanation of the extreme weather conditions being responsible for the grazes caused to some players, makes perfect sense. Despite the everything, the ipitch still out-performed grass, in those conditions, as it remained soft under foot - unlike turf. The grazing injuries caused are not unlike those caused by turf in those conditions but, because turf will be rock hard, the ipitch is the better option for both joint and impact injury.

If there was any chance that the officials at the game, including those from your own club, thought that the ipitch was responsible for the injury to Thomas Coyle, then an official complaint with a full report would have been made by the Wakefield club and RFL match officials. There wasn't a complaint from anywhere about the pitch being, in any way, dangerous.

The reason the game was stopped has already been explained to you. What your experiences of these situations are, are not relevant in any way. You are not important and not in possession of all the facts. Perhaps you should trust the opinion of the officials and doctors from your own club and stop trying to score some petty trolling points at the expense of Thomas Coyle's terrible, season ending, injury.

I have already said that I am sceptical about the suitability of the ipitch for RL. I can even understand players being upset with their grazes and tweeting about it. My main criticism of Richie Mathers was the fact he jumped on the back of some players wishing Thomas Coyle well by trying to tie Tommy’s horrendous injury in with what happened to him the night before. He was trying to make capitol out of it. That was utterly vile, imo. He did delete it, but the damage was done.

You are now coming on here trying to make an issue out of the fact the academy game was abandoned, after the injury to TC. You have been told the reasons, but refuse to accept them. As there isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest any other reason for the games abandonment, I see no reason to bang on about it. The pitch played no part in the injury or the abandonment of the game. If it had, we would know about it. It was abandoned for perfectly logical reasons that were particular to the incident, time constraints and conditions on the day. Anything within your experience is irrelevant. You are just banging on about it to try to make some point about the safety of the ipitch. You weren’t there and lack the first hand knowledge of the events or the expertise to analyze it. I suggest you take the word of the people and officials who were there. As you seem unable to do this, it is clear that your mind is already made up – a fair assumption by me I’d guess. Certainly, there is more basis in fact than your assumptions on the ipitch.

Whilst I do remain sceptical myself, I think, because the massive benefits that the ipitch brings (and they are considerable and could do absolute wonders for the sport) it is worth giving the ipitch the benefit of the doubt until we have more evidence to the contrary.

At worst, a few bandages on knees and elbows are required. Possibly even just a bit of extra Vaseline is all that may be required. This may only be for a couple of games during the early part of the season. When the weather gets better we may not even need that. There is no major health issue other than grazes, so some of the hysterical criticism from some over emotional people is very miss-placed.

If it doesn’t work out, it will be removed by the club and probably re-located at a local playing field the club has earmarked as a possible training facility for the academy teams.

You wouldn't have gone to a game of rugby if you knew Ritchie Mather may get a grazed knee?



New to RL yes hence why needs trialing. Football in Britain has never seen anything like it and the closest ones have just won a world cup vote in Russia and hosted a Champions League final. NFL still has plenty of artificial pitches and Sarries wan't the same surface as us when they get their new place.



So again you go back to Coyle's leg? I'm pretty sure if the pitch had any involvement it would have come up, unfortunately breaks happen on all surfaces and this sounds like more of a collision injury then a leg caught 'in the mud' injury too. Betts was replying to the questions being asked by SKY reYou've played one competitive game so the jury is still out, your own players took to wearing skins, perhaps because of the weather perhaps not, but as I said to J20 this is only the beginning of the pitch cross examination, and I'd it's a struggle after Wakey god help you when the real moaners come to town.
IMO the real danger of this pitch is that it pre arms the opposition with some ready made arguments and Widnes will become forever a Luton Town known only for a pitch which raised objection.'"

Fifa have sanctioned the use of 4G pitches. Like you say, they have them in Russia. they also use them in Scotland to good effect with few complaints. The Premier League is yet to sanction them but, then again, they hardly need to worry about making their new stadiums pay, finding training facilities, or allowing the local community to use them. Grass with under-soil heating is better for them as a result.

Arsenal have a partially artificial pitch I seem to recall. Stops it from cutting up so much.

So do Huddersfield don't they?



Don't let facts get in the way of these arguments. Everybody keeps banging on about experiences on 3G pitches.. ours isn't Wish people would embrace it, seems quite a lot of jealousy knocking about. I'm sure if the doubters club's had an iPitch they'd be singing a different tune

The effect the pitch has on a football player, is much less than on an average SL/RL player so it's like comparing chalk with cheese.
One game has been played and people are now taking note, and rightly so.
If players are effected more then it isn't suitable, if players have to start wearing skins etc for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from the pitch, it isn't suitable.
I don't mind an advantage being given to the home side, that's what all home pitches should do, but if the above two points become fact at the end of the season and you've had a year of defending the indefensible then it should be ripped up.
For the record (again) I think in theory and on most levels I think artificial pitches are a great idea, however they may tick many boxes but if the box marked suitable for players to play RL on, remains unticked all the rest stands for nothing, and know amount of bitching from you lot or your coach will change that.
The world awaits!!!

What about the injuries Saints new surface is pulling up?

Cost Widnes 3 lads and Salford have had a few too

The only person bitching about it is you. The only injury the pitch has caused is grazing. That is easily preventable. The grazing may not even happen when the weather improves. The pitch has actually out performed grass in freezing temperatures. Despite also being susceptible to freezing, and causing some grazing in the same way turf does, it stays soft under foot. This means fewer games will need to be cancelled and it is less likely to cause serious impact injury than a grass pitch in the same conditions.

If the ipitch proves unsuccessful it will be removed. Your club has little at stake, so I’m not sure what your problem is, other than petty jealousy. If the ipitch proves itself, it will be a massive boon for the sport. With that in mind, I would be careful what you wish for.

Leigh and Doncaster as well

It was hard to write a reply as quite a lot of what you have said in this thread is either illogical or irrelevant. I can't tell if you're deliberately obtuse or if that is your nature.

The injuries caused were exactly the same as injuries caused on other pitches that weekend. Whilst you might argue that grass has proven historically to be generally safe for Rugby League, I argue that this match has proven nothing whatsoever except for the fact that the pitch has the same effects in sub-zero temperature. When the weather improves you'll get a better idea of safety. Until then what you're doing is just speculation and conjecture. I suggest you suspend comment until a direct contrast can be made i.e. if there is a week where players on the ipitch suffer injuries but players on a grass pitch in the exact same weather suffer no injuries you might have a point. But until then what you're doing is pointless.