Re: iPitch : Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:46 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

Pepe you make too many assumptions, all of which are flawed.
I have already extolled the virtues of the pitch at business and community level, I'm just not convinced that it's a suitable surface for RL.
I can guarantee before the game which I attended (if I had made my mind up I probably wouldn't have gone?) I had doubts naturally, as no doubt did you, and every other widnes fan, you'd have to be unbelievably stupid not to.
The pitch and the weather and a combination of both could be argued against ang grass pitch, but the fact that the game has been played on it for over 100 years gives it (grass) credibility.

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

This surface has no such credibility and as such all aspects of it will be questioned, it happened in football it happened in NFL.
Both the other sports have very different aspects to RL, be that the general dynamics of the game or the kit worn by its competitors, again this is virgin territory for RL.

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.

What calls this pitch into question for me are the reactions on Twitter of players (2 of whom played for you) comments made on sky, and then an air brushing of Saturday by DB when having a dig at Mathers, making out all was fine, when in fact there was contradictory evidence against that claim. No facts but if there was 100% confidence the pitch was blame free why not say "well one game didn't finish and we've a lad with a broken leg" instead of "we've had three games played on this pitch with no problem" I know which I think is the truer reflection of events, even if the pitch was blame free, which in fairness nobody knows.

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 re: Mathers comments HE did not actually refer directly to him. So you think the pitch was involved in the break despite I guess not even knowing what the exact injury is? Nice.

You'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.

Rugby player in wearing skins shocker, that wasn't a serious point was it? Either way if players are fearful of the surface or especially in the cold weather regardless they aren't thick enough (though they want us to believe anyway) to not know what benefits skins would have in those conditions either real or perceived. Other clubs may moan. They may not. Who knows.

IMO Widnes need to embrace and investigate all complaints thoroughly for the IPitch's ultimate benefit not go straight on the defensive as DB and people such as yourself are doing, but then again you've already said my opinion counts for nothing, so let's look again at who's made their mind's up before any decision has been reached?
The jury's not only still out, they haven't even sworn on the bible yet, it's going to be a long season, and I fear you have plenty more flack to come.

I'm sure they will but the FACT is no official complaint has been made period. Only the media picking up on Mathers comments and hyping them up themselves have made an issue and tbh I fully agree with Widnes stance as it stands. Had ours and Salford's game been the other way around I 100% doubt any issues would have been made. Every Widnes fan I have seen comment as said only time will tell. Yet it's only your lot who keep pushing the point despite that as if you want an admission it's crap and will go asap. Or is that wrong?

Wakefield fans are sticing up for their (ish) player and nothing wrong with that and I am sure Mathers comments have been noted. However at the end of the day you are all vigorously attacking a surface because one of your players grazed his knee in a Friday night professional Rugby game on one of the coldest nights of the winter. Even though other surfaces have also shown similar / if not worse damage.

Re: iPitch : Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:20 pm  

J20 wrote:

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.

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.

Re: iPitch : Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:33 pm  

Pepe wrote:

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.

Re: iPitch : Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:17 pm  

Alex J wrote:

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

So do Huddersfield don't they?

Pepe wrote:

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.

Don't let facts get in the way of these poop 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

Re: iPitch : Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:03 am  

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!!!

Re: iPitch : Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:21 am  

What about the injuries Saints new surface is pulling up?

Cost Widnes 3 lads and Salford have had a few too

Re: iPitch : Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:46 am  

kinleycat wrote:

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!!!

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.

Re: iPitch : Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:42 am  

Alex J wrote:

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

Leigh and Doncaster as well

Re: iPitch : Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:28 pm  

ipitch to the rescue: http://www.widnesvikings.co.uk/article.php?id=7161

ipitch to the rescue: http://www.widnesvikings.co.uk/article.php?id=7161

Re: iPitch : Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:04 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

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!!!

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.