I think they're just trying to point out that you can scrape your knees on things other than an iPitch, and that the conditions may have had more to do with it than the pitch itself.


I've noticed blood in plenty of games. My TV is a 42" HD screen, so plenty big.


Apparently it got as low as -7°C. Parts of the pitch will have been frozen. It WILL have contributed.


No, but the fact that it happened once out of one time doesn't mean it will happen every time. That's the point you're failing to understand. The conditions will have played a part, just like they can, did, do and will at other grounds.


I have, and suffered a lot more, even on supposedly decent pitches. And I only play on the wing.
Players will get scrapes all the time. Some people just jump to conclusions too quickly. I'm surprised Keith Senior hasn't thrown in his two pennies worth yet.


So you don't care about facts, you just want to stick to your own conclusion because it backs you up? What's the point in discussing this then?

Skins take the sweat away from the body. The body sweats to cool down, which you are correct in saying. It does this because the heated moisture is excreted through the skin to the outside of the body so that the body temperature lowers. If that heat stays on the body, the body's heat will stay high (or higher than if it wasn't there). By getting the warm sweat away from the body, the body is kept cooler.

The fact that it's an "extra layer" apparently to you means it will make players warmer. This is just simply not the case at all, whether you refuse to believe it or not.

Perhaps the quality of the skins you were wearing weren't as good as the ones top athletes wear for you to notice a difference?

And some players don't wear them (or haven't tried them) for cultural reasons, i.e. "they look like tarts", similar to why a lot of players never tried them gloves. "Only wussies wear them." Some people will be convinced, not matter what facts tell them, that they aren't helpful. Some players might not get any benefits from them, but I very much doubt they will detract from anyone's game.


They are morons because they have spoken out against their club, who pay them, after one match, against something they have invested a lot of money in. It's moronic. Professionals should keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to the people that pay them.

Whether they or we think/know what caused their injuries is irrelevant. They are speaking out against their club's heavy investment after one round. It's like a Salford player saying their new ground is cr*p.


Apparently it got to -7, so it shouldn't have. You've come to a conclusion very quickly, so I don't see why you'd need to see what happens next.

I don't know how accurate car temperature gauges are, but it said -5 on mine when driving home.

So what if you can scrape yourself on other things? I can scrape myself on a brick wall if I choose to. That's no more relevant than comparing the ipitch to anything else.


So you're saying you've seen so many players with matching grazes/burns on their knees and elbows in one game before? I haven't, and I doubt anyone else has. Please don't try and claim this was normal, it clearly wasn't.


-7°C now was it? Originally it was -4°C. And I never said the weather didn't contribute, but we don't know to what degree (no pun intended).


I'm failing to understand nothing. You're choosing to ignore certain parts of my post and pick up on others.


Ok, if you say so. Odd how I play pack/centre and haven't really suffered?

Anyway, whether we've suffered injuries at amateur level is actually irrelevant. SL pitches are watered and for the most part, kept lush. I've not seen a SL player complain about grazes or burns in the history of summer rugby.

And the fact that players can pick up cuts and grazes on a normal surface is also irrelevant. What we shouldn't be doing is introducing an environment that MAY cause more of these injuries to occur.


Fine, these wonderful materials can cool you in the hottest temperatures (if you believe the sales hype, of course). I'm not arguing about how good these skins are - frankly I don't care. Wearing additional layers in peak temperatures is simply stupid.

Until they are being recommended by the majority of clubs and being worn by players in scorching temperatures, I'll take it with a pinch of salt.


Rubbish. They're entitled to speak out if something bothers them, and if I was a Widnes player convinced the ipitch had cut my legs and arms to ribbons I'd be a bit concerned. Let's not forget Wakefield players also made the same point.

Besides, whether you think they should have spoken out is irrelevant. It's the subject of their complaints that is the issue.


Thanks for that advice. I think I've explained myself enough times. I'm not convinced by the ipitch and as it stands I think it was responsible for plenty of injuries on Friday - BUT - I'm happy to wait for a more temperate game before condemning it.

That clear enough?

According to Widnes' chief executive, Julie Gaskell, it went down to -7. Like I said, my car was only reading -5, so someone's thermometer was out a bit. Probably mine.

[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/02/06/RUGBYL_Widnes.html[/url

As no complaints have been made can we now purely refer to any players comments as 'moans'. Thanks in advance



People seem to be confusing the -10 is still playable thing with it not effecting the surface one bit. Technically Salford's pitch was 'playable' yet most would agree also affected.

Good point - compare how brittle some plastic (or blu-tack, or play-doh) gets in the freezer, to what it's like at room temperature of about 20˚C. Maybe at those low temperatures the plastic grass starts to stiffen and behave a bit more like old-fashioned astroturf?

So J20 players can't speak out and voice their opinions? Even Widnes players had complaints before O'Connor told em to shut up

Don't recall saying that anywhere?
Was just clearing up that NO official complaint has been made.

Was worried about the pitch after so many reports of scrapes suffered in the Wakefield game. Conditions of -7C might well be a significant contributing factor. Let's see how it is when the temperatures are above 0...

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/16910032[/url

You don't play rugby league on a brick wall. But you do play rugby league on a grass pitch and it can give you scrapes. Especially in those conditions. That's why it's relevant and yours is ridiculous. It's a strawman argument.


At that temperature, yes. I bet there were a fair few this weekend.


That's what it was reported as. Not sure where you got -4 from. You were saying that Widnes should complain about the pitch if it was frozen as it should have "frost protection" or something along those lines. You discarded the weather as a factor for that reason as you thought the pitch should have handled it. It didn't, and was never designed to for those temperatures. Does this alter your opinion? If it does, then my point about "jumping to conclusions" is a good one.


What have I ignored? Usually when somebody says this, they tell the person the part they missed...


Maybe you're thicker skinned than me


Maybe you'd do fine on the iPitch and some players wouldn't. Maybe some players pick up cuts and scrapes easier than others? Maybe there are too many variable factors to come to a conclusion about a new playing surface on the back of one game on a freezing cold day.

They "may" do is not an argument. It can be easily argued with "it may not".


Yes you are arguing about how good these skins are. By saying "wearing additional laters in peak temperatures is simply stupid", you are arguing that they don't cool you down. If they cooled you down, it wouldn't be stupid to wear them in peak temperatures, would it? You seem to be contradicting yourself a lot.


If you speak out against your employer, or something to do with your employer, it is unprofessional behaviour. Why do you think the comments were removed?
Just because people have the freedom of speech doesn't mean they should say everything that comes to mind.


We'll see, but obviously every single incident that happens on this new pitch will have the pessimists out in numbers blasting it before they have enough information to come to a good conclusion.

The only conclusion anyone can come to after Friday is that on a very cold night, it doesn't do too well on the knees. Neither do a lot of surfaces that RL is played on.

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 [url=http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGGP/2012/2/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Widnes&req_state=&req_statename=United+Kingdom&MR=1the local weather station[/url, 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.


Hence my oft-repeated statement "Let's see what a game in more temperate conditions brings".

Unlike you, while I have my current view of the ipitch, I'm willing to be proven wrong as the season progresses.


Your explanation of how the body sweats was very interesting, but omitted to include the fact the skin is actually cooled by the action of perspiration evaporating. That's the body's natural process. So how going out in the sun wearing an extra layer that removes fluid from the skin can be a benefit, I don't know. In fact, I think you're either making it up, or you're misunderstanding the mechanisms at play.

Again, until I see our players wearing them in Perpignan in 35+°C, or indeed any professional sports-people in any hot weather. Why don't long-distance runners wear these cooling miracles, for example? Or tennis players? Or footballers? Or - in fact, anyone? Sorry but I'll treat any such claims as the usual sales guff manufacturers like to come up with, and anyone who believes it all as the gullible mug they are.


So if your employer suddenly introduced an environment that caused you physical harm, you'd keep quiet? RL is a tough and damaging enough game without suddenly being asked to play on what could be a injuring-caused surface.


Perhaps because there's a chance the new surface will indeed cause incidents. Many different styles of artificial surface have been tried in many sports, and very many have subsequently been removed for being unsuitable or dangerous. Just because this is the latest all-singing version doesn't mean it's as wonderful as the blurb describes.

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 [url=http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2004/14105.htmlhere[/url, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspirationhere[/url, [url=http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5213134_evaporating-sweat-cool-down_.htmlhere[/url, [url=http://weather.about.com/od/weathertutorials/a/heatstroke.htmhere[/url, [url=http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Chem_p076.shtmlhere[/url, or for the easy-to-understand version, [url=http://kidshealth.org/kid/talk/yucky/sweat.htmlhere.[/url

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
[i"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.

If the latent heat can't escape while the body continues to produce heat, wouldn't the temperature gradually increase? But fair point, I should probably have said 'won't cool you down', rather than 'heat you up'. I was picturing wearing an inefficient skin trapping moisture against the skin, also being worn beneath a playing top, with heated air and moisture having little opportunity to escape.

You've explained it pretty much as I understand it, although my understanding is that the actual sensation of evaporative cooling against the skin also helps make the skin feel cooler? Either way, I seriously doubt the effectiveness (or wisdom) of wearing such skins in peak summer temperatures when the natural cooling process is more efficient.

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





I can't argue, there.

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?