Same injury? One an achillies rupture the other a potential acl injury. Nearly there, same limb

No, I use the "veiw your posts" facility on these boards like everyone else. Sorry to spoil this thread with reality and facts.

Rugby League fans commenting on a topical issue in a forum 'Shocker'

Facts are one thing the IPitch argument doesn't have, so in the absence of any there is going to be much speculation.
This is now the second team moaning (and now seeking RFL dispensation to wear tights!!), and another injured player, and it's only game two.
Your going to have a busy season playing defence strokes on other teams forums me thinks!!!

And that’s all I’m doing, except I’m posting a few, inconvenient, facts. Unfortunately, there seems to be an awful lot of hysterical miss-information that I felt to be totally unreasonable.

I see nothing unreasonable put forward by me. I’ve even admitted that I’m not too sure about the surface yet. But I am willing to give it a chance.

If this surface does prove itself, it would make the building of stadiums far easier and more affordable. Because it can be used to make money and be used by the local community. These new stadiums can be a millstone around a clubs neck, financially. I think Wakefield, of all SL clubs, should be hoping that this works out.

What/where are the few inconvenient facts?

On the contrary, there’s plenty of facts about 4G pitches. They have been used in the US at Pro and college level NFL, have been used in Russia and Scotland in Soccer as it is FIFA approved and one has been in place at the LSV and used by amateur clubs for a few years now. Plus, there have been exhaustive tests done by the manufacturer.

The only question is, is it suitable for pro RL?

There has already been quite a few games held on it and, so far, there has not been a single injury that can be put down to the ipitch. None, not one, club that has used it so far, have made any official complaint about it, or shown any concern that it is causing serious injuries to players.

The effect the pitch has on footballers and NFL players is hugely different and cannot be used as anykind of benchmark for RL.
The speculation we have are after round three are plain for all to see and read in the press.
The facts we have are injured players, moaning players, teams seeking dispensation to wear additional kit and interest in a surface that has zero to back it up.
Incedentaly these are two teams that have won on the pitch, so its hardly sour grapes is it? God forbid you ever beat anyone on it!!!!!
The other fact of course is until this pitch has fully satisfied all interested parties, you are going to be on the back foot.

Ahhh that'll be that big river in Egypt then

Widnes Vikings have issued a statement regarding the injury of Prop Ben Kavanagh and the suggested cause of the injury.

Prop Ben Kavanagh will be out for six months, after he collapsed on the artificial 4G surface after catching the ball unopposed in the first half. Salford captain Stephen Wild commented on the injury to the press, which suggested the injury may or may not be to down to the artificial surface:

“I am not saying whether it was the pitch or not, But we had another injury in the Under-20s and so I have still got queries about it. It probably is the future. But I don’t know if it’s the right pitch at this time – thankfully, we don’t have to come back.”

Widnes have replied by issuing the following statement:

"In relation to recent press speculation regarding the injury to Ben Kavanagh at the game against Salford on Sunday 19th February, the Widnes Vikings Medical Department confirms that the injury to Ben was an Achilles tendon rupture which occurred in a recognised mechanism for that injury following rapid dorsi flexion and plantar flexion of the ankle when pushing off to sprint.

The club wishes to state that this is an unfortunate injury but has no direct link to the performance of the pitch."

So Widnes say it's nothing to do with the pitch, it was just an unfortunate accident that could have happened on plain old grass and mud.

Yes, it was. I was there and saw it clearly. His foot didn't catch on the pitch. Have ruptured achiles tendons never occured on a grass pitch?

Do you really think that the Widnes Vikings would actually make up a story just to justify keeping the ipitch?

Do you really think they would knowingly put their own players at risk in the process?

Does it need a reboot?

That’s who’s opinion? Yours?


There’s really nothing with any validity. Just some sensationalism which offers nothing in the way of facts. The latest story in the Mirror is just about the poorest argument against it I’ve ever seen. Wilde contradicted himself and offered absolutely nothing to support his initial statement that Kav’s foot got stuck in the pitch. It didn’t. I saw the incident clearly. He stepped back, caught the ball, and the injury occurred as he stepped from the back foot. He collapsed. There was no catching of his studs in the pitch. The patch of ground would have lifted with his foot, had it caught. It didn’t. The reporter was clearly just fishing for scandal and asking Wilde leading questions. Wild even said “I am not saying whether it was the pitch or not”, so he can’t even get his moan striaght. He also states that these pitches could be the future.

If you are using speculative and sensationalist rubbish from the press to back up your accusations, those acusations are worthless.


Only one Widnes player wore under armour. Only four Salford players wore tights. I’ve not heard any complaints from either team about bad grazing. The only person who has actually kicked up any fuss is Mathers. That’s not really conclusive proof of anything.


Absolutely. That’s what I’m saying. But if people are blaming every injury on the ipitch, regardless of whether it is fact or not, don’t you think that is a stupid, backward attitude?

iPatch or no iPatch, the serious injury list on said surface does seem abnormally high. Add Anthony Watts to it now because has just been ruled out for the season. Done his ACL.

I have yet to see a footballer dragged across the surface of a football pitch or flattened by three 17 stone opponents nor have I seen any NFL player kitted out in anything other than full body armour, so it's not my opinion it's just common sense.
Nobody has blamed the pitch for the injuries just speculated which again is fairly obvious under the circumstances.
Mathers wasn't the only player to make comments after the wakey game and you know it, there where two Widnes players that quickly retracted tweets.
Stephen Wild has also subsequently passed comments following the salford game.
Four players wearing tights, come on that's a joke, it's a mans game for gods sake!!!
2/13 games gone on the IPitch, no sour grapes yet, in the words of your coach you need to man up a bit, because you aren't coping well after two games.

As I said - an increasingly dull mash-up of the Iraqi Minister of Information and Kim Jong Il; give it a rest squire.

I think that “common sense” would tell you that a bit of leg padding would not prevent broken bones or joint and ligament damage in NFL. All the injuries we’ve had on the ipitch, so far, could have happened on a soccer pitch too.



There’s absolutely nothing in any of that which means the ipitch is dangerous. No facts – nothing. Just a load of sad superstition and whining.

It's a pity you lot couldn't give it a sodding rest.

There is one way to resolve this, and it is for the RFL to refuse anyone to wear tights or stockings or a basque or whatever on the Ipitch, because one of two things will then happen:

1. There will be no problems and we will agree that it is the future. The costs benefits for teams are potentially enormous and it leads to a quicker game.

2. There will be problems, and in which case we will agree that it isn't the future, or else the future will involve watching rugby league players in tights.

Widnes have to protect the integrity of the pitch, because they have spouted its potential and spent a lot of money on it. Other games held on it will never match the intensity of a full-on top flight game.

Personally, I will listen to the players who have played on it, not just those fans who take as gospel the Widnes press releases. Players from both teams from the first game moaned about it. That could have been down to the cold and the water freezing. We have had a second game, and it seems that the Salford captain wasn't sold on it, and players felt the need to wear tights.

It may turn out to be a good thing. We'll play their once a year. Come to our place and you'll struggle on good old heavy turf. If it is fast, you will receive a cricket score against one of the top four. Good luck.

The need for tights etc and moaning players was more to do with with the abrasive injuries, although there is no proof that the pitch was not responsible for the others that's why I keep saying speculation.
Youre the one who bangs on about facts, you have none, widnes have yet to come up with any, accept it and stop moaning on like an old woman!!!

You have the ultimate choice on reading this, that would be a shame, but if you don't like what's posted on here, go back to the Stasi controlled widnes forum.

4 players from 34 wore tights. The players that didn't have not complained about the pitch. Veivers said, in an interview on radio 5 live, that he had no problem with the pitch or grazing.

Christ it seems saying anything negative about the plastic pitch is a thought crime.

Big Brother is watching you. Plus plus good.

Read this back to yourself "4 rugby players wearing tights" what's wrong there?

Me me me. i know, its 4 TOO MANY.