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

Rather than ripping the pitch up I suspect there are things that can be done. However that responsibility belongs to Widnes and no one else. It is up to them to find out what works when ut comes to reducing the grazes which seem to be the main issue. Then they must provide visiting clubs with the advice and protection required at their cost.

I'd suggest very light knee and elbow bandages or even plasters - spray on plastic skin - even some form of lubricant. I'd rather not see the ugly under garments worn by John and Cockayne.I'm sure it can be sorted, all the other issues were minor.

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'd say that was a very good post and well reasoned. I still await to see whether you will get more grazes and scars compared to normal pitches throughout the season which may or may not be the case. We'll find out as the season progresses but a very good assessment otherwise.

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

I read in the RL world magazine that the I-Pitch is able to retain moisture as per grass in order to prevent/mitigate burns to elbow's and knees. If this is the case the freezing temperatures probably did exexacerbate the injuries sustained by the players as said moisture would've frozen reducing its effectiveness. I think it needs a few games played in a variety of weather conditions before any conclusive judgements can be made.

Anyhow, as others have said, its not Trinity's problem anymore so club and supporters alike can sit back and watch Widnes and the other visiting teams be the ginea pigs. If it proves a success I can see many teams taking it up, especially those who share their stadium with other teams/sports.

The acid test will come when Leeds or Wigan come to town - if Kev or Sam come away with big carpet burns, the shiz will most definitely hit the fan. In the latter case, Phil Clarke and Wiggy will dig it up themselves.

kev doesn't pick up enough speed to get a burn.

£500k seems a lot to fork out. Can't see many having the funds to buy it even if they wanted to.

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 Tommy:

It has now been confirmed that he did, indeed, write this:
[urlhttp://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_447-ipitch-woe-and-money-again.html?[/url

[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!

I think you need to tell that to whoever wrote that column, not me. People, that I trust, have told me that he said something very different from what you have put there.

Well you/them and that rag are very wrong



And BTW I'm telling you as you seem a need to post that garbage comment up so you are the one that needs telling first

I know 3 lads who played in the Halifax u23 game yesterday afternoon. Came back cut up bad, saying its a horrible surface to play rugby league on. Cant stop or start with confidence like you can on grass and the bounce is more unpredicatable. Might just be that people arent used to playing on it. Anybody know if the surface has been used anywhere else?.

Don't say things like that, you'll have loads of Widnes fans telling you its just not true, and they all know that for a fact cos they've all played on it.

Dr thingy's played loads of games on that surface.

Someone has PM'd me with exactly what he wrote:

"@RHunterPaul @Rob7Burrow @RichardMathers : Wish tommy coyle a speedy recovery #widnesu20 game abandoned” I pitch is a killer !!"

That's pretty damming

Didn't realise Tommy Coyle had died from his injuries

Richard Mathers : @Coyley14 hey mate wasn't at game but heard about injury, hope recovery goes well pal... All the best

Looks like that someone who PM'd has done some editing...

He directly linked the injury to the ipitch. I'm beginning to find this desperate denial quite amusing.

well that tweet does "Imply" that the Ipitch has killed someone



Oh for the record it's not as funny as your attempts to make a mountain out of a box of lego

That's what is says now. What he originally said was what I have written above.

Mate, get over the fact that not everyone prefers plastic pitches! besides, your being quite desperate going out of your way to try and show that Mathers went too far when in fact he hadn't.