Premiership Rugby 22/23 - Rd 8

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I never quite got why the pitch - artificial or grass - is blamed. If there was an increase in injuries playing on artificial pitches, then you'd expect teams that play at home on such pitches would incur far more injuries, yet they don't.

Annoyingly I was really looking forward to this fixture because I think Sale will certainly be up there at the end and Sale are interesting to watch. Sanderson is a quality act and actions on and off the pitch are starting to have an impact. Both teams lacking their England contingent again underlines just how stupid rugby is to have international duties on at the same time as domestic fixtures; it dilutes the brand and people feel short-changed.

Sadly, I'm out of the country so had to resolve myself to viewing tries scored on Twitter. Bit infuriating that the guys conceded three yellow cards, but again the gamesmanship appears to have shone through to neutralise the - at one-point - two-man advantage. Looking forward to watching the replay video.

7 from 7; that's a pretty good start by most accounts. Hopefully European and international fixtures doesn't derail the momentum.

I thought there are more statistical injuries on those pitches though. Will have to try and dig out the article.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I thought there are more statistical injuries on those pitches though. Will have to try and dig out the article.

Yeah believe the study said there's slightly more injuries but they're much more severe and more concentrated lower limb (ankle/knee)
And that doesn't factor in burns, which saw the RFU change its laws to allow players to wear leggings because of the severity of them at the top level

 

[RedruthRFC]

I never quite got why the pitch - artificial or grass - is blamed. If there was an increase in injuries playing on artificial pitches, then you'd expect teams that play at home on such pitches would incur far more injuries, yet they don't.

On the flip side, why do coaches rest certain players for visits to plastic pitches and why do players complain about the effects after playing on them?

To be fair, I can see the argument that there's a confirmation bias that any injury sustained on a plastic pitch is going to be blamed on the surface, ignoring the fact that it might have been just as likely to have happened on grass.

Ultimately the question for me is where the burden of proof lies - is it up to those who want to use a plastic pitch to prove that they are safe, or is it up to those who don't want them to be used to prove that they're unsafe?

 

[Arcturus]

On the flip side, why do coaches rest certain players for visits to plastic pitches and why do players complain about the effects after playing on them?

To be fair, I can see the argument that there's a confirmation bias that any injury sustained on a plastic pitch is going to be blamed on the surface, ignoring the fact that it might have been just as likely to have happened on grass.

Ultimately the question for me is where the burden of proof lies - is it up to those who want to use a plastic pitch to prove that they are safe, or is it up to those who don't want them to be used to prove that they're unsafe?

The problem with other teams resting their players is that Gloucester, Newcastle and Saracens aren't resting their players for home fixtures. I think the more pertinent question is whether these sides are seeing an abnormal number of injuries, and at first glance I'm not seeing it.

A century ago scientists were trying to work out what could be causing polio; ice cream was seen as a possible suspect because polio cases rose in the summer months at the same time when ice cream consumption was highest. Injuries happen for a multitude of reasons, poor training, agrivating a previous injury, and just pure bad luck from a multitude of in-game situations.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The problem with other teams resting their players is that Gloucester, Newcastle and Saracens aren't resting their players for home fixtures. I think the more pertinent question is whether these sides are seeing an abnormal number of injuries, and at first glance I'm not seeing it.

A century ago scientists were trying to work out what could be causing polio; ice cream was seen as a possible suspect because polio cases rose in the summer months at the same time when ice cream consumption was highest. Injuries happen for a multitude of reasons, poor training, agrivating a previous injury, and just pure bad luck from a multitude of in-game situations.

Mako and think Billy both have said they can't play on them all the time.

I guess if you've never played on them yourself you'll have no idea but they are a lot harder on the joints and they don't have that bounce that turf has. There is also the issue with boots getting stuck although I never noticed that myself.

 

[Arcturus]

I looked into this in more detail; England Rugby produce an annual review called the Rugby Injury Surveillance Project, for the 2020-21 season they state that there were:

• 84 injuries per 1,000hrs on turf/hybrid pitches
• 85 injuries per 1,000hrs on artificial pitches

If there was a dramatic increase in injuries sustained on artificial pitches you would expect the likes of Saracens, Newcastle and Gloucester to be hammered with most of their squad out of action; that simply isn't the case.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I looked into this in more detail; England Rugby produce an annual review called the Rugby Injury Surveillance Project, for the 2020-21 season they state that there were:

• 84 injuries per 1,000hrs on turf/hybrid pitches
• 85 injuries per 1,000hrs on artificial pitches

If there was a dramatic increase in injuries sustained on artificial pitches you would expect the likes of Saracens, Newcastle and Gloucester to be hammered with most of their squad out of action; that simply isn't the case.

Link to your data please, that doesn't look like the data seen before.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I mean a quick Google seems to disagree with your data.

 

[Arcturus]

Link to your data please, that doesn't look like the data seen before.

Apologies, thought that I had posted the link to the report

https://www.englandrugby.com//dxdam/93/935f2247-f8df-4a56-93b3-19bee4bcf923/PRISP%202020-21.pdf

In 2020-21, 13% of all matches and 22% of field-based training was played on artificial turf pitches. There were 389 injuries in matches played on natural grass/hybrid pitches (5140 exposure hours) and 78 injuries in matches on artificial turf pitches (760 exposure hours). In 2020-21 the incidence, severity and burden of match injuries was not different between surface types (Table 1). Aggregating eight seasons of match data revealed that match injury incidence is not different for natural grass/hybrid and artificial turf (grass/hybrid: 84 injuries per 1000 hours vs artificial: 85 injuries per 1000 hours). However, over the course of eight seasons, the mean days absent per injury on artificial turf is 38 days per injury, which is 6 days greater than natural grass/hybrid at 32 days per injury, resulting in the burden of injury on artificial turf (3266 days absence per 1000 hours) to be significantly greater than that for natural grass/hybrid (2644 days absence per 1000 hours) (Table 1). The aggregated season data trend for match injuries has been consistent across the surveillance period, with mean days absent per injury for artificial turf ranging from 5 to 7 days greater than natural grass/hybrid. The median severity of injury on artificial turf of 13
days in comparable to the 11 days reported on natural grass/hybrid.
Training on artificial turf accounted for 22% of on-pitch training exposure. In 2020-21, there were 171 training injuries on natural grass/hybrid (46902 exposure hours) and 61 on artificial turf (13431 exposure hours). The incidence of training injury on natural grass/hybrid was 3.6 injuries per 1000 hours, which is not significantly different to the 4.5 injuries per 1000 hours on artificial turf. There was no difference in the mean severity or burden of training injuries between surface types. The mean days absent per training injury on both natural grass/hybrid and artificial turf in 2020-21 was higher than the 2015-21
aggregated mean days absent, however the median severities reported in 2020-21 were comparable to the 2015-21 median values. When aggregating six seasons worth of training data, for which training surface information is available, the incidence, severity and burden of injury are not significantly different between surface types (Table 1). The aggregated season data trend for training injuries has been consistent across the surveillance period.

 

[Arcturus]

I mean a quick Google seems to disagree with your data. View attachment 15370

If you compare these figures to the more recent figures, there is a marked decline in the instance of injury on artificial versus turf pitches so it could be a case that historic artificial pitches genuinely did have a problem, but that modern iterations have improved and could potentially have lower injuries.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Apologies, thought that I had posted the link to the report

https://www.englandrugby.com//dxdam/93/935f2247-f8df-4a56-93b3-19bee4bcf923/PRISP%202020-21.pdf

In 2020-21, 13% of all matches and 22% of field-based training was played on artificial turf pitches. There were 389 injuries in matches played on natural grass/hybrid pitches (5140 exposure hours) and 78 injuries in matches on artificial turf pitches (760 exposure hours). In 2020-21 the incidence, severity and burden of match injuries was not different between surface types (Table 1). Aggregating eight seasons of match data revealed that match injury incidence is not different for natural grass/hybrid and artificial turf (grass/hybrid: 84 injuries per 1000 hours vs artificial: 85 injuries per 1000 hours). However, over the course of eight seasons, the mean days absent per injury on artificial turf is 38 days per injury, which is 6 days greater than natural grass/hybrid at 32 days per injury, resulting in the burden of injury on artificial turf (3266 days absence per 1000 hours) to be significantly greater than that for natural grass/hybrid (2644 days absence per 1000 hours) (Table 1). The aggregated season data trend for match injuries has been consistent across the surveillance period, with mean days absent per injury for artificial turf ranging from 5 to 7 days greater than natural grass/hybrid. The median severity of injury on artificial turf of 13
days in comparable to the 11 days reported on natural grass/hybrid.
Training on artificial turf accounted for 22% of on-pitch training exposure. In 2020-21, there were 171 training injuries on natural grass/hybrid (46902 exposure hours) and 61 on artificial turf (13431 exposure hours). The incidence of training injury on natural grass/hybrid was 3.6 injuries per 1000 hours, which is not significantly different to the 4.5 injuries per 1000 hours on artificial turf. There was no difference in the mean severity or burden of training injuries between surface types. The mean days absent per training injury on both natural grass/hybrid and artificial turf in 2020-21 was higher than the 2015-21
aggregated mean days absent, however the median severities reported in 2020-21 were comparable to the 2015-21 median values. When aggregating six seasons worth of training data, for which training surface information is available, the incidence, severity and burden of injury are not significantly different between surface types (Table 1). The aggregated season data trend for training injuries has been consistent across the surveillance period.

Thanks for the details, I'll have a proper read through it later. The initial thing that jumps out is how many injuries actually happen in training (on both pitches) which is mental really!

 

[RedruthRFC]

Thanks for the details, I'll have a proper read through it later. The initial thing that jumps out is how many injuries actually happen in training (on both pitches) which is mental really!

I think the peaks and troughs in training injuries correlate to times that Eddie Jones did / didn't have the players playing judo or wrestling in training camps!

Joking aside, hopefully the data is reliable, but when listening to the RFU on this, it's worth keeping in mind that they are joint investors of quite a few 3G pitches around the country. Before the bottom fell out of their profit and loss account, they were looking to create 100 around the country as JV's with the clubs hosting them.