Artificial Pitches. . . .Need to go!

[Cyclizine]

10 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Fair enough. You might want to edit the above statement though.

31 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

I'll stick with the current expert opinion of sports medicine experts, though.

Better?

[Romeo]

7 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Better?

I think "I'll stick with the current expert opinion of some, but not all sports medicine experts"

That more accurately reflect the current situation i would say.

[Cyclizine]

11 minutes ago, Romeo said:

I think "I'll stick with the current expert opinion of some, but not all sports medicine experts"

That more accurately reflect the current situation i would say.

But that would be inconsistent with the current research.

Look, you're against artificial pitches because you don't like the style of play. That's fine, that's an opinion and a perfectly valid one. I have no issue with that. I have no preference one way or the other, I've seen quality games of football on natural and artificial grass as many times as I've seen utter dross. This is a different argument to injury.

However, you cannot argue that there are more injuries on artificial turf. That is not opinion. It goes against the current medical evidence. Perhaps in the future more studies will add to the data and the evidence might tip one way or the other, perhaps we'll see a significant trend to certain injuries, that at the moment isn't there. Perhaps we'll just continue to see that there isn't a difference.

 

[LIVIFOREVER]

3 hours ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Players will get injured on any type of pitch. However, bad knee injuries seem to be more common on synthetic ones. You really think pulling a hamstring has something to do with grass? Just as well athletes don't get any hamstring injuries eh?

 

Correct, but it's only when a player is injured playing on an artificial pitch that you get it being highlighted in the media by people complaining about artificial pitches. There are far more injuries on grass pitches (more games in the SPFL are played on them) but not one injury is blamed on the playing surface in the same way it is with artificial pitches. There is absolutely no balance in this agenda against artificial pitches, no actual research produced to back any of the hyperbole.

If Ryan Kent had been playing on Livi's pitch there would've been an outcry from Gerrard blaming it on our pitch, not a peep from him when it was on the Ibrox grass pitch though.

[A Livi Fan]

20 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Correct, but it's only when a player is injured playing on an artificial pitch that you get it being highlighted in the media by people complaining about artificial pitches. There are far more injuries on grass pitches (more games in the SPFL are played on them) but not one injury is blamed on the playing surface in the same way it is with artificial pitches. There is absolutely no balance in this agenda against artificial pitches, no actual research produced to back any of the hyperbole.

If Ryan Kent had been playing on Livi's pitch there would've been an outcry from Gerrard blaming it on our pitch, not a peep from him when it was on the Ibrox grass pitch though.

I kind of wish it was. Imagine the meltdown of the zombies and media. Would have given a few weeks entertainment anyway

[Aberdeen Cowden]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

They're not actually more common though, as peer-reviewed studies as well as meta-analyses have already shown. So this argument can be filed safely in the bin where it belongs. 

 

Although this relates to Rugby, the principle is the same. So stick your meta-analyses in the bin and leave posting on here to the big boys.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/staggering-amount-of-injuries-on-4g-pitches-compared-to-grass-1.3641369

[Aberdeen Cowden]

22 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Correct, but it's only when a player is injured playing on an artificial pitch that you get it being highlighted in the media by people complaining about artificial pitches. There are far more injuries on grass pitches (more games in the SPFL are played on them) but not one injury is blamed on the playing surface in the same way it is with artificial pitches. There is absolutely no balance in this agenda against artificial pitches, no actual research produced to back any of the hyperbole.

If Ryan Kent had been playing on Livi's pitch there would've been an outcry from Gerrard blaming it on our pitch, not a peep from him when it was on the Ibrox grass pitch though.

Really? https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/staggering-amount-of-injuries-on-4g-pitches-compared-to-grass-1.3641369

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Although this relates to Rugby, the principle is the same. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/staggering-amount-of-injuries-on-4g-pitches-compared-to-grass-1.3641369

The IRFU - the sporting body who supposedly 'compiled' these figures - is not actually a recognised author nor expert in the field of sports science and injuries champ. 

So I'm afraid that your two-bob hot-take on the subject is totally redundant. 

Quote

So stick your meta-analyses in the bin 

Thereby proving that you're too thick to understand how science works. 

[vikingTON]

Next we'll be having the brains trust at the SPFA cited as an authoritative source, based on whatever trash, back of a fag packet 'study' they publish and manage to peddle in the mainstream media.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

The IRFU - the sporting body who supposedly 'compiled' these figures - is not actually a recognised author nor expert in the field of sports science and injuries champ. 

So I'm afraid that your two-bob hot-take on the subject is totally redundant. 

Thereby proving that you're too thick to understand how science works. 

Get an adult to read it out to you dimwit. Now go away, pest.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, Romeo said:

There are studies that state there are more injuries, those that say there is no difference and those that say there are less.

So we can file your definitive answer where it belongs, in the bin.

 

1 hour ago, Romeo said:

Exactly my point, there is no definitive answer. Some on here......would have you believe there is and by using "meta-analysis" would try to shoot down any opposing view.

The purpose of a meta-analysis is to put these supposedly conflicting studies together and determine what the net effect actually is. And there is no evidence to support the claim that artificial surfaces lead to more knee injuries, as the number and quality of negative results on that hypothesis overwhelmingly outweigh other studies. 

So a definitive answer after all then. Thanks for playing anyway. 

 

[vikingTON]

10 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Get an adult to read it out to you dimwit. Now go away, pest.

^^^ badly rattled

I don't bother reading IRFU press releases on this topic because they're not a peer-reviewed, credible source of information. Which is what a highly educated individual like yours truly uses to make any judgment on a scientific matter, rather than what is published by a newspaper or what 'seems' to be the case in your cherry-picking, tiny mind. 

Gutted for you.

Edited September 19, 2019 by vikingTON

[LIVIFOREVER]

5 hours ago, tree house tam said:

Shock horror that sportsmen playing in a high paced, contact sport get injuries. Absolutely dumbfounded by this.

 

An Artificial pitch means exactly that, kiddy on pitch. Like shagging a tranny that's had the op, probably similar to the real thing but just not the same. 

Would've thought a better analogy would've been a blow up doll.

 

Agree with your opening line though, just wish that would get through to those idiots running to the media jumping on every injury that occurs on an artificial pitch.

[Durnford]

17 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Would've thought a better analogy would've been a blow up doll.

 

Agree with your opening line though, just wish that would get through to those idiots running to the media jumping on every injury that occurs on an artificial pitch.

Blow-up dolls are no good - one love-bite and they fly out of the window......

 

 

[Cyclizine]

1 hour ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Although this relates to Rugby, the principle is the same. So stick your meta-analyses in the bin and leave posting on here to the big boys.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/staggering-amount-of-injuries-on-4g-pitches-compared-to-grass-1.3641369

In case you haven't noticed, we're talking about football, not a full contact, high-impact sport like rugby. You can't compare the two.

I have no idea about the rates of injury in rugby. Perhaps you could do a literature search and find some peer-reviewed papers on the subject rather than a newspaper article?

[Aberdeen Cowden]

10 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

In case you haven't noticed, we're talking about football, not a full contact, high-impact sport like rugby. You can't compare the two.

I have no idea about the rates of injury in rugby. Perhaps you could do a literature search and find some peer-reviewed papers on the subject rather than a newspaper article?

 

10 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

In case you haven't noticed, we're talking about football, not a full contact, high-impact sport like rugby. You can't compare the two.

I have no idea about the rates of injury in rugby. Perhaps you could do a literature search and find some peer-reviewed papers on the subject rather than a newspaper article?

What a lot of tosh. Someone does their hamstring in running after a ball how does it matter what shape it is? If a player gets his studs stuck in the surface and ends up twisting his knee how does it matter which shape the ball is?

Use a bit of common sense, please.

[Cyclizine]

3 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

 

What a lot of tosh. Someone does their hamstring in running after a ball how does it matter what shape it is? If a player gets his studs stuck in the surface and ends up twisting his knee how does it matter which shape the ball is?

Use a bit of common sense, please.

 Are you suggesting that the mechanism of injury in a sport like rugby are all the same as football? I mean, I've seen some cloggers in the HFL, but rugby clearly has different injury patterns, impact being the obvious one. That's common sense. You can compare rugby to rugby and football to football, this is called "trying to reduce confounding variables". You need to make the comparisons as valid as possible otherwise you can't draw any firm conclusions.

The data for football implies there's no difference in injury rates. This isn't opinion, this is the weight of medical evidence. Again, feel free to find some actual studies from peer-review journals and back up your assertions.

[LIVIFOREVER]

6 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

 

What a lot of tosh. Someone does their hamstring in running after a ball how does it matter what shape it is? If a player gets his studs stuck in the surface and ends up twisting his knee how does it matter which shape the ball is?

Use a bit of common sense, please.

Aye good idea, , lets just stick to football eh, it has its own studies, just because you can't find any supporting your argument you move onto another sport. 

[Durnford]

It would be interesting to know whether the incidents of injury at clubs with artificial pitches is any higher than those with grass more from a point of view that the player play and train on the same pitch and, presumably, get more conditioned to the surface. 

That being said a lot of sides with grass pitches seem to train or artificial surface so would you really be comparing complete opposites?

I must admit that a lot of the reports I've read almost seem to have been created with a preconceived viewpoint and the "evidence" is accumulated to try and prove that point.

[Valentino Bolognese]

All I know is that irrespective of the injury situation, which appears to conclude that it isn't a factor, there's something about artificial turf that just doesn't work aesthetically. 

For me, how a sport 'looks' is pretty important and football on grass looks and feels better. I personally think that a bit of variability in the playing surface just makes it a more interesting game. 

I'd compare it to horse racing. I never watch flat racing on anything other than grass, and national hunt racing over soft ground with the turf and mud flying is a great spectacle. I think that artificial surfaces just look too clinical and controlled and somehow seems to rob sport of a bit of 'blood and guts'. It's not subbuteo or a FIFA game after all. 

I'm not bothered if they are safers, or if the ball bounce is more consistent or whatever so my argument isn't necessarily rational. And therefore impossible to argue against.