Rugby must start listening to players about artificial pitches
Despite a four times increased likelihood of non-contact injuries, authorities are putting commercial interests first
David Walsh, Chief Sports Writer
Sunday April 10 2022, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
Over the years I’ve developed an aversion to watching rugby union played on artificial grass. Something about the tempo of the game on synthetic surfaces and the way the ball bounces just isn’t right. Football knew what it was doing when banning them from the professional game in 1995. Certainly with rugby you don’t have to look closely to see there is also a serious welfare issue.
Players routinely suffer burns and gashes on these surfaces. Often the cuts become infected by the loose rubber particles used in the construction of these pitches. Then there are the non-contact injuries that happen on artificial surfaces, caused by players getting a foot caught in the mixture of plastic and rubber.
High speed collisions and falls are an intrinsic part of rugby and artificial surfaces allow the players to run faster and so the collisions can be more violent. Occasionally a player will fall on synthetic grass, say for example after being ankle-tapped, and the impact caused by their head hitting the ground can be frightening.
Clubs with artificial grass pitches claim they are no more likely than grass to cause injury. The official view is that the science is inconclusive and extensive research has delivered conflicting results. Early designs were associated with increased injury risk to athletes. Those studies found raised levels of various injuries including ACL and concussion. The problems of increased incidence of chronic back pain were highlighted across a number of sports.
“More recent literature on the merits of natural grass against modern synthetic alternatives is more equivocal in its results,” says Professor Bill Ribbans, an orthopaedic surgeon who has worked with Northampton Saints and is author of Knife in the Fast Lane, which charts the history of medical care for sports people.
“However, researchers and commentators have been fairly consistent throughout the decades that players prefer natural grass. The athletes’ perception is that [on artificial pitches] they are more prone to musculoskeletal injury, post-activity muscle soreness, non-contact injuries, and increased risk of skin abrasions with infection risks.”
Much of the literature is based on studies of American sport. The RFU’s chief medical officer, Simon Kemp, co-authored a paper in 2016 reporting an eight times increased risk of abrasions on synthetic surfaces in rugby union. They also reported an increase in muscle soreness in the four days after games. However, the authors could not establish an overall increase in injury risk but advised the need for larger studies.
A 2022 study from Nottingham looked at injuries in elite rugby. They compared natural grass with hybrid and fully synthetic surfaces. They found double the overall injury incidence in matches played on hybrid and synthetic surfaces even though the playing surface did not affect the severity of match injuries. A hybrid surface (natural grass combined with three per cent synthetic fibres) was associated with a four times increased likelihood of non-contact injuries.
Underpinning the choice of synthetic over natural is that artificial pitches are easy to maintain and can withstand high usage. A grass pitch might allow a weekly five hours’ use whereas an artificial pitch can be used for up to 50 hours. Artificial pitches are also easy to maintain. Commercially, they work. The case against their use rests on the evidence of those who play on them.
Sponsored
Joe Marler, the Harlequins and England prop, posted a message on social media in September saying artificial pitches should be banned. His England team-mate Henry Slade supported that call and Slade’s Exeter Chiefs and England colleague Jack Nowell has long been opposed to the use of synthetic surfaces. “I can’t stand them,” Nowell told The Offload podcast.
“I’m in a position now that I can play on them but when I was younger I struggled quite a bit with patellar tendonitis. I had that op [operation] done eventually. So I’m kind of in a position to play on them, but they’re just not nice. It’s not worth putting players at risk over it. I know there are studies that come out saying there’s not a lot more risk on them, but I reckon that’s got to be complete rubbish.”
Bristol Bears director of rugby Pat Lam said something similar after the Bears had played on Worcester Warriors’ artificial pitch. “We’ve played two games there now and three guys have ended up with surgery and other niggles — Piers O’Conor has sprained his ankle and I know [Worcester’s] Jamie Shillcock did his. We’re not having great luck there, we’ve come away with some big injuries on that surface.
“I’m just talking facts. One guy got a knee injury just stepping and another guy a high ankle sprain, so he had surgery. If you have a look, Toby Fricker just went to step and his knee gave way, which was similar to the game before and then Piers went to step.”
Advertisement
Lam understates the case when he says players “enjoy the grass”. Most seriously dislike playing on artificial pitches because even if they avoid burns, gashes and musculoskeletal injury, they still feel far more stiff and sore than they would after a game on grass. It shouldn’t be considered irrelevant that from the players’ point of view, games on grass are just more enjoyable.
Three years ago, the Rugby Players Association asked for a moratorium on the development of any new artificial pitches until more studies were done. They were ignored. After Odell Beckham Jr’s non-contact injury at the Super Bowl in February a number of high profile NFL players called for artificial pitches to be banned. They too are likely to be ignored.
Sports always talk about player welfare but when it comes to important decisions, commercial welfare is the real priority.
Topic: Times article on plastic pitches by David Walsh (Read 2126 times)
Always a Wasp