Killie unhappy at what we said about their pitch

[RFCRobertson 11,794]

It's been reported that Kilmarnock have said that Rangers were "ill-informed" in the wake of Waggys injurys. 

On the official Rangers page, concerning Waggys injury a line was put, "The initial impact on an unforgiving Rugby Park surface resulted in bruising and lacerations which were immediately visible. This line has made Killie distraught, claiming that the 3G pitch is a FIFA 2 star compliant, but also meets standards meet by rugby. They also said "Clearly there is far more physical contact with the 3G pitch during a rugby match and no player has sustained any injury related to the surface." 

However, what Killie has failed to realize that a few days before the tie, Rob Kiernan actually said about how injury prone Artificial pitches were (there is also links between the rubber pellets and cancer in athletes) and that footballers prefer to play on grass as oppose and (Rob) would happily see them away. So it's not like this has happened and we've suddenly did a heel turn, they knew our feelings before hand and Waggy getting injured only goes to show how bad they can be.

It's also pointless talking about rugby players and their injuries on the field. Most of them hide their injuries anyway so they can keep playing. Their also far more hardy than a Footballer, look at the difference between Gedion Zelalem and Matt Scott. One is built like a brick shit house and the other is a matchstick. Am pretty sure I know which one would be more prone to injury following a hard fall to the ground. 

There is more to the story on STVs website if you're interested http://sport.stv.tv/football/1343348-killie-hit-back-at-rangers-over-ill-informed-pitch-remark/ and here's the statement that Rangers made http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/martyn-waghorn-injury-update/

[The Dude 20,027]

They have a point. There is a greater requirement in rugby for shock absorption in the pitch compared to football and the pitch meets both FIFA and IRB standards.   

The cancer claim is very tenuous as there's absolutely no scientific evidence that remotely backs it up.

Kiernans claim is fairly shite too. If it was any way accurate teams who play on artificial pitches would suffer more injuries than teams in grass and that certainly isn't the case. Nor have we lost anyone to injury attributable to synthetic pitches in the near 40 games we've played on the last few years. 

If Waghorns injury was caused by impact with the pitch and not his leg/knee locking after scoring we should say so although if it was the injury (strained knee ligaments) doesn't particularly fit with the claimed cause. 

Also, all the studies so far have shown there's no link to injuries and artificial grass in pros. In fact one from a US college completely refutes it and suggest it's actually safer than natural grass. FIFA own study also show there's no increase to injury rates on then either. 

[Skyson1872 2,923]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

They have a point. There is a greater requirement in rugby for shock absorption in the pitch compared to football and the pitch meets both FIFA and IRB standards.   

The cancer claim is very tenuous as there's absolutely no scientific evidence that remotely backs it up.

Kiernans claim is fairly shite too. If it was any way accurate teams who play on artificial pitches would suffer more injuries than teams in grass and that certainly isn't the case. Nor have we lost anyone to injury attributable to synthetic pitches in the near 40 games we've played on the last few years. 

If Waghorns injury was caused by impact with the pitch and not his leg/knee locking after scoring we should say so although if it was the injury (strained knee ligaments) doesn't particularly fit with the claimed cause. 

Also, all the studies so far have shown there's no link to injuries and artificial grass in pros. In fact one from a US college completely refutes it and suggest it's actually safer than natural grass. FIFA own study also show there's no increase to injury rates on then either. 

I'd say Templetons career has almost ended because of them.

[The Dude 20,027]

5 minutes ago, Skyson1872 said:

I'd say Templetons career has almost ended because of them.

Templeton was injury prone long before he came to us. He injured his ankle at Annan. He's been out for months with a knee injury sustained on grass.

[WishartsAshes 1,137]

For me, it's about trusting the opinions of the athletes. Players play and train on all types of surfaces. If they say that they can feel the difference then I think there must be something to it.

[sandyinroyalblue 16,478]

Football should be played on a real grass surface,playing football on a synthetic surface primarily to save on the maintenance of the park will save money in the short term but will undoubtedly result in an inferior product on the park and will drive supporters away in the long term.

[kaiser1041 9,107]

The pitches are fuckin woefull and player saftey is taking second place to cost.

[Prso's headband 36,830]

If its the players who are playing on these surfaces who are complaining which is about 80% of them that what can we do? Why are we taking the opinions of suits in football or rugby associations? 

They have requested we take out "unforgiving". Hope the board stand tall and tell them to do one. We can say what we want as a club in a statement. Killie trying to act like some sort of big club

[The Dude 20,027]

5 minutes ago, kaiser1041 said:

The pitches are fuckin woefull and player saftey is taking second place to cost.

 

[The Dude 20,027]

6 minutes ago, sandyinroyalblue said:

Football should be played on a real grass surface,playing football on a synthetic surface primarily to save on the maintenance of the park will save money in the short term but will undoubtedly result in an inferior product on the park and will drive supporters away in the long term.

Aye playing on pitches like these will bring fans in in their droves 

[TEFTONG 61,316]

We should release another statement that states..."yer pies are shite anaw!!"...wee club getting delusions of grandeur...Piss off... 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

This argument is getting boring. 

[Sket 13,610]

Kilmarnock can go fuck themselves. Small time,nothing club. 

[blueretro 704]

So if these pitches are so bad why is it that teams that play on them week in week out don't have a huge injury list?

[BridgeIsBlue 66,818]

Killie are pure mutton.

[sandyinroyalblue 16,478]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Aye playing on pitches like these will bring fans in in their droves 

Synthetic pitches are aesthetically more pleasing but I'd argue that overall the quality of football played on grass pitches are far superior.

 

[The Dude 20,027]

3 minutes ago, blueretro said:

So if these pitches are so bad why is it that teams that play on them week in week out don't have a huge injury list?

Witchcraft. 

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Aw that's a wee shame.....

[The Dude 20,027]

3 minutes ago, sandyinroyalblue said:

Synthetic pitches are aesthetically more pleasing but I'd argue that overall the quality of football played on grass pitches are far superior.

 

Falkirk is a fantastic surface and arguably better than any in the country 

[bluewhitevanman 1,619]

My brother in law plays in the top league if junior football and says he's in agony once he has played 90 minutes on 4g or 3G. There is only 1 team (petershill) in that league who has it just now but through time most if not all will have them and he says its brutal on they things but says a natural grass park is always fine to play on, also the injuries people get like grazes and sore muscles and it's no coincidence that all this is coming up now the pitches have been down a wee while and players are getting to see the differences between grass and artificial surfaces. These pitches need lifted and good grass pitches put back down 

[RFCRobertson 11,794]

23 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They have a point. There is a greater requirement in rugby for shock absorption in the pitch compared to football and the pitch meets both FIFA and IRB standards.   

The cancer claim is very tenuous as there's absolutely no scientific evidence that remotely backs it up.

Kiernans claim is fairly shite too. If it was any way accurate teams who play on artificial pitches would suffer more injuries than teams in grass and that certainly isn't the case. Nor have we lost anyone to injury attributable to synthetic pitches in the near 40 games we've played on the last few years. 

If Waghorns injury was caused by impact with the pitch and not his leg/knee locking after scoring we should say so although if it was the injury (strained knee ligaments) doesn't particularly fit with the claimed cause. 

Also, all the studies so far have shown there's no link to injuries and artificial grass in pros. In fact one from a US college completely refutes it and suggest it's actually safer than natural grass. FIFA own study also show there's no increase to injury rates on then either. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/health/are-artificial-sports-pitches-causing-cancer/

This is worth a read concerning the cancer claims, which right now is just a hypothesis.  Some stuff on it too

Regarding the injury thing, Fifa has only conducted 1 bit of actual research and for it they were using under 17's. Which isn't good research in my books. I'd rather see a premier league team getting tested instead of upcoming teens.

This is evidence that shows that there is a higher rate of athletes getting injured on artificial pitches. It was a study done by the NFL back in 2012. They reviewed injury data from games played between 2000 and 20009. and found that Knee sprains were 22% higher on artificial than natural. and that ACL strains were 67% higher on artificial too. It's also been proven that the artificial pitches are harder and tougher than grass and doesn't "give" any softness. 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Aye playing on pitches like these will bring fans in in their droves 

There would be more fans if the pitches were better? As for the scientific evidence argument then I don't know what you are saying there. There doesn't really have to be direct evidence, but that this is under speculation alone is worthy of note. The majority of players don't seem to like artificial surfaces, and their concerns should be very prominent in any considerations football authorities have to make on them.

[blueretro 704]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Witchcraft. 

I would suspect Voodoo before Witchcraft. 

[Prso's headband 36,830]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

Yet those who consistently play on both, the professional footballers would still rather play on a grass pitch. It might look pretty but if its causing injuries and the players are coming out and saying it is specifically artificial surfaces that is giving them more causes for concern then why change it?

[RM Monitor And Standards Officer 112,906]

The pain you get in the base of your back on those surfaces is torture 

If you're a passing side tho they pitches are excellent