rugbyunion
Latest News:
New Page 1

Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.

To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE, it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".


Thought for the Day:
FLYING THE FLAG FOR ENGLAND!

Latest: SARACENS 38:19 GLASGOW WARRIORS
Next: Harlequins V Saracens Sat 26th Jan, 15.00 The Stoop, PCR,
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV:

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

The Fish | Rugby Union News | Fez Boys | Saracens Fixtures | The SSA | Rugby on TV


Artificial Pitches
GerryK (IP Logged)
10 January, 2019 06:03
The annual RFU injury report indicates that the number of injuries sustained on artificial pitches is seven times greater than on grass. This should cause us some concern and perhaps generate a need to consider whether our pitch could be improved to lessen the number of injuries incurred. At a minimum this report warrants further consideration

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
AP (IP Logged)
10 January, 2019 08:55
Where have you found that, Gerry?

The report is at:

[www.englandrugby.com]

The summary (see pages iii and iv) says rather that for last season, "there was no significant difference in the incidence, severity or burden of match injuries between artificial turf and grass", but that, over the last five seasons, "while the incidence of match injuries on natural grass and artificial turf is not different, the severity of match injuries on artificial turf is greater than that on natural grass, with an injury sustained on artificial turf lasting, on average, nine days more than one sustained on natural grass". It says that the data (over the last three seasons) for training injuries shows the same pattern of no greater incidence on artificial surfaces but more severe (eight days more recovery on average).



Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
Waldo (IP Logged)
10 January, 2019 10:17
I heard that recovery data somewhere else (probably on a podcast .

I don't recall there being a mention of more injuries but I think they mentioned recovery was on average 7 days longer.

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
JO'G (IP Logged)
10 January, 2019 12:04
that may well be because the players move faster / grip harder on an artificial pitch as so any collision, or twist will be more severe

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
Innings (IP Logged)
10 January, 2019 12:12
Has anyone calculated whether there is any difference in incidence of injuries between players who play regularly on artificial and those who only encounter them a few times each season?



Innings

Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
10 January, 2019 23:27
I've just done a quick skim read of the report and thought I'd share 5 thoughts.

Firstly, I've spotted a couple of minor errors that demonstrate poor proof reading! The report references an error made in the previous (2016/17) report that led to some incorrect statistics. Unfortunately the "Contents" page (vi) references "Error in 2017/18 report"! Also one of the tables (can't recall which) has an incorrect lower confidence level of 81 (should be 71). Nothing major, but poor form.

Secondly, an important aspect of the methodology is unclear - players such as Will Fraser and Rob Horne have had career ending injuries. It is unclear how the severity of these injuries is recorded - 100 days? 500? This is an important point since, as the report states when using the median rather than mean, a few long injuries (outliers) can unduly affect the mean. The value assigned to them needs justifying. imo a beneficial additional statistic to reference would be the 95th percentile (sorry Jim!) as this would include 19 out of 20 but exclude outliers.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I think the report highlights concern over the use of artificial pitches. The headline figures, reinforced by numerous other statistics, is that over the past 5 years whilst the incidence of injuries is marginally lower on artificial pitches (i.e. they occur very slightly less often) their mean severity (39 v 30 days) and burden (3015 v 2433 days injured per 1000 playing hours) is significantly higher.

Fourth, some detail for our International players: England players had 23 injuries during their 11 matches - an average of 2.1 per game (or put another way on average one for every squad position over the season) resulting in an average of 30 days out of action.

Finally, the England training injury record since Jones' arrival is, as we already knew, appalling. Last season v mean of previous 14 for "Rugby Skills Training Injuries": "The burden of training injuries rose substantially above the mean for the surveillance period for rugby skills injury to 579 days absence per 1000 hours (compared to 96 days per 1000 hours)." Second highest was 16/17 season (337, more than twice the next highest).

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
Jim 55 (IP Logged)
11 January, 2019 13:35
Sara'sman

The value assigned to them needs justifying. imo a beneficial additional statistic to reference would be the 95th percentile (sorry Jim!) as this would include 19 out of 20 but exclude outliers.


If your comment relates to me I am grateful for what I do hope is sympathy! I read your comments at 6.30am on the train today and I still somewhat feel emotionally and intellectually scarred. [However there are those who would say that is my natural state!]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2019 13:35 by Jim 55.

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
11 January, 2019 15:38
It was both genuine and written with a smile Jim. Please permit my use of Mathematics in the following further comment on Jones' England training injury record. I think the issue is an important one. I am looking at the 4 training injuries of 84+ days in 2017/18.

The report makes the following very reasonable comment: "Note: The relatively small number of England senior men’s training sessions and training injuries included in the study each season means that the training injury risk for England should be interpreted with caution. The small sample size means that any differences in risk are much more likely to have arisen “by chance” rather than to be the result of a “true” difference, reflected in the wide 95% confidence intervals."

However it is still possible to make an analysis of the statistics, in particular of values occurring simply "by chance". If we make the (reasonable imv) assumption that the incidence of "84+ day training injuries" follows a Poisson distribution with parameter 0.6 (the mean over 2002-17 as given in the report) it is a simple calculation to estimate the likelihood of 4 or more such injuries occurring in 2017/18 due to natural variation.

This value is 0.00336, or 0.336%. The report uses the (common) 95% (/5%) confidence interval. However the above statistic also lies comfortably outside the (oft used) much stricter 99% (/1%) confidence interval. In layman's terms this means that there is a roughly 1 in 300 chance of four or more such injuries occurring in a single season as part of natural variation. Statisticians regard this as very significant and it strikes me as negligent that the report fails to acknowledge this - in fact it actually attempts to deflect attention from the figure. I have had great sympathy for Wasps and Bath (Jones, Watson, Joseph and Obano I think). The Jones regime has serious questions to answer.

 
Re: Artificial Pitches
EnfieldMal (IP Logged)
13 January, 2019 17:56
Quote:
GerryK
The annual RFU injury report indicates that the number of injuries sustained on artificial pitches is seven times greater than on grass. This should cause us some concern and perhaps generate a need to consider whether our pitch could be improved to lessen the number of injuries incurred. At a minimum this report warrants further consideration

That’s not what it says. It says there’s no difference for injuries but takes longer to recover when on plastic


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?