As we all know the rugby season is upon us, it worries me that we end up with another bloomfield road, which defo dosnt go with our style of football. i know this season the pitch so far looks loads better than it did all last season. was wondering what other people thoughts were on it. i know generally they play on a sunday after us but we do have 3 / 4 games that fall on tuesdays and 1 on a bank holiday monday. do you think it will make much difference?
I am no fan of rugby league or us ground sharing but don't you ever read what has been written on this subject? The ground staff have repeatedly said that the football damages the pitch more than rugby league. Any problems with the pitch have been down to the pitch itself. Did you watch Swansea the other night? Their pitch was excellent. And they have a rugby union club, and union, with scrums, mauls etc does far more harm to a pitch than league, has a winter season the same as football and so has coped all this winter with the two teams playing at the same time as most of the bad weather. So it should be obvious that any faults with pitch aren't down to the rugby league club sharing with us. Talking of watching Swansea, we could learn a few more things from them. How to manage with just one row of stewards as segregation, no stewards stood glaring up at the crowd and sitting out of the way of the view of fans. No sign of any police in riot gear either. Maybe our new Chief Constable could have a word with her counterparts in South Wales. Or at Reading, another similar sized ground which seems to cope with staging football matches with far less hassle than we encounter at the KC?
The ground staff didn't say specifically that football damages the pitch more, what they said is that it suffers more during the football season. That's mainly due to the climate at that time of year. A better comparison would be Boothferry Park and Boulevard pitches when the playing season coincided.
Not really. In those days rugby league had contested scrums and they kicked the ball from mounds made by stamping your heel and twisting which made a mess of the pitch all on its own. Also, they didn't just get he ball and run 5 times before having to kick as they do now.Not to mention that BP's pitch drained well and the Boulevard didn't. They don't wear as long studs now and the grass is shorter. A sliding tackle in football does more damage than most things which can occur in a rugby match. As I said previously, none of which would make me alter my opinion on ground-sharing. But Swansea's pitch, used at the same time in the bad weather for the more damaging game of union suggests the KC's problems aren't down to the fact a rugby league team plays there. So do the other clubs shared with both league and union whose pit he's seem to cope better.
om Rugby, especially Rugby League, covers the entire pitch. There are no areas of concentration. With football you get specific areas of high volume useage, for example the penalty area. If you look at a Football pitch at the end of a season the Penalty areas are worn and grassless, you do not get these specific areas of wear on a Rugby League pitch, and as previously mentioned the scrums are uncontested so no driving or scraping divots. Doubt the KC pitch will suffer from the RL involvement. Unless, of course, the pitch is already crap. Which it does not now seem to be.
You'd have to say this a million times on here before it actually sank in. Ground staff have confirmed before that the football does more damage to the pitch. All you have to do is watch the action on the pitch and it's plain to see. This is also why the ground wears quicker in the centre circle and the goal mouths. Most league action is evenly spread on the field. If it's heavy anywhere it'll be at either 3rd of the way across the pitch and towards the corners.
Yes but someone will still put this topic up again and again and again and again...it's almost like a 'can you catch aids from a toilet seat' type of debate. No...the rugby will not make a happeth' of difference.
All of this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which sport is harder on the pitch or any of that stuff. The point is we have two teams playing on the pitch whereas until now there has only been one. Every year around this time, the pitch becomes a mudbath and our home form drops significantly.
no , this time in previous seasons its been ****ed already .. hell heres a thought .. maybe they sorted it ?
it cant get any worse at home than it already is. I thought that the grass had a JB... (a parasite) shall we get that orange ****er back on gardening leave to take care of it?
Of course sharing the playing area with a rugby league club has an effect on the pitch. It cannot do it any good at all. How can it? Straight away we had the lines on the pitch last Saturday amateurishly greened out but still so obviously evident and a distraction to players and officials alike. If we have to share the stadium with 'The pride of ALL Hull' then lets share it on equal terms. Meaning the same licensing laws and prices for football and rugby fans and the same levels of policing and stewarding. Personally, in a vote, I would vote for both of Hull's RL clubs to merge, form one decent club and play from one ground which was built to RL specifications.
Of course sharing the playing area with a rugby league club has an effect on the pitch. It cannot do it any good at all. How can it? Straight away we had the lines on the pitch last Saturday amateurishly greened out but still so obviously evident and a distraction to players and officials alike. If we have to share the stadium with 'The pride of ALL Hull' then lets share it on equal terms. Meaning the same licensing laws and prices for football and rugby fans and the same levels of policing and stewarding. Personally, in a vote, I would vote for both of Hull's RL clubs to merge, form one decent club and play from one ground which was built to RL specifications.
Last year it was ****ed a bit earlier when we had that Rugby League tournament in November which along with that worm infestation thing probbaly made it worse than other years but seriously think back to the last few years. Our home form always turns to **** after New year.
didn't in 2007/2008 did it ?? ... the pitch is always a lame excuse in my opinion .. you may be right ... but rugby is not the cause of it that has been proved .. they found the reason last year (that had incidentily been the fault for the previous 3 years) and have got rid of it ... I just say lets not get too bothered unless it happens which I really think it wont.
I think you've failed to make a single valid point there! Green lines a distraction, really? Doesn't seem to bother man united for a month after the grand final, Reading Watford, Swansea and Wigan manage alright too. Licensing laws have nothing to do with the stadium, it's the law, good luck changing that. The club sets the prices, football fans pay more because the running costs of a football club are greater. Police and stewarding depends on the game, there's significantly more for Hull V Rovers than Hull City V Peterborough for example. A merger wouldn't work and won't happen, but if it did they'd end up playing at the KC, no-one has the money to build another stadium.
All these closet egg chasers seem to be missing the point that having two teams playing on one pitch must be worse than having one team playing on it. I don't care which team causes the most damage. Having two rather than one is the point here.
Even one off concerts had to be timed because of the damage to the pitch. Don't forget too, it was built as a community stadium, but, despite some amateur league finals requesting it, no teams other than the two main tenants play games on the pitch and even they have very limited training time on the pitch for the self and same reason.
