but thats a body sliding. The studs cause the ground to dig up in chunks. The only time you get that it the beautiful game is from a FK or GK.
I suppose it depends on how damp the pitch is. My son's football team (boys) share a pitch with the local rugby club (men) & they do as much damage to the surface as the rugby team. The main 'damage' from the rugby team is the depth of stud marks - which helps aerate the pitch!
No - a legal slide tackle is done with studs down or heel/side of boot digging in, otherwise it's studs up and dangerous.
So a kid sliding causes as much damage to the turf as a 15 stone plus prop forward in a scrum ? struggling to understand how ,especially If you take into consideration the weight involved in a full scrummage!
If a kid is sliding studs down he aint gonna go very far unless its very wet ! In the same conditions a scrum will trash the turf a lot quicker ! I`m with you Dan I think!
There's more than one in a game! If you're a WML member, there's a guy on there who is a qualified groundkeeper - can't remember his name - he is of the same opinion that rugby is really no more damaging to a pitch than football.
I think this will show the difference. In a scrum you have 16 men all digging their boots in to the turf which cuts it up like crazy In football you have one person sliding with less of the foot in contact with the pitch.
Not so - the studs are longer, dig in deeper and allow greater traction. Whereas in football, you have the boot, the leg and the hip all ploughing a furrow.
Only time I spent Groundkeeping was assisting the groundsmen at Hanwell CC in London ! which is totally different requirements to footy and rugby ! But on a semi fibrous pitch surely deeper studs are going to cause more fundamental damage to the synthetic part of the turf!
And in rugby you have more scrums, more men, more weight, and the Ruck. Where as you get a 9-10 stone player with the biggest probably being 15stone CB who might sometimes slide in usually they go in on the side of the foot, not the soul of the boot
Check your signature Dan - apply that law to a scrum or ruck and then compare to a slide tackle in football where the mass is all coming from one side with little to stop it.
I think that Arsenal have a vested interest as they play their reserve games at Barnet. Even if they don't, they play their home FA Youth Cup ties there.
exactly. it is digging the turf up. Its like a lawnmower vs a fork. The lawn mower skims over the grass where as the fork digs in and churns up the grass
No - it's like a plough vs a fork. Like the longer studs, the fork digs in and stays where it is, whereas the plough creates a furrow as it travels over the top.
Then why are there not big furrows all over the pitch after a watford match?? Yes there are divots missing where the keeper has kicked the ball or a free kick was taken, but other than that there are very few marks on the pitch. All a slide tackle does is squash the grass a bit, the studs dig it up. Thats the difference.
all in all, it stinks. I wonder if Barnet can sue! Probably not. I feel for the fans. Still, if they have no home, i too would rather they used ours than disappeared altogether...but i'd rather we had ours all to ourselves really!
Im sure they will find something to sue for. There are plenty of things out there. I dont think we will have the vic to ourselves lol. It would be great though. I have always known it as a groundshare ground
Because footballers don't spend the entire 90 minutes slide tackling all over the pitch, just as rugby players don't spend the entire 80 minutes in scrums! Try finding aerial shots of football pitches and look for the obvious damage that is done during matches - you'll find that it is areas where it can't really be attributed to scrums. Of course studs dig up the grass - that's equally true for football - but that 'damage' is normally dealt with by the simple expedient of a roller. Slide tackles - in wet conditions - cause far more damage than 'squashing the grass a bit', damage that can't be easily repaired by a roller. That's the difference. Ask players from either code and you'll no doubt find that each would blame the other. Ask someone who has played both codes and you'll get a more accurate opinion - in my opinion, of course! On the subject of ground sharing with Barnet - I'd prefer that it didn't happen. Not for reasons of pitch damage, but more for the fact that it never seems to work satisfactorily. I still don't know how we have such a good relationship with Wealdstone after the shabby way we treated them
As unforgiveable as the actions of the men running the club in the mid 90s were, we're not under any obligation to offer them the freebies and benefits they get from us, nor are they under any obligation to take them. It's an arrangement that works for both clubs
