Moderator: GH Moderators
no , I think it is totally unacceptable to expect any club to play there and risk injury when
I think he has brought it up because he was asked the question and it has been very topical in Sydney right nowpickles wrote:Manly should relocate to a decent ground at Gosford. Brook vale is a rubbish field and genuinely not up to nrl standard.
I can see the point of Stuart raising it in the media in order to highlight the risk to players but I’d rather the focus was on the fact that it has been a tough road trip for the raiders and they have a plan to turn that around!
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 89ed5e92fbgergreg wrote:Settle down guys, I'd like to hear more about these injuries from Brookvale oval before we let the facts get in the way.
We are going through similar struggles with our home ground - ie. Lack of government support for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Please explain?
If the surface was the predominant cause of the injuries, more than one player per game would do an ACLGreen eyed Mick wrote:Please explain?
"by Staff writers"gangrenous wrote:https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 89ed5e92fbgergreg wrote:Settle down guys, I'd like to hear more about these injuries from Brookvale oval before we let the facts get in the way.
We are going through similar struggles with our home ground - ie. Lack of government support for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You and TWs can settle down
No, because someone paid the NRL a lot of money to have it at the second-worst playing surface in the league. I'm worried about that round, too. Suncorp's surface barely survives one game of football a weekend, and they want to play eight on it?
-TW- wrote:If the surface was the predominant cause of the injuries, more than one player per game would do an ACLGreen eyed Mick wrote:Please explain?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Staff writers is about 59 rungs up the evidence ladder above your stance at this point. Feel free to provide counter evidence.-TW- wrote:"by Staff writers"
Imagine if it rains during the magic round..raiderskater wrote: ↑April 25, 2019, 8:50 amNo, because someone paid the NRL a lot of money to have it at the second-worst playing surface in the league. I'm worried about that round, too. Suncorp's surface barely survives one game of football a weekend, and they want to play eight on it?
Probably I'm spoiled because of the gorgeous, immaculate state that the Canberra Stadium surface is always kept in, but giving the Magic Round to Suncorp was almost the worst idea I could think of.
I reckon that the only reason Brookvale is kept in is because it's a Sydney club's ground. No way would the Raiders be allowed to continue playing there if it was our home ground.
It is funny watching the Manly fans go off claiming we're making excuses when we're higher on the ladder and have won more games this season.
I couldn't find a link to the full study/statistics. There aren't that many grounds that host regular NRL games so 10 percent doesn't seem that many - without comparison.gangrenous wrote:https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 89ed5e92fbgergreg wrote:Settle down guys, I'd like to hear more about these injuries from Brookvale oval before we let the facts get in the way.
We are going through similar struggles with our home ground - ie. Lack of government support for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You and TWs can settle down
Well at least you’ve come at this from a more sensible argument.gergreg wrote:I couldn't find a link to the full study/statistics. There aren't that many grounds that host regular NRL games so 10 percent doesn't seem that many - without comparison.gangrenous wrote:https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 89ed5e92fbgergreg wrote:Settle down guys, I'd like to hear more about these injuries from Brookvale oval before we let the facts get in the way.
We are going through similar struggles with our home ground - ie. Lack of government support for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You and TWs can settle down
Do you agree we should forfeit the game to avoid injury?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
We've only got a few weeks to wait raiderskater. But I understand that the surface issues of a few years ago are fully corrected. My Brother in Law goes to a lot of Super Rugby matches. After the debacle of the rugby match at the SCG I asked him about the surface in Brisbane. He said it has been ok, but there was a fair bit of rain in the middle of March which softened the surface for the matches in late March. I understand it is ok now, though. Are there any Brisbane Raider fans who could comment on the current Lang Park surface?raiderskater wrote: ↑April 25, 2019, 8:50 amNo, because someone paid the NRL a lot of money to have it at the second-worst playing surface in the league. I'm worried about that round, too. Suncorp's surface barely survives one game of football a weekend, and they want to play eight on it?
Probably I'm spoiled because of the gorgeous, immaculate state that the Canberra Stadium surface is always kept in, but giving the Magic Round to Suncorp was almost the worst idea I could think of.
I reckon that the only reason Brookvale is kept in is because it's a Sydney club's ground. No way would the Raiders be allowed to continue playing there if it was our home ground.
It is funny watching the Manly fans go off claiming we're making excuses when we're higher on the ladder and have won more games this season.
You don't think suggesting we forfeit the match deserves a 'tin foil hat' response? I'm happy to concede that Brookvale oval isn't at the standard of most other grounds but I think it's a real stretch to blame injuries on the surface when there are so many other factors that can cause injury.gangrenous wrote:Well at least you’ve come at this from a more sensible argument.gergreg wrote:I couldn't find a link to the full study/statistics. There aren't that many grounds that host regular NRL games so 10 percent doesn't seem that many - without comparison.gangrenous wrote:https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 89ed5e92fbgergreg wrote:Settle down guys, I'd like to hear more about these injuries from Brookvale oval before we let the facts get in the way.
We are going through similar struggles with our home ground - ie. Lack of government support for a new ground.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You and TWs can settle down
Do you agree we should forfeit the game to avoid injury?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
At some rough numbers there are 10 games there this year out of 192 premiership games. Around 5%.
That would suggest Brookvale is over-indexed by roughly 100%.
Yes you should have some skepticism without being able to see the study. If they’ve done it for just a year where there were a couple of long term injuries at Brookvale by random chance, then the study will be skewed.
No I don’t believe the game should be forfeited. I do believe we should be extra careful and not risk players susceptible to injuries from uneven ground.
I certainly believe that you shouldn’t give others the tin foil hat treatment, when what little evidence is currently available to us actually backs their view not yours.
Not particularly. It’s not one that I subscribe to, but I understand other posters feel protective of the players and might feel that’s a reasonable approach.gergreg wrote:You don't think suggesting we forfeit the match deserves a 'tin foil hat' response?
Well, we best never discuss anything with multiple contributing factors again then.gergreg wrote: I'm happy to concede that Brookvale oval isn't at the standard of most other grounds but I think it's a real stretch to blame injuries on the surface when there are so many other factors that can cause injury.
This is completely irrelevant.gergreg wrote: It's not as though the Manly RL club deliberately let their stadium get to the state it is in.
It is completely relevant. Cat said clubs have a responsibility to...... and this should include a safe field.....gangrenous wrote:Not particularly. It’s not one that I subscribe to, but I understand other posters feel protective of the players and might feel that’s a reasonable approach.gergreg wrote:You don't think suggesting we forfeit the match deserves a 'tin foil hat' response?
The responses were also not along the lines of “I think that response is over the top”, but “you’re making things up there is nothing to see here”. They’re very different.
Well, we best never discuss anything with multiple contributing factors again then.gergreg wrote: I'm happy to concede that Brookvale oval isn't at the standard of most other grounds but I think it's a real stretch to blame injuries on the surface when there are so many other factors that can cause injury.
I don’t think it’s a real stretch at all to suggest a playing surface can contribute to injuries. I think just about anyone who’s played sport can relate to that. I know I’ve rolled ankles in grounds with pot holes. I’ve seen a nasty knee injury from stumbling in one also.
This is completely irrelevant.gergreg wrote: It's not as though the Manly RL club deliberately let their stadium get to the state it is in.
Blaming the state of their ground on the club is no different to blaming the Canberra Raiders for not having a stadium in civic.greeneyed wrote:Why is anyone defending the state of the Brookvale Oval surface? That's just being perverse.
That’s not entirely true. Your points are right that the stats should exclude non-surface related injuries to try to draw better conclusions. But what other factors are going to give you a higher injury rate at a particular ground if you did have the statistics to back the rate being higher?PigRickman wrote:10% of games means absolutely nothing, that ground isn’t up to scratch but of that 10% how many had any contribution from the surfaced?
Like a broken eye socket from a headclash isn’t surface related unless the headclass was caused by a player losing his footing
An acl sustained by contact is the same, where as an acl sustained without contact could be surface related
A blanket 10% means absolutely nothing and no reasonable conclusion can be drawn from it regarding the surface
That said Brookvale is absolutely a **** hole that should be bulldozed at the early possible convenience, preferably with the locals still inside
- It’s irrelevant to the points I raised with you. Perhaps you should have separately quoted cat to raise that.gergreg wrote:It is completely relevant. Cat said clubs have a responsibility to...... and this should include a safe field.....gangrenous wrote:Not particularly. It’s not one that I subscribe to, but I understand other posters feel protective of the players and might feel that’s a reasonable approach.gergreg wrote:You don't think suggesting we forfeit the match deserves a 'tin foil hat' response?
The responses were also not along the lines of “I think that response is over the top”, but “you’re making things up there is nothing to see here”. They’re very different.
Well, we best never discuss anything with multiple contributing factors again then.gergreg wrote: I'm happy to concede that Brookvale oval isn't at the standard of most other grounds but I think it's a real stretch to blame injuries on the surface when there are so many other factors that can cause injury.
I don’t think it’s a real stretch at all to suggest a playing surface can contribute to injuries. I think just about anyone who’s played sport can relate to that. I know I’ve rolled ankles in grounds with pot holes. I’ve seen a nasty knee injury from stumbling in one also.
This is completely irrelevant.gergreg wrote: It's not as though the Manly RL club deliberately let their stadium get to the state it is in.
Sure my initial response was flippant but IMO it deserved no less. We are all guilty of ridiculous claims at times and over exaggeration (myself included) but Cat has a history of laying the boot into other clubs for their work practises or player conduct while completely ignoring our club's own flaws.
Suggesting we forfeit a match, which would be extremely detrimental to our club, is in no way a reasonable suggestion in any way.
Lastly we all support a team playing arguably the toughest, most physically taxing sport in the world. The injuries sustained I would say have very little to do with the playing surface. I see your article with a small sample size and raise it two full knee reconstructions for Terry Campese (playing at Canberra stadium) from simply changing direction. I don't think from memory there was even a hand on him in either situation.
or maybe you should have actually read Cat's comments before you came in to defend her? But anyway what is your response to those statements from Cat?gangrenous wrote:- It’s irrelevant to the points I raised with you. Perhaps you should have separately quoted cat to raise that.gergreg wrote:It is completely relevant. Cat said clubs have a responsibility to...... and this should include a safe field.....gangrenous wrote:Not particularly. It’s not one that I subscribe to, but I understand other posters feel protective of the players and might feel that’s a reasonable approach.gergreg wrote:You don't think suggesting we forfeit the match deserves a 'tin foil hat' response?
The responses were also not along the lines of “I think that response is over the top”, but “you’re making things up there is nothing to see here”. They’re very different.
Well, we best never discuss anything with multiple contributing factors again then.gergreg wrote: I'm happy to concede that Brookvale oval isn't at the standard of most other grounds but I think it's a real stretch to blame injuries on the surface when there are so many other factors that can cause injury.
I don’t think it’s a real stretch at all to suggest a playing surface can contribute to injuries. I think just about anyone who’s played sport can relate to that. I know I’ve rolled ankles in grounds with pot holes. I’ve seen a nasty knee injury from stumbling in one also.
This is completely irrelevant.gergreg wrote: It's not as though the Manly RL club deliberately let their stadium get to the state it is in.
Sure my initial response was flippant but IMO it deserved no less. We are all guilty of ridiculous claims at times and over exaggeration (myself included) but Cat has a history of laying the boot into other clubs for their work practises or player conduct while completely ignoring our club's own flaws.
Suggesting we forfeit a match, which would be extremely detrimental to our club, is in no way a reasonable suggestion in any way.
Lastly we all support a team playing arguably the toughest, most physically taxing sport in the world. The injuries sustained I would say have very little to do with the playing surface. I see your article with a small sample size and raise it two full knee reconstructions for Terry Campese (playing at Canberra stadium) from simply changing direction. I don't think from memory there was even a hand on him in either situation.
- So discuss what you object to, and don’t ridicule people like their root concern is completely fabricated.
- I don’t know it’s a small sample, I’m just guessing since they don’t quote the full stats and it’s what I’d expect from the media. It’s going to be a hell of a lot bigger than your one guy sample though.
I think I’ve made my point. I’m going to move on now.
We've got a stat that looks at one year, isolated, and just gives us a blanket 10% stat.... it couldnt be more meaningless, and you cant possibly draw any conclusions because they havent actually do anything work to correlate what they are looking at to the injuries.gangrenous wrote: ↑April 25, 2019, 3:10 pmThat’s not entirely true. Your points are right that the stats should exclude non-surface related injuries to try to draw better conclusions. But what other factors are going to give you a higher injury rate at a particular ground if you did have the statistics to back the rate being higher?PigRickman wrote:10% of games means absolutely nothing, that ground isn’t up to scratch but of that 10% how many had any contribution from the surfaced?
Like a broken eye socket from a headclash isn’t surface related unless the headclass was caused by a player losing his footing
An acl sustained by contact is the same, where as an acl sustained without contact could be surface related
A blanket 10% means absolutely nothing and no reasonable conclusion can be drawn from it regarding the surface
That said Brookvale is absolutely a **** hole that should be bulldozed at the early possible convenience, preferably with the locals still inside
Also worth considering you could have a head clash as the result of a slip or stumble on a poor surface.
