OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 10:00 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

A sensible and obvious solution. After all pitches used for both football and rugby appears to becoming more common. Believe this particular incident was highlighted by a very dry pitch which required several hard scrapes to make a discernable mark.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 10:14 am

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 10:00 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

A sensible and obvious solution. After all pitches used for both football and rugby appears to becoming more common. Believe this particular incident was highlighted by a very dry pitch which required several hard scrapes to make a discernable mark.

Okay. Let's examine this.

What difference did the referees markings make to the game? None. Do referees in games of rugby often do this? Yes it's standard practice. In the 12 years we have played at Rodney Parade have you ever once turned up to a game and thought 'Wow, look at the scrape marks on the pitch?' My guess is you will not have done.

Games played on grass by men wearing studded boots are going to take wear and tear over the course of a season. The odd scrape from a referee is inconsequential.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:51 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

Mike,
It doesn't make any difference. During the course of a game of rugby 30 men in studded boots churn up the surface of the pitch. Whether or not a fereree makes the odd scrape is neither hete nor there. Grass is organic. It grows. If you notice at half time people such as my late friend Gareth go on to the pitch and replace divots.
Now I'm not per se against referees using spray, if they did I suspect the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal. However in football spray is only used for free kicks that pose an immediate threat to the defending team. In rugby the position of the scrum needs to be controlled. So if the innovation you suggest were incorporated there would be a lot more spray used. Which in the schemes of things doesn't matter. But really this is finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:21 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:51 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

Mike,
It doesn't make any difference. During the course of a game of rugby 30 men in studded boots churn up the surface of the pitch. Whether or not a fereree makes the odd scrape is neither hete nor there. Grass is organic. It grows. If you notice at half time people such as my late friend Gareth go on to the pitch and replace divots.
Now I'm not per se against referees using spray, if they did I suspect the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal. However in football spray is only used for free kicks that pose an immediate threat to the defending team. In rugby the position of the scrum needs to be controlled. So if the innovation you suggest were incorporated there would be a lot more spray used. Which in the schemes of things doesn't matter. But really this is finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Disagree there Brendan. It was of such concern that a regular poster on here felt that it needed to be mentioned. I agree.

He said that the ref dragged their feet four or five times to make a mark a dozen or so times. On a conservative estimate (small c) that would be 48 times during a game the ref dragged their feet unnecessarily across the grass when there was an alternate solution.

You mention that it is finding a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. That’s risk assessment. Prevention is better than cure. Use spray and the potential problem doesn’t materialise. It’s that easy.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:34 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:21 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:51 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

Mike,
It doesn't make any difference. During the course of a game of rugby 30 men in studded boots churn up the surface of the pitch. Whether or not a fereree makes the odd scrape is neither hete nor there. Grass is organic. It grows. If you notice at half time people such as my late friend Gareth go on to the pitch and replace divots.
Now I'm not per se against referees using spray, if they did I suspect the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal. However in football spray is only used for free kicks that pose an immediate threat to the defending team. In rugby the position of the scrum needs to be controlled. So if the innovation you suggest were incorporated there would be a lot more spray used. Which in the schemes of things doesn't matter. But really this is finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Disagree there Brendan. It was of such concern that a regular poster on here felt that it needed to be mentioned. I agree.

He said that the ref dragged their feet four or five times to make a mark a dozen or so times. On a conservative estimate (small c) that would be 48 times during a game the ref dragged their feet unnecessarily across the grass when there was an alternate solution.

You mention that it is finding a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. That’s risk assessment. Prevention is better than cure. Use spray and the potential problem doesn’t materialise. It’s that easy.

Next time you get accused of always agreeing with me or I with you we should remind our accuser of this.

I should point out also that whilst I still think you are wrong, I don't think you are toxic.

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 12:27 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:34 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:21 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:51 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

Mike,
It doesn't make any difference. During the course of a game of rugby 30 men in studded boots churn up the surface of the pitch. Whether or not a fereree makes the odd scrape is neither hete nor there. Grass is organic. It grows. If you notice at half time people such as my late friend Gareth go on to the pitch and replace divots.
Now I'm not per se against referees using spray, if they did I suspect the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal. However in football spray is only used for free kicks that pose an immediate threat to the defending team. In rugby the position of the scrum needs to be controlled. So if the innovation you suggest were incorporated there would be a lot more spray used. Which in the schemes of things doesn't matter. But really this is finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Disagree there Brendan. It was of such concern that a regular poster on here felt that it needed to be mentioned. I agree.

He said that the ref dragged their feet four or five times to make a mark a dozen or so times. On a conservative estimate (small c) that would be 48 times during a game the ref dragged their feet unnecessarily across the grass when there was an alternate solution.

You mention that it is finding a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. That’s risk assessment. Prevention is better than cure. Use spray and the potential problem doesn’t materialise. It’s that easy.

Next time you get accused of always agreeing with me or I with you we should remind our accuser of this.

I should point out also that whilst I still think you are wrong, I don't think you are toxic.

Ditto. Not exactly the first time I have disagreed with you either. However, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Blackandamber wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 12:53 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 12:27 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:34 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 11:21 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:51 am

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 9:34 am Use a spray I say. A scrum is part of the game and that is not going to alter. Unless they change the rules of course. The ref sliding their foot across the grass is not part of the game. Just get them to use a spray. Simples.

Mike,
It doesn't make any difference. During the course of a game of rugby 30 men in studded boots churn up the surface of the pitch. Whether or not a fereree makes the odd scrape is neither hete nor there. Grass is organic. It grows. If you notice at half time people such as my late friend Gareth go on to the pitch and replace divots.
Now I'm not per se against referees using spray, if they did I suspect the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal. However in football spray is only used for free kicks that pose an immediate threat to the defending team. In rugby the position of the scrum needs to be controlled. So if the innovation you suggest were incorporated there would be a lot more spray used. Which in the schemes of things doesn't matter. But really this is finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Disagree there Brendan. It was of such concern that a regular poster on here felt that it needed to be mentioned. I agree.

He said that the ref dragged their feet four or five times to make a mark a dozen or so times. On a conservative estimate (small c) that would be 48 times during a game the ref dragged their feet unnecessarily across the grass when there was an alternate solution.

You mention that it is finding a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. That’s risk assessment. Prevention is better than cure. Use spray and the potential problem doesn’t materialise. It’s that easy.

Next time you get accused of always agreeing with me or I with you we should remind our accuser of this.

I should point out also that whilst I still think you are wrong, I don't think you are toxic.

Ditto. Not exactly the first time I have disagreed with you either. However, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Has any body carried out research on the effects of the vanishing spray on the pitch. Over time maybe the grass won't grow as well

pembsexile wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 12:58 pm

I heard the club were looking to do some research on this spray. However, when they went to investigate, the can had vanished.