Ingoal depth is 6m

[sigesige00]

According to the rules, RL pitch's ingoal depth must be 6m~11m.

However, every RL pitch (RL stadium, not Soccer stadium like Old Trafford) is 6m as far as I know.

This means it is considered that 6m is best.  So, the rule should be simply 6m, not 6m~11m.

RL pitch must be 68m*112m.

[dboy]

"The pitch is too big" is a new complaint.

Have we run out of actual things to moan about?

(I know you're not moaning as such).

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, sigesige00 said:

According to the rules, RL pitch's ingoal depth must be 6m~11m.

However, every RL pitch (RL stadium, not Soccer stadium like Old Trafford) is 6m as far as I know.

This means it is considered that 6m is best.  So, the rule should be simply 6m, not 6m~11m.

RL pitch must be 68m*112m.

There were directives put into place for run off space at grounds to avoid injuries from advertising boards and the like, I think this is what's driving using the minimum number as until recently they did vary a bit

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

There were directives put into place for run off space at grounds to avoid injuries from advertising boards and the like, I think this is what's driving using the minimum number as until recently they did vary a bit

Run off was increased from 2m to 3m several years ago.  Some clubs will have been able to absorb it, some will have needed to shave a bit off the ingoals.

[Griff]

10 minutes ago, sigesige00 said:

RL pitch must be 68m*112m.

There'll be a few stadia need rebuilding.

From memory, The Shay is 88m goal to goal, Dewsbury is 62m wide and Odsal is legendary.

[The Future is League]

15 minutes ago, sigesige00 said:

According to the rules, RL pitch's ingoal depth must be 6m~11m.

However, every RL pitch (RL stadium, not Soccer stadium like Old Trafford) is 6m as far as I know.

This means it is considered that 6m is best.  So, the rule should be simply 6m, not 6m~11m.

RL pitch must be 68m*112m.

This is going to poke the hornets nest for fans of some clubs who have less pitch sizes and ingoal depth

[yipyee]

18 minutes ago, sigesige00 said:

According to the rules, RL pitch's ingoal depth must be 6m~11m.

However, every RL pitch (RL stadium, not Soccer stadium like Old Trafford) is 6m as far as I know.

This means it is considered that 6m is best.  So, the rule should be simply 6m, not 6m~11m.

RL pitch must be 68m*112m.

Its 6-11 as there is leeway and you can increase as suits. 

Dont think we should move away from a tolerence just because a lot of clubs choose to shorten the distance to the minimum.

Also how do you know that clubs have it at 6m and not 6.5, 7 etc..

Are you aware not all pitches are 100m long and the width also differs, in your opinion should these be a set size or are you ok with these being set as tolerences

[Damien]

Oh goodie, a pitch thread.

Big Picture will be in his element when he sees this.

[dboy]

Maybe clubs like Cas and Bulls, and the teams at soccer grounds, can increase their playing areas by making the lines thinner??

Just a thought.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

NRL in-goals are miles more than 6m 

 

And places like Headingley barely 5m at best 

 

And ultimately that's why it can never be standardised, in this country at least. 

Edited May 20 by hunsletgreenandgold

[dufftown1]

If anywhere, i do think the in goals should be standardised. 

Differing sizes can have a pretty significant effect.

Whilst obviously there are size constraints around total sizes the difference should be made up elsewhere. It is the scoring area after all. You wouldnt see one football stadia having goals twice the size of another

[The Hallucinating Goose]

If there's one sport where pitch dimensions mean nothing its ours!

I don't mind it myself, adds more character to certain venues and means the top level of the game is more accessible to more clubs. 

You have to think about some of the newer grounds as well, its not just some older grounds that these loose rules accommodate. Take the MKM, built for both codes and yet our pitch is still about 10 metres shorter than it should be. 

[Thunder Road]

I remember playing union at Old Aldwinians in Audenshaw late 80s and the in goal must have easily been 15m .

Easily 15m.

 

[dkw]

Theres no such thing as ingoal, its in-goal.

[sam4731]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

"The pitch is too big" is a new complaint.

Have we run out of actual things to moan about?

(I know you're not moaning as such).

I'm not sure you know. I sometimes watch a game and wonder if the grass is too short these days.

[Worzel]

To be honest I prefer the larger in-goals often used in the NRL, and in the old NSWRL days it used to be even deeper.

Nothing beats Canadian Football though - they have 20m touchdown areas! 

 

[Dave W]

2 hours ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

NRL in-goals are miles more than 6m 

 

And places like Headingley barely 5m at best 

 

And ultimately that's why it can never be standardised, in this country at least. 

Isn't that the Accor stadium in Australia? It's disingenuous to suggest it was built as a RL stadium. It's a multi functional state of the art ground designed to host cricket, football, athletics and Aussie rules as well as Rugby League. Not a fair comparison.

 

[Dave W]

48 minutes ago, dkw said:

Theres no such thing as ingoal, its in-goal.

There's an Ingolstadt in Germany.

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, Dave W said:

Isn't that the Accor stadium in Australia? It's disingenuous to suggest it was built as a RL stadium. It's a multi functional state of the art ground designed to host cricket, football, athletics and Aussie rules as well as Rugby League. Not a fair comparison.

 

It was built as an athletics stadium but its long-term purpose was always to become the primary venue for Rugby League in the city, with big games in soccer and rugby union also being played there (like three or four a year).

AFL and cricket were not factors at all when it was built although were idiotically incorporated into a later rebuild in a terrible and barely-used mistake. 

[Dave W]

16 minutes ago, M j M said:

It was built as an athletics stadium but its long-term purpose was always to become the primary venue for Rugby League in the city, with big games in soccer and rugby union also being played there (like three or four a year).

AFL and cricket were not factors at all when it was built although were idiotically incorporated into a later rebuild in a terrible and barely-used mistake. 

My point is you can't compare something like the Accor to a place like Headingley. One is purpose built state-of-the-art and the other has evolved over decades to make best use of a distinct footprint that has limited scope for expansion.

Many of the grounds in the UK pre-date the rules, hence the variance.

Edited May 20 by Dave W

[yipyee]

21 minutes ago, Dave W said:

Isn't that the Accor stadium in Australia? It's disingenuous to suggest it was built as a RL stadium. It's a multi functional state of the art ground designed to host cricket, football, athletics and Aussie rules as well as Rugby League. Not a fair comparison.

 

I think it is a good comparison as it shows you can play about with the dimensions within a range. They could quite easily do 6m but chose a larger dimension.

[Click]

5 minutes ago, Dave W said:

My point is you can't compare something like the Accor to a place like Headingley. One is purpose built state-of-the-art and the other has evolved over decades to make best use of a distinct footprint that has limited scope for expansion.

Many of the grounds in the UK pre-date the rules, hence the variance.

I mean, it is a comparison with grounds the NRL regularly use and the grounds SL use, you can easily compare the two.

And looking at the two you can clearly see why we can see such variance in the in-goal areas.

[dboy]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

I'm not sure you know. I sometimes watch a game and wonder if the grass is too short these days.

Grass??!! Grass??!!

Was much better in the mud back in the good old days.

There's far too much grass on the pitch these days.

[dboy]

54 minutes ago, Dave W said:

There's an Ingolstadt in Germany.

Stayed there on the way to the Alps.

Didn't go into the town.

Stayed in the hotel room to use the Corby trouser press.

[Ullman]

13 minutes ago, dboy said:

Stayed there on the way to the Alps.

Didn't go into the town.

Stayed in the hotel room to use the Corby trouser press.

How did it compare to your ironing skills?