WANTED: Rugby Field Usage vs Other Sports

An interesting email hit my inbox this afternoon from Nancy Campbell (USA Rugby South Women’s Director):

Does anyone have access to any studies done regarding field usage (wear and tear) for rugby versus soccer or football? Some clubs are meeting with local parks and recreation departments and are looking for supporting evidence that rugby is not any harder on a field than other sports which would use the same field.

Please cross post if possible and reply to Beau Grant.

Thanks,
Nancy Campbell

So if you have any experience with this or any tips on where this information can be gathered…leave it in the comments, email me or email Beau directly.

See other Wanted Ads:
Wanted: Rugby Recipes
WANTED: West Rugby Senior All-Star Team Head Coach (Position Filled)
WANTED: Women’s Rugby Coach in Clinton, NY (Position Filled)

0 thoughts on “WANTED: Rugby Field Usage vs Other Sports”

  1. Can’t say that I have data per se. However, the advantage of rugby is that the wear is more uniformly distributed.

    Soccer and lacrosse produce heavy wear and tear at midfield and in front of the goals. Football wears the field down the middle, between the hashmarks where the linemen always set up.

    As a result, a well-maintained field used for rugby *only* will generally be in better shape than one used for football or soccer.

    Reply
  2. I would suggest that you contact the Glendale stadium people at http://www.glendalerugby.com. The field has only been used for rugby, so the field manager may have a good understanding of the wear patterns associated therewith. Also, Dicks Sporting Goods Park in Denver uses its fields for rugby and other sports, and might have some data as to how each sport affects the field, and the type of repairs necessary.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.