Minimum standards criteria must apply to all
NICK CAIN
READ HIS EXPERT OPINION EVERY WEEK
DO title-chasing Bath – and other top tier clubs – meet the Premiership‘s own ground minimum standards criteria?
It is important that we get an answer, because the Championship clubs are being asked to make a serious investment in ground improvements. This includes perimeter padding to meet health and safety conditions under those ground criteria, whether it’s to play in the Premiership Cup, or qualify for the promotion–relegation play-off.
The hitch is that this appears to be a dire case of double standards, which can easily become an impediment to Championship teams being eligible for promotion. Perimeter padding is expensive – putting pads on the four posts alone could cost as much as £7,000 – but it is an understandable requirement in terms of injury prevention. Not least, it limits the risk of concussion, or collision injuries from player/referee contact with billboards or LED screen advertising.
However, whether it is of a universally high standard across the Premiership has to be carefully scrutinised, and it must meet the height of the regulatory bar being set for the Championship, However, television coverage indicates that Premiership standards are variable.
This season’s opening showcase Premiership fixture at The Rec between Bath, last season’s runners-up, and champions Northampton, should have raised regulatory eyebrows. The pitch perimeter padding for advertising on some parts of the sidelines, at the corners of the pitch, and at both ends behind the posts, was irregular, and might not pass muster.
For instance, while padding is visible behind the advertising billboards (often fibreboard/balsa wood) framing the very short in-goal areas at The Rec, it would be hard to imagine that if players crashed into them at high impact they would receive a health and safety green light. The same applied to the sidelines, where a 50th minute collision between Finn Russell and Fraser Dingwall saw the Northampton centre smash into the LED screen perimeter with considerable force. Thankfully, Dingwall did not sustain any serious damage – but the same cannot be said for Premiership regulatory standards.
How can the RFU allow Premiership clubs, with their far greater financial resources – £3.3m in RFU annual funding per club compared to £133,000 in the Championship – to operate one law for one, and one law for another?
The RFU/Premiership minimum standards criteria should apply to all Premiership grounds without fail – and if they do not, they are in no position to demand compliance from their underfunded Championship counterparts, all of whom already use pitch-side padding.
Do Bath, or Leicester‘s, short in-goals comply with World Rugby pitch regulations of in-goal areas from six to 22 metres long? How many Premiership clubs have sideline perimeters which meet World Rugby‘s stipulation of five metres width? Has anyone in the RFU/Premiership regulatory audit gone to Premiership grounds with a tape measure and checked?
Or is there a general understanding that unless there are genuine health and safety concerns there should be some give-and-take in ground minimum standards criteria.
If that is the case, then what is good for the Premiership should also apply to clubs from the Championship seeking promotion.
