So, apparently, the "Death Pitch" lives!

If Langi is fit I think it would be interesting to see how he goes at 1.

Having played at 6 and having a strong carry he should have the ability and basic core skills for the role.

That would leave Hall and Lynn at centre.

Not ideal but maybe the best option of a bad bunch.

You have to be the fittest guy on the field at full back.
Langi doesn't strike me as a full back.


I'd either put Hall there or Kershaw as he covered in the last game.

Death Pitch or The Pitch of Death sounds like a good marketing tool.

https://twitter.com/jamesobyp/status/16 ... Qstm-JOc1A

https://twitter.com/jamesobyp/status/16 ... Qstm-JOc1A

If I was a cynic, I'd think other clubs could be using the pitch as an opportunity to gain an advantage when playing away from home, especially if said team were going to be missing a few key players.

We’ve put ourselves in this position by using the pitch sooner than recommended.

Perish the thought, thought this was the Rugby League family, they wouldn’t do that to the poor relations, Would they?

No doubting that, but an inspection this morning should've confirmed it either way. We saw with Covid how some clubs used the rules to their benefit. Now all they have to say is they have concerns about the pitch and bang a neutral venue.

Not quite right, in fact not true.

I presume this means we can sue the pitch supplier for the inconvenience caused and loss of revenue.

By all accounts I believe the club were training away from the pitch for many weeks in pre season as advised.

Not sure why certain fans are so quick to point the finger at the club with absolutely no proof.

Hold on…

Why are we letting an opposition club representative dictate if they want to play on a pitch or not???

Surely it will undergo a pitch inspection by a professional and if it passes the benchmark it will be played.

I’m confused. Can someone explain?

They were, but only for about 6 or 7 weeks then back to BV to save a few quid. That wasn't long enough when trying to establish it in winter, then we thought playing 5 games on it in a month was a good idea. I can promise you our groundsman was not a happy bunny. The club have done very well with ground redevelopment but they do get things wrong sometimes you know and this is one of those times. We'll just have to deal with it.

We have dealt with it. The pitch has passed 2 x inspections. One in pre season when friendlies were played and 1 before Hudds match.

The pitch has passed the standard and satisfied regulations so I’m not quite sure how the club can be held to task.

If a pitch passes an inspection it’s fit to play on which they did.

I still don’t understand how a hull kr official can still say they have concerns when it’s been passed a few weeks ago and there was no issues from both wakey and Hudds.

I would be saying well it’s tough. You come and play on it or forfeit your game and thanks for the two points.

How can a pitch inspection take place and a decision be made hours later? Seems very bizzarre.

The media release before the Huddersfield game didn't actually say it had passed, just that both teams had agreed to play…..

As for today there was an RFL groundsman there so i’d imagine the casting vote will go with him. Maybe the decision was made and one of the clubs is arguing either way which is causing the delay? Time will tell, it’ll all come out in the wash.

I dread to think how silly the rfl would look if the pitch wasn’t passed. Afterall, they have passed it in pre season and I believe employed an independent inspector who also allowed it to proceed (whether it passed or not). One would assume it did though as the game got played.

Last game seemed to be played with no consequence for both Wakey and Hudds. Can’t see why this one shouldn’t unless.

The decision should be made by a person who is qualified to inspect pitches. Again if it passes the test then it’s played regardless of what Trinity/KR think or may have issue with.

Fully agree and you’d hope the RFL inspector was qualified! But this is the RFL we are talking about and looking silly tends to be their modus operandi.

When they had the pitch inspection for the huddersfield game the contractor for playing surfaces for the rfl was there so he/she would have had her input and a say in the matter so would have been passed based on his findings. I do wonder with all the building work going on if something is getting thrown up in the air that's harmful to the pitch potentially stopping it growing.

Dont understand how the pitch can be any worse than it was 3 weeks ago when we last played on it,yes we had sone bad weather but we also have had some good grass growing weather,to add to this my lad as played on the pitch in recent times and says its not that bad

People saying what's true and what isn't true. What I know is true ,is that the situation has been a farce and I will be glad when it gets sorted once and for all

Taken from last night’s tweet.
I think if there is any costs for the inspection, then HKR should foot the bill, they are the club raising concerns, requiring the inspection.

A decision on the Belle Vue pitch will be made tonight. Hull KR still have safety concerns after inspecting the surface alongside Wakefield and a representative from the RFL. No decision was taken so it's gone back to the RFL Board who will make the final call

I’ll bet they are raising concerns with 3 players out HIA and player banned.

Rubbish this, the last game was played and both Trinity and Hudds came through fine. It also was passed as acceptable in an independent pitch inspection.

So basically if the pitch goes ahead and it’s Hull KR that are kicking up a fuss and requested the inspection.

Can we bill them for the lost sky money?? Afterall they have requested it despite no concerns after last game. If it passes and gets the go ahead we as a club should demand recompense from Hull KR imho. We certainly shouldn’t roll over. It’s passed 2 inspections and the last game played there was no ill effects. Get it played for heavens sake.

Further to that.

It has passed its inspections twice. Last game there were no issues.

It seems like:

Trinity want to play, hull kr don’t.

I hope trinity are saying that if they refuse to play we expect Hull KR to forfeit the league points to us.

After all the pitch passed an independent inspection with no issues in the game after.

I hope we play hard ball.

As I mentioned before, if I were a cynic I'd say some clubs could use this hus to their advantage. If the RFL inspector was happy then that's that.