Funnily enough, from my viewpoint in the main stand, where I could only actually see the lights on the pop terrace side, the Rooley end seemed noticably darker than the southbank end.

Yes you are correct but its to do with the angle of the lights...

The lux levels at the Southbank end will be higher as it has both its own two stantions plus additional from rooley lane end, whereas the Rooley Lane end has its own two stantions but very little from the Southbank side.

Interstingly, would it surprise you that there is NO MINIMUM LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS set out by the RFL for Rugby League in their current operation guidance.

This used to be something in place but seems to have been removed in the last 12 months or so... wonder why???

You're not suggesting the RFL are helping the bulls out are you?

mmmm I wonder who our landlords could be.....

This used to be something in place but seems to have been removed in the last 12 months or so... wonder why???[/quote]

I’d be amazed if it was removed for our benefit.

I expect there are minimum requirements in SL that are set by SKY so they can televise games. There certainly used to be because they were the reason we upgraded our floodlights to the current ones when we moved back to Odsal in 2003.

My concern was that if the floodlights that had only 3 working bulbs suffered another one blow during a game it would plunge us into darkness and make play too dangerous to continue. Leaving it to get to such a state makes that scenario more likely. Imagine the fallout if we had to abandon the match.

Can we not all hold our phones up with torch light on? With the many thousands that attend Bulls matches it would surely surpass any floodlit stadium in the land!

Yes. We were practicing against Halifax !!

I’d be amazed if it was removed for our benefit.

I expect there are minimum requirements in SL that are set by SKY so they can televise games. There certainly used to be because they were the reason we upgraded our floodlights to the current ones when we moved back to Odsal in 2003.

My concern was that if the floodlights that had only 3 working bulbs suffered another one blow during a game it would plunge us into darkness and make play too dangerous to continue. Leaving it to get to such a state makes that scenario more likely. Imagine the fallout if we had to abandon the match.[/quote]

There must be a minimum requirement for SL as they have to purely for the TV... I think it used to be 1000Lux (off the top of my head from what I remember). Championship was 300Lux and League 1 was enough for the official to carry out their duties (i.e. see each corner flag from centre of field)

But as I say, the minimum floodlight levels have been removed. I don't think this is necessarily to help us but I genuinely cannot understand why.

I'm sort of surprised that the RFL actually had a minimum lux level for floodlights. Historically, they were introduced piecemeal and, by modern standards, the early ones were quite dire, even though we thought it bloody marvelous at the time. I'd have thought it was just like any other 'seeing' problem like fog, for instance, and would have been down to the referee's discretion as to whether it was playable or not.

There used to a problem with Sky games back in the day as I can remember extra lighting being used in the stand to cover TV games. I'm not sure how much difference it made to the players but it certainly blinded those standing on the terrace. To be honest, I think the modern cameras aren't anything like so fussy as I've seen a few games live which looked quite dark but looked fine when viewed later on TV. Our game against Fax being a good example.

New bulbs have been fitted. Well 12 new ones to be exact. Should be enough to make things much better.

Bulliac having decent lighting makes a huge difference to players - I speak from experience of playing under many substandard floodlights in my time.