Head Contact & Red Cards

[Margin__Walker]

All good stuff. But by far the most offensive thing about him, is that for a podcast host with such a prodigious output on domestic rugby, he never seems to have a clue who any of the players are.

[Hal Jordan]

Climate change denier and culture warrior as well as an anti-vaxxer. Sounds like a great fellow.

[SaintK]

Climate change denier and culture warrior as well as an anti-vaxxer. Sounds like a great fellow.

I think you've spelt arsehole wrong there

[JM2K6]

All good stuff. But by far the most offensive thing about him, is that for a podcast host with such a prodigious output on domestic rugby, he never seems to have a clue who any of the players are.

Angling for a TV commentary spot I assume

[Brazil]

All good stuff. But by far the most offensive thing about him, is that for a podcast host with such a prodigious output on domestic rugby, he never seems to have a clue who any of the players are.

Angling for a TV commentary spot I assume

Can he say "I think the ref needs to take another look at this" 62 times in a 58 second period following a try?

[Sandstorm]

All good stuff. But by far the most offensive thing about him, is that for a podcast host with such a prodigious output on domestic rugby, he never seems to have a clue who any of the players are.

Angling for a TV commentary spot I assume

[JM2K6]

All good stuff. But by far the most offensive thing about him, is that for a podcast host with such a prodigious output on domestic rugby, he never seems to have a clue who any of the players are.

Angling for a TV commentary spot I assume

Can he say "I think the ref needs to take another look at this" 62 times in a 58 second period following a try?

IF THEY LOOK AT THAT IT'S A RED CARD FOR X

(replay shows a regulation tackle)

<silence>

[Biffer]

Lots of chatter about Jamie George being allowed to come back on after this. Shouldn't have been allowed an HIA, straight off. Hamilton reports from Sarries bench that he was "just winded". Rugby needs saving from itself, it seems.

If rugby authorities are serious about head injuries, action needs to be taken against Sarries for that.

[inactionman]

Lots of chatter about Jamie George being allowed to come back on after this. Shouldn't have been allowed an HIA, straight off. Hamilton reports from Sarries bench that he was "just winded". Rugby needs saving from itself, it seems.

If rugby authorities are serious about head injuries, action needs to be taken against Sarries for that.

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

[Sandstorm]

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

[fishfoodie]

Lots of chatter about Jamie George being allowed to come back on after this. Shouldn't have been allowed an HIA, straight off. Hamilton reports from Sarries bench that he was "just winded". Rugby needs saving from itself, it seems.

If rugby authorities are serious about head injuries, action needs to be taken against Sarries for that.

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Yep !

A few years ago we saw it in a French club behaving just as deplorably, & there was justified outrage; where is it this week ???

[JM2K6]

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

What makes you think that Saracens would be bothered by having to spend extra money?

[Biffer]

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

What makes you think that Saracens would be bothered by having to spend extra money?

Fine plus a suspended points deduction for two years. Another incident and they lose points, directly affecting them in whatever competition.

[SaintK]

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

[Raggs]

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

[SaintK]

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

Absolutely!

[GogLais]

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

Didn’t the same sort of thing happen with Tomas Francis a year or so ago?

[Raggs]

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

Didn’t the same sort of thing happen with Tomas Francis a year or so ago?

Yep. Something about despite the doctors having access to all the footage they missed the bit that showed him stumbling around like a new born lamb.

[inactionman]

If rugby authorities are serious about head injuries, action needs to be taken against Sarries for that.

I'd certainly be asking the medical staff to justify their actions (or lack of).

Yep !

A few years ago we saw it in a French club behaving just as deplorably, & there was justified outrage; where is it this week ???

The Florian Fritz example is a different level though. It was unquestionable he'd had a bad head injury - he got a knee straight to the head, there was claret all over the place and they even had the stretcher out and ready to go - and Noves et al just didn't give a shit and hustled him back out.

Complete and utter failure of duty of care. Yes, we now know more about the problems with head knocks and are more careful, but this defies belief. I saw the game on TV and couldn't believe they were both prepared and allowed to do it.

I'm only posting the vid as I'm sure you all like a rage as much as I do.

[Kawazaki]

Just fine the club £50k. Otherwise they'll all still put player's safety second (or third)

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

What's the point of having an HIA then?

[inactionman]

Thought I read that the independent doctor on site administered the HIA that George passed?

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

What's the point of having an HIA then?

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

[Raggs]

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

What's the point of having an HIA then?

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

Makes me glad I've got him on ignore

[Kawazaki]

I'd be asking why he had an HIA at all. Surely his reaction after the impact etc, should have meant automatic removal.

What's the point of having an HIA then?

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

That doesn't make any sense does it.

If players can pass an HIA when you think your visual POV is enough then why does an HIA hold any more credibility when the player appears fine and passes it?

[inactionman]

What's the point of having an HIA then?

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

That doesn't make any sense does it.

If players can pass an HIA when you think your visual POV is enough then why does an HIA hold any more credibility when the player appears fine and passes it?

It makes sense if you realise brain injuries might not be readily identifiable via HIA, whereas the actual smack in the head and stumbling about was.

In the inverse case, for head knocks where there's no readily identifiable stumbling about but the head impact was deemed significant enough to require some sort of check and assurance.

Fail either, off you go. Contradictory or ambiguous results, off you go. If you pass both, then on you play and that's as good as we can do without hauling MRI scanners down to pitchside.

[Raggs]

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

That doesn't make any sense does it.

If players can pass an HIA when you think your visual POV is enough then why does an HIA hold any more credibility when the player appears fine and passes it?

It makes sense if you realise brain injuries might not be readily identifiable via HIA, whereas the actual smack in the head and stumbling about was.

In the inverse case, for head knocks where there's no readily identifiable stumbling about but the head impact was deemed significant enough to require some sort of check and assurance.

Fail either, off you go. Contradictory or ambiguous results, off you go. If you pass both, then on you play and that's as good as we can do without hauling MRI scanners down to pitchside.

It's like the last 3+ seasons simply haven't happened...

[Niegs]

The article is behind a paywall, but that quote isn't good.

[inactionman]

It's probably worth finishing it off by pointing out that analysis of TV etc is part of the HAI assessment.

There is some leeway in the protocols to make failure under the on-field observation simply a trigger for longer off-field assessment, but they also have extra time to review TV footage which should tell them he got sconed and was flat on his back for a period of time, and it didn't look much like because he was winded.

[Biffer]

What's the point of having an HIA then?

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

That doesn't make any sense does it.

If players can pass an HIA when you think your visual POV is enough then why does an HIA hold any more credibility when the player appears fine and passes it?

Fucking 1970s attitude to head knocks. Fuck off.

[Kawazaki]

To catch things that might not be obvious, not to override the evidence of your own eyes.

That doesn't make any sense does it.

If players can pass an HIA when you think your visual POV is enough then why does an HIA hold any more credibility when the player appears fine and passes it?

It makes sense if you realise brain injuries might not be readily identifiable via HIA, whereas the actual smack in the head and stumbling about was.

In the inverse case, for head knocks where there's no readily identifiable stumbling about but the head impact was deemed significant enough to require some sort of check and assurance.

Fail either, off you go. Contradictory or ambiguous results, off you go. If you pass both, then on you play and that's as good as we can do without hauling MRI scanners down to pitchside.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not advocating brain damage is a good thing for the benefit of the moron, I'm simply saying either the HIA works or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you make it harder to pass or just use observation as the key decider.

[Mahoney]

Hardly any test "either works or it doesn't". Nearly all tests have a false positive rate and a false negative rate.

The assumption is that if someone is visibly groggy and passes the HIA the pass is likely to be a false positive.

And yes, some cases where someone looks fine but fails the HIA will probably be false negatives. I assume the reasoning is better safe than sorry.

[Niegs]

Good debate here. Both sides have very good points, imo.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/t ... 0596396192



I still lean towards "Let's try and make this safer." Get some data on a stricter tackle technique. With regards to the 'players don't want this', what about those who've walked away? A ton of age-grade don't play adult because of the risks.

The mention of Tuisova running people over and young lads wanting to emulate, I personally think that sort of dipping and bulldozing defenders shouldn't be in the game. It's a bit perverse, imo, as are people saying they'll quit suggesting that they love a high shot/bump off. Tins mentions Lomu v Catt, but I think that wasn't the same. Nowt wrong with a strong fend instead.

No doubt the RFU should have announced it with ALL the questions answered and training resources started. They tend to be VERY good at social media compared to other unions. Knock-on by them in that regard.

[inactionman]

That doesn't make any sense does it.

If players can pass an HIA when you think your visual POV is enough then why does an HIA hold any more credibility when the player appears fine and passes it?

It makes sense if you realise brain injuries might not be readily identifiable via HIA, whereas the actual smack in the head and stumbling about was.

In the inverse case, for head knocks where there's no readily identifiable stumbling about but the head impact was deemed significant enough to require some sort of check and assurance.

Fail either, off you go. Contradictory or ambiguous results, off you go. If you pass both, then on you play and that's as good as we can do without hauling MRI scanners down to pitchside.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not advocating brain damage is a good thing for the benefit of the moron, I'm simply saying either the HIA works or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you make it harder to pass or just use observation as the key decider.

I'll try to re-express.

We want to stop players continuing to play when they have brain injuries, for various well documented reasons. I'm not disputing you're on board with that.

We can't always easily diagnose brain injury. It's not like a broken leg or a strained hamstring with some pretty clear, immediate and unambiguous pain and mobility responses.

We therefore have a set of tests and protocol of those tests to try to identify if brain injury (let's call it that) has occurred. Some will look at the nature of the impact and the player's immediate response. From there, we can remove them immediately from the game or request (well, demand) a 12 minute assessment off he pitch which goes into more depth - or allow them to play on, if we're confident there is nothing untoward. The 12 minute assessment is supposed to allow further analysis of any TV footage for a more extended review of player response, plus a bunch of other tests I'll admit I don't really understand. There are many points in the protocol where a player can be pulled from the game, and no test depends upon or over-rides another.

The point here is that George was flat on his back and - even for a short period - clearly dazed after a significant head knock . That is suspected concussion and he should be pulled.

I've no idea why he wasn't. The argument seems to be he was winded, which doesn't chime with what most people witnessed, and it also doesn't really make sense when he's now been stood down from England because of concussion.

To be clear, the HIA is the entirety of the assessment - a physical check-up off pitch does not override any observations made of the onfield event.

I'm hoping that clarifies.

[Kawazaki]

Thank you for taking your time to patronise me, be it's appreciated.

Allow me to clarify.

If a player who is obviously dazed like George was can pass an HIA with an independent doctor and be given the ok to return to play then what use is the HIA test? There will be players who don't have the visual evidence they are concussed who also pass the HIA who will in fact be concussed.

[Biffer]

If someone shows immediate signs of concussion, i.e. groggy, unsteady, etc. they're not meant to have an HIA, they're just off.

If someone has a bang on the head but isn't displaying any of the most obvious symptoms, the HIA is meant to be a more detailed check to make sure there's no concussion.

That's how it's meant to work but it's obvious rugby isn't really following its own guidelines.

[inactionman]

Thank you for taking your time to patronise me, be it's appreciated.

Allow me to clarify.

If a player who is obviously dazed like George was can pass an HIA with an independent doctor and be given the ok to return to play then what use is the HIA test? There will be players who don't have the visual evidence they are concussed who also pass the HIA who will in fact be concussed.

This is the bone of contention. We all saw the TV images. Only the medical team can answer for why they reached the conclusions they did.

[Kawazaki]

[Niegs]

As Tucker said the other day, "Anecdotes aren't data." Being a winger, I'd be interested to know how many of Kat's hip / knee knocks were head in front?

I still see this sort of thing from wingers/full backs and sevens players even though I mostly only watch highlights these days:


It's funny how critics equate dropping the threshold 6-12 inches to immediately aiming for knees. Hip can be a bad one, but more when you're squaring up. Just read a tweet from Graham Smith saying in many cases, defenders have the power (or should be coached to, at least) to choose or force a tackle from less of a direct front-on angle. I know I almost always went for those as the impact was less (and I was a short-ish, stocky prop, so built for most front-ons)

[Kawazaki]

Just been listening to the GBR podcast, mercifully there is no Haskell so it's quite good. It's the best debate I've heard yet, they've got somebody on who was involved in the RFU decision, they've got a junior club chairman and they've got Tindall who has played some junior rugby since retiring. Definitely worth a listen and they get straight into it.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

That there are entirely valid concerns around the tackler getting injured doesn't mean in and of itself they're wrong to act on high tackles by seeking to lower the height, it may simply mean they also need to address, as noted, where the head is being placed in the tackle

[JM2K6]

Right. It's a rate of incidence thing. Deal with the absolute worst thing first. The other can be somewhat mitigated with a return to better tackle techniques.