General Rugby Discussion II

c.p.w.g.w

No action to be taken against the French for the 2 HIA controversys , investigation came to the conclusion everything was above board and no car to answer

We'll need to learn from this...we can certainly use it if needed against Wales next week if we take a few knocks

prawnsambo

.ak wrote: »

Nothing they could prove, anyway.

Yeah. It's probably easier to change the protocols slightly to eliminate the risks. Just don't allow HIA subs where the player going off has a clear match-ending injury. They still get their HIA, just can't play silly buggers with the subs.

I think that is a big load of bollox with everyone trying to play it safe. The abuse of this might not happen again this tournament but it's been sanctioned now.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that is a big load of bollox with everyone trying to play it safe. The abuse of this might not happen again this tournament but it's been sanctioned now.

I wouldn't point fingers at the medical personnel. But there may well be a bit of gamesmanship involved with the players indicating a head injury any time a vital player drops. Everyone has to pay attention then because if something's missed, it could be somebody else's head.

So change the protocols for HIA subs and that stops it in its tracks. And nobody is in any danger.

c.p.w.g.w

prawnsambo wrote: »

I wouldn't point fingers at the medical personnel. But there may well be a bit of gamesmanship involved with the players indicating a head injury any time a vital player drops. Everyone has to pay attention then because if something's missed, it could be somebody else's head.

So change the protocols for HIA subs and that stops it in its tracks. And nobody is in any danger.

What do people think of multiply subs per player, players can go off and come back once in the game...effectively going from 8 subs to 16?

So lets say
-Aki goes off for McFadden, but Aki can come back again in the game...

It had been suggested after the Quins Bloodgate thing i think, but wasn't very popular...just think its better in regards to player welfare, won't have players trying to stay on with an injury if no subs are left...Also means no need to fake a HIA

The Lost Sheep

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

What do people think of multiply subs per player, players can go off and come back once in the game...effectively going from 8 subs to 16?

So lets say
-Aki goes off for McFadden, but Aki can come back again in the game...

It had been suggested after the Quins Bloodgate thing i think, but wasn't very popular...just think its better in regards to player welfare, won't have players trying to stay on with an injury if no subs are left...Also means no need to fake a HIA

I wouldnt go to 16 subs per game as thats too many but would going the way of the amateur game here at some levels work?
You can make up to 12 rolling subs per game with caveats about different subs like when a scrum is ordered during the time a front-row player is off pitch due to a yellow card (Player A), and as a result a player (Player is required to leave the field to allow another front-row player (Player C) to come on that does NOT count as a change.

c.p.w.g.w

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I wouldnt go to 16 subs per game as thats too many but would going the way of the amateur game here at some levels work?
You can make up to 12 rolling subs per game with caveats about different subs like when a scrum is ordered during the time a front-row player is off pitch due to a yellow card (Player A), and as a result a player (Player is required to leave the field to allow another front-row player (Player C) to come on that does NOT count as a change.

Realistically, how many times would it used fully, it would just cut out veining an HIA/Blood Injury*

Forcing players to play injured, the game at the top level is brutal, just look at Sam Warburton...Also a pro's career on average last 7 years i read somewhere of late

*Are Blood subs still a thing actually? Hadn't watched much rugby for a few years, got back into watching more in the past 12 months

The Lost Sheep

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Realistically, how many times would it used fully, it would just cut out veining an HIA/Blood Injury*

Forcing players to play injured, the game at the top level is brutal, just look at Sam Warburton...Also a pro's career on average last 7 years i read somewhere of late

*Are Blood subs still a thing actually? Hadn't watched much rugby for a few years, got back into watching more in the past 12 months

It would be used every game at pro level and it would make game very different at top level and isnt needed.
Blood subs are always in games still. Are players forced to play injured that if we had more subs would come off.
The game can be brutal but is that connected to how many subs are used and does that need to change?

joseywhales

The report does make Nigel responsible, I mean they said it was a hia due to the referees decision. They've basically thrown him under the bus.

Neil3030

The potential benefits to teams are not trivial either - take off your starting props at half-time, or around 50 minutes, give them a breather for 20-30 minutes, then have your subs report concussion symptoms on 70 mins and bring back on two relatively fresh props to close out the game.

And it doesn't even matter where the doctor is from - any player, who reports a headache or blurred vision to any doctor, will be sent immediately for a HIA. No doctor will risk overruling those reported symptoms.

So I feel they've opened pandora's box with this, and no solution is flawless. Players need to be able to report symptoms, but this leaves the game exposed to shenanigans. And if they impose any limit on the number of HIAs, players will then be pressured to play through and conceal symptoms that may go unnoticed by doctors monitoring the situation.

pickarooney

Allowing subs for any injury is really the only way to resolve it equitably. Basically sanction the current abuse by legitimising it. Injured players can't come back on.

prawnsambo

joseywhales wrote: »

The report does make Nigel responsible, I mean they said it was a hia due to the referees decision. They've basically thrown him under the bus.

And Nigel acted on the French players who were indicating a head injury. And that was just in the case of Dupont. When Jallibert was down, it was the match doctor who called for a HIA based on the fact that he lay prone and unmoving for a period of time.

So I don't think Nigel was thrown under a bus. He's the on-pitch authority and he can't be ignored. And he can't ignore players indicating a head injury if he hasn't seen the impact himself. Or hasn't seen it in super slo-mo.

irishbucsfan

pickarooney wrote: »

Allowing subs for any injury is really the only way to resolve it equitably. Basically sanction the current abuse by legitimising it. Injured players can't come back on.

Best suggestion I've heard. I suppose it does allow for anyone to fake any injury though.

prawnsambo

pickarooney wrote: »

Allowing subs for any injury is really the only way to resolve it equitably. Basically sanction the current abuse by legitimising it. Injured players can't come back on.

But does that not open the floodgates (bloodgates ) for players to feign injury in order to get a fresher player on the pitch or a specialist for a particular phase of play?

And I thought that there was talk recently of reducing the number of subs available to actually force players to go the full eighty and as a result encourage them to drop muscle mass to be able to go that full eighty. Thus reducing injuries.

Edit: According to this article.

errlloyd

When they say they didn't gain an advantage, are they judging the outcome?

Realistically Machenaud didn't take touch the ball because it was immediately a scrum penalty. Then Belleau took the kick. So all they got was 41 phases defending with Machenaud when Fall is probably as useful, and being fresher might have been more useful?

Quin_Dub

prawnsambo wrote: »

But does that not open the floodgates (bloodgates ) for players to feign injury in order to get a fresher player on the pitch or a specialist for a particular phase of play?

And I thought that there was talk recently of reducing the number of subs available to actually force players to go the full eighty and as a result encourage them to drop muscle mass to be able to go that full eighty. Thus reducing injuries.

Edit: According to this article.

Agreed..

At the Pro level I think the only solution is to remove the "Assessment" piece from the HIA.

If a Head Injury is suspected , then the player is done for the day, end of story, just as it is in the amateur game.

They can still have their assessments after the fact to determine if a stand-down period is required , but the whole concept of being able to determine the nature/extent of a head injury in 5-10 minutes is not really supported medically.

sydthebeat

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed..

At the Pro level I think the only solution is to remove the "Assessment" piece from the HIA.

If a Head Injury is suspected , then the player is done for the day, end of story, just as it is in the amateur game.

They can still have their assessments after the fact to determine if a stand-down period is required , but the whole concept of being able to determine the nature/extent of a head injury in 5-10 minutes is not really supported medically.

i agree to a certain degree with your second point, however the first point would lead to a mess.
who determines if a head injury has occurred? the team doctor? the match doctor?
can a match doctor simply say to a team, i believe no 13 has a head injury there in the first minute of play.. get him out of the game permanently ?
after the french game debacle, do we trust the match doctor with the power to remove a player permanently from the game?


on your second point... the HIA isnt there to determine the extent or nature of the head injury, its there to determine if a head injury has occurred at all.

Quin_Dub

sydthebeat wrote: »

i agree to a certain degree with your second point, however the first point would lead to a mess.
who determines if a head injury has occurred? the team doctor? the match doctor?
can a match doctor simply say to a team, i believe no 13 has a head injury there in the first minute of play.. get him out of the game permanently ?
after the french game debacle, do we trust the match doctor with the power to remove a player permanently from the game?

In the Amateur game it's the referee has the final say on it , if it's ok for amateurs then why not at Pro level - Yes , they likely err on the side of caution , but it that such a bad thing?

sydthebeat wrote: »

On your second point... the HIA isn't there to determine the extent or nature of the head injury, its there to determine if a head injury has occurred at all.

Even at that, it's impossible for them to accurately know if a genuine brain injury has occurred in that time frame without a whole barrage a tests.

Although I did see that the FDA in the US have just approved a blood test for concussion , but not sure how quickly they get results from that...

MJohnston

The problem is that with head injuries you have:
a) A type of injury which is nigh on impossible to detect even in legitimate cases, so you can't punish teams for falsely claiming a player had one (because you'll never know if they did or not)
b) A type of injury which you don't want people to not report when they are suffering from them, so you can't provide a deterrent to false claims of HIA as it'll also deter legit claims (sadly, otherwise this would be easily the way to go).
c) A type of injury which is potentially devastating to the sport if you fail to combat it, and an atmosphere where the media spotlight is very much on head injuries, so you can't do anything but take the most cautious approach to potential ones on the field.

The idea of allowing subbed, non-injured players to return to the pitch to replace injuries seems to be the closest to a practical, pragmatic solution.

Interested Observer

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Even at that, it's impossible for them to accurately know if a genuine brain injury has occurred in that time frame without a whole barrage a tests.

Although I did see that the FDA in the US have just approved a blood test for concussion , but not sure how quickly they get results from that...

Kev McLaughlin was on a podcast/radio show recently and he said that he could go to the best neurologists on the planet and they wouldn't be able to tell the extent of whatever brain injuries (if any) he's suffered. There is a very limited amount a doctor on a sideline who doesn't even have a good view of the incident (see George North) can do about it.

prawnsambo

MJohnston wrote: »

The idea of allowing subbed, non-injured players to return to the pitch to replace injuries seems to be the closest to a practical, pragmatic solution.

I think the first thing is to look at the issue that has caused this discussion.

You had clearly injured players with match-ending injuries being assessed as HIAs and thus allowing a HIA sub onto the pitch. The purpose of this sub, is to cover for the injured player in the event they pass the HIA and can return to the pitch. So this allows a previously subbed player to return to the pitch (potentially temporarily). All well and good. Except in those cases it wasn't. It would be laughable to suggest that either of them could be back on the pitch in ten minutes and continue the game.

So the situation was that the injured player was never returning to the pitch, HIA or no HIA. So there shouldn't be a HIA sub in that case. An unused sub is the only option. And that's what should be done. They can HIA the injured player to their heart's content and tick all those boxes, so no player is ever endangered.

The only issue would be players with minor injuries, but how many of those aren't quickly treated on the pitch and carry on?

The Lost Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

i agree to a certain degree with your second point, however the first point would lead to a mess.
who determines if a head injury has occurred? the team doctor? the match doctor?
can a match doctor simply say to a team, i believe no 13 has a head injury there in the first minute of play.. get him out of the game permanently ?
after the french game debacle, do we trust the match doctor with the power to remove a player permanently from the game?
on your second point... the HIA isnt there to determine the extent or nature of the head injury, its there to determine if a head injury has occurred at all.

The team doc and if necessary the match doctor. A match doctor can and should be able to say to a team a player cant return to match because of suspected head injury. The referee already has this power so why shouldnt an independent doc.

Sangre

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed..

At the Pro level I think the only solution is to remove the "Assessment" piece from the HIA.

If a Head Injury is suspected , then the player is done for the day, end of story, just as it is in the amateur game.

They can still have their assessments after the fact to determine if a stand-down period is required , but the whole concept of being able to determine the nature/extent of a head injury in 5-10 minutes is not really supported medically.

But then we will just go back to a scenario where people are encouraged to pretend there is no HIA injury or there head wasn't hit.

Neil3030

Whatever revised protocol they come up with, it's imperative that the IRB throw the book at any team caught gaming this. I'm talking nuclear options here - kicking teams out of the 6 Nations etc. You just can't f**k around with something as serious as brain injury, and teams acting the maggot with rules imposed to protect players should be treated in the harshest manner possible to deter them.

Bazzo

Neil3030 wrote: »

Whatever revised protocol they come up with, it's imperative that the IRB throw the book at any team caught gaming this. I'm talking nuclear options here - kicking teams out of the 6 Nations etc. You just can't f**k around with something as serious as brain injury, and teams acting the maggot with rules imposed to protect players should be treated in the harshest manner possible to deter them.

I mean the French were literally caught at this last year and basically told tut tut lads, don't let us catch you at this again...

prawnsambo

Bazzo wrote: »

I mean the French were literally caught at this last year and basically told tut tut lads, don't let us catch you at this again...

What do you do when the players are running after the ref, tapping their heads? Soon the ref's tapping his head and then everyone needs their heads examined. :rolleyes:

Bazzo

prawnsambo wrote: »

What do you do when the players are running after the ref, tapping their heads? Soon the ref's tapping his head and then everyone needs their heads examined. :rolleyes:

Just responding to the "throw the book at them" comment.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Pure binary thinking. It can be both. :pac:

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Pure binary thinking. It can be both. :pac:

This is about the French though, they only deal in absolutes, a bit like the Sith.

Sure look at how they play rugby, have you ever seen them play attacking and defensive rugby on the same day?

No, it's one or the other!