Team v Hurricanes

Moderators: Puja, Misc Forum Mod

User avatar
Buggaluggs
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Buggaluggs »

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
morepork wrote:By the way, was another head injury (Biggar) brought back on after the injury?
Yes. Again. Just terrifying.
Not really. A HIA is just that...an assessment made by someone vastly more qualified than you to judge if a head injury warrants time away from the field. That qualified person felt the injury did not.
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12349
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Mikey Brown »

Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.
User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10299
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Sandydragon »

Mikey Brown wrote:Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.
Aye, that was an interesting few minutes.

If Biggar has passed the HIA then why shouldn't he play on?
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12349
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Mikey Brown »

No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

Dan Biggar was forced from the field against the Blues with a head injury. I wouldn't trust the Lions doctor to take my pulse.
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by skidger »

WaspInWales wrote:North to feature in the 2nd test?
I would hope not.
User avatar
Son of Mathonwy
Posts: 4664
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Son of Mathonwy »

Mikey Brown wrote:No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Mikey Brown wrote:No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.

Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
User avatar
Which Tyler
Posts: 9353
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
Location: Tewkesbury
Contact:

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Which Tyler »

morepork wrote:The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
This incident? HIAs in general? This Lion's tour? Lion's tours in general? Or rugby as a whole?
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

Which Tyler wrote:
morepork wrote:The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
This incident? HIAs in general? This Lion's tour? Lion's tours in general? Or rugby as a whole?

Seems Wales expects its players to cowboy up and carry on a little more than is healthy. So that's why Gatland. Also, you have Lawes and Biggar with a clinical history of TBI, and they get rolled out for midweek games after another dose of the same. So Gatland there too.
User avatar
Son of Mathonwy
Posts: 4664
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Son of Mathonwy »

morepork wrote:
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Mikey Brown wrote:No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.

Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
I'm not saying he should have returned to the pitch, just that it wasn't obviously a bad head injury from the television pictures.

Absolutely agree that they should be especially careful with Biggar, having recently had head trauma. Are the rules different in such cases?? (They should be)
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
morepork wrote:
Son of Mathonwy wrote: It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.

Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
I'm not saying he should have returned to the pitch, just that it wasn't obviously a bad head injury from the television pictures.

Absolutely agree that they should be especially careful with Biggar, having recently had head trauma. Are the rules different in such cases?? (They should be)

Medically.....absolutely yes. Repeat episodes are highway to the danger zone. From the looks of things this doesn't seemed to have translated to regulations for player welfare in the actual game.
Timbo
Posts: 2496
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Timbo »

There are lots of things you can hurt in your head and neck area, causing you to want to lie on the ground for a minute or two, without it meaning there's been a brain injury.
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

OK. That's me convinced. Send me back out. I trust you.
User avatar
canta_brian
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm

Re: RE: Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by canta_brian »

morepork wrote:
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
morepork wrote:

Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
I'm not saying he should have returned to the pitch, just that it wasn't obviously a bad head injury from the television pictures.

Absolutely agree that they should be especially careful with Biggar, having recently had head trauma. Are the rules different in such cases?? (They should be)

Medically.....absolutely yes. Repeat episodes are highway to the danger zone. From the looks of things this doesn't seemed to have translated to regulations for player welfare in the actual game.
You've gone all Top Gun on us.
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

Put some Iceman on the injured Goose and push him back into the cockpit.

Hehehe. Cockpit.
User avatar
Eugene Wrayburn
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Eugene Wrayburn »

Buggaluggs wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
morepork wrote:By the way, was another head injury (Biggar) brought back on after the injury?
Yes. Again. Just terrifying.
Not really. A HIA is just that...an assessment made by someone vastly more qualified than you to judge if a head injury warrants time away from the field. That qualified person felt the injury did not.
Aye we have the protocols because the medics and coaches were conspicuously successful in protecting players and not at all influenced by players wanting to get back onto the pitch. It's not as if we know that repeated head injury - and he definitely had a head injury - can cause problems.

Rugby has a serious problem. I'd quite like to see pro rugby continue. Once the world rugby get sued it is touch and go whether pro rugby will be able to continue in a number of countries.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

NS. Gone but not forgotten.
Epaminondas Pules
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Epaminondas Pules »

Banquo wrote:
Epaminondas Pules wrote:What was the point of Garland calling up the reserves and then not using them, instead flogging his midweek team again for a full 80 almost to a man? What a twat! If you call them up then use them!!
indeed, one of the more stupid pieces of management, reaching almost SCW-esque proportions
He's not called Twatland for nothing!
User avatar
Buggaluggs
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Buggaluggs »

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Buggaluggs wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Yes. Again. Just terrifying.
Not really. A HIA is just that...an assessment made by someone vastly more qualified than you to judge if a head injury warrants time away from the field. That qualified person felt the injury did not.
Aye we have the protocols because the medics and coaches were conspicuously successful in protecting players and not at all influenced by players wanting to get back onto the pitch. It's not as if we know that repeated head injury - and he definitely had a head injury - can cause problems.

Rugby has a serious problem. I'd quite like to see pro rugby continue. Once the world rugby get sued it is touch and go whether pro rugby will be able to continue in a number of countries.
100% bollocks you pontificating buffoon
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

Are you quite sure it's bollocks?
Banquo
Posts: 20884
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Banquo »

morepork wrote:Are you quite sure it's bollocks?
BIA
Digby
Posts: 15261
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Digby »

The gnadoscopy is one of the least favourite assesments among the players, subject to the age and attractiveness of the physio anyway

Broader picture the Lions really should be in some trouble for their casual attitude toward concussion. It's possible they can claims they meat minimum requirements, but that's just not good enough
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by morepork »

"claims they meat..."

Nice. Maybe sit the next couple of phases out?
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 16082
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Mellsblue »

In contrast NZ have sent Bin Smuth home and told him he won't be considered for the rest of the series......
Banquo
Posts: 20884
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Team v Hurricanes

Post by Banquo »

Mellsblue wrote:In contrast NZ have sent Bin Smuth home and told him he won't be considered for the rest of the series......
seems to be a lot more of it about? or is it just a random cluster?
Post Reply