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.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Yes. Again. Just terrifying.morepork wrote:By the way, was another head injury (Biggar) brought back on after the injury?
Team v Hurricanes
Moderators: Puja, Misc Forum Mod
- Buggaluggs
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
-
- Posts: 12348
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.
- Sandydragon
- Posts: 10299
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
Aye, that was an interesting few minutes.Mikey Brown wrote:Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.
If Biggar has passed the HIA then why shouldn't he play on?
-
- Posts: 12348
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.
- skidger
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am
Re: Team v Hurricanes
I would hope not.WaspInWales wrote:North to feature in the 2nd test?
- Son of Mathonwy
- Posts: 4664
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.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.
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.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.
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.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9352
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Team v Hurricanes
This incident? HIAs in general? This Lion's tour? Lion's tours in general? Or rugby as a whole?morepork wrote:The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
Which Tyler wrote:This incident? HIAs in general? This Lion's tour? Lion's tours in general? Or rugby as a whole?morepork wrote:The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
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.
- Son of Mathonwy
- Posts: 4664
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.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.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.
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.
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)
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 2496
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
OK. That's me convinced. Send me back out. I trust you.
- canta_brian
- Posts: 1285
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm
Re: RE: Re: Team v Hurricanes
You've gone all Top Gun on us.morepork wrote:Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.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.
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.
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
Put some Iceman on the injured Goose and push him back into the cockpit.
Hehehe. Cockpit.
Hehehe. Cockpit.
- Eugene Wrayburn
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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.Buggaluggs wrote: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.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Yes. Again. Just terrifying.morepork wrote:By the way, was another head injury (Biggar) brought back on after the injury?
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.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
-
- Posts: 3561
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
He's not called Twatland for nothing!Banquo wrote:indeed, one of the more stupid pieces of management, reaching almost SCW-esque proportionsEpaminondas 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!!
- Buggaluggs
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
100% bollocks you pontificating buffoonEugene Wrayburn wrote: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.Buggaluggs wrote: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.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Yes. Again. Just terrifying.
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.
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
Are you quite sure it's bollocks?
-
- Posts: 20883
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
BIAmorepork wrote:Are you quite sure it's bollocks?
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Team v Hurricanes
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
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
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
"claims they meat..."
Nice. Maybe sit the next couple of phases out?
Nice. Maybe sit the next couple of phases out?
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 16082
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Team v Hurricanes
In contrast NZ have sent Bin Smuth home and told him he won't be considered for the rest of the series......
-
- Posts: 20883
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Team v Hurricanes
seems to be a lot more of it about? or is it just a random cluster?Mellsblue wrote:In contrast NZ have sent Bin Smuth home and told him he won't be considered for the rest of the series......