RugbyRebels

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.

Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.

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?

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.

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.

WaspInWales wrote:North to feature in the 2nd test?

I would hope not.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

OK. That's me convinced. Send me back out. I trust you.

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.

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

Hehehe. Cockpit.

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.

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!

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

Are you quite sure it's bollocks?

morepork wrote:Are you quite sure it's bollocks?

BIA

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

"claims they meat..."

Nice. Maybe sit the next couple of phases out?

In contrast NZ have sent Bin Smuth home and told him he won't be considered for the rest of the series......

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?