Ireland v France - HIA issue

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#21
This incident potentially compromised the health of the player as it seems possible that they failed to provide a stretcher , in order to keep up the pretence that the primary reason he was going off was an HIA

If a medic gets into trouble , that is what it will be for .. not for ordering an HIA that turned out negative, but for failing to treat the knee properly , for non medical reasons
 

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#22
This incident potentially compromised the health of the player as it seems possible that they failed to provide a stretcher , in order to keep up the pretence that the primary reason he was going off was an HIA

If a medic gets into trouble , that is what it will be for .. not for ordering an HIA that turned out negative, but for failing to treat the knee properly , for non medical reasons
Agreed.
 

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#23
You've clearly never suffered a significant ligament injury. I've had a concussion and a ligament injury and I can assure you the ligament I just has had much more lasting consequences than the concussion.

I get the point you are trying to make, but be wary of such generalisations as they are not helpful to the arguments.
The possible outcome of concussion , and it has happened is DEATH. How many ligament injuries have caused death? I take it you saw I used the word "possible" as not all concussions are in that catagory. I would also suggest that lasting brain damage int olater life is more serious than ligament damage. and yes I've had a few of those.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#24
Personally, I don't like the interchanges idea. I believe that fitness - particularly with ever larger players - should be an important factor in the game and we're already seeing players who can't play more than 50 minutes.

Regarding HIAs: they're a mechanism to allow potentially concussed players back on, not to allow them to go off and my view is that they should work at elite level like they do in the sticks. If the ref suspects one (and if they've got assistants, even better) then the player is going off and not coming back on.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
#26
If you want players to play longer, cut down the number of substitutes.


With 5 on the bench (level 3), 2 of them are front row players - so quite often one front row player gets to play 80 minutes.
Below that you only get 3 replacements - so most people play 80 minutes unless injured.
It is only level 2 (semi-pro) where you get 7 and level 1 (fully-pro) you get 8.

Apparently the more time you get to train the less you are capable of playing 80 minutes.
 

shnipvanwinkel

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#27
This is obviously a tough topic, with no clear resolution. My 2 cents:

The problem that most people seem to have is that the current HIA system is capable of being abused (France) and that even with independent doctors, gamesmanship can still occur as they will always err on the side of caution wrt head injuries.

One solution that hasn't been mooted yet is the possibility of using independent doctors, and then in clear cases of gamesmanship docking points from the offending side after the match (both tournament points and IRB standing points). Obviously this system would not be perfect, but harsh penalties would makes sides question the value of using underhanded tactics, and abusing a necessary safety net which is in place for player safety.

This is my preferred solution, as it doesn't require too many changes which would affect the way the game is played at current wrt fitness &c.

I'm sure that others will disagree.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#28
I don't see how anyone could ever be found guilty though .. if a player says he got a knock earlier in the game and later felt really strange .. then
1 no amount of video can prove that he didn't (not until we have 30 camera to track every player )
2 every doctor who was told that would .. quite rightly .. order an HIA
 

shnipvanwinkel

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#29
I don't see how anyone could ever be found guilty though .. if a player says he got a knock earlier in the game and later felt really strange .. then
1 no amount of video can prove that he didn't (not until we have 30 camera to track every player )
2 every doctor who was told that would .. quite rightly .. order an HIA
Absolutely - I see the flaws with my proposal. However, if WR really does care about player safety, then perhaps 30 cameras to track every player is exactly what is needed? We already have the useless farce that is RefCam, why not this too...?
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#30
CR has it in spades. Even if interchanges are used - you will still get a position where all the intechanges have been used up AND THEN somebody gets concussed. I am sure we would really REALLY hope not, but its clear they may THEN be pressure to NOT take the potentially concussed bloke off and play a man down; i think we'd be naive to say this could never happen.

So then HIAs would need to remain on top of the interchanges - and we are back to square one.

Bottom line - if it can be abused at some time it will be abused. Initially the injury replacement laws were abused (SA v NZ series some time in the 1990s ISTR in particular but i'm sure it was already common); then the blood bin abused (step forward Dean Richards). So its absolutely no surprise that HIAs will become abused.

didds
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
#31
If there is a potential concussion the ref has no option but to order the player from the field (recognise and remove).

If the coach has used all their interchanges,then more fool them.

If there are facilities for a HIA and they pass before the final whistle, they can come back.

If a coach uses up all the substitutes and a player gets injured, other than a head injury, they cannot be replaced.
A good coach keeps an interchange in reserve.
If you look at this weeks national 1 games, no side made more than 8 interchanges and most made less.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#32
In the RFU system a team with eight subs get 12 interchanges .. which is quite enough for all eventualities
 

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#33
I don't see how anyone could ever be found guilty though .. if a player says he got a knock earlier in the game and later felt really strange .. then
1 no amount of video can prove that he didn't (not until we have 30 camera to track every player )
2 every doctor who was told that would .. quite rightly .. order an HIA

Exactly that is another reason why earlier posts questioning contact with the head are uhhelpful at best.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#34
The sy stem is open to abuser. Why did we have it in place anyway? Apart from the front row. Where there are safety implications why allow a player to come back on? If you use your replacements and a player breaks his leg though yoiu are down b tho 14. Why any different for a HI? Let's do away with uhh t an d blood. Off they go for treatment / assessmnent and you are a man down if they are back on within 10 mins fine if not tough.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#35
In the RFU system a team with eight subs get 12 interchanges .. which is quite enough for all eventualities
And we know that one day it won't be...

But that all said yes, an interchange system would remove abuses. just get one player off and another on for whatever reasons.

didds
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#36
The sy stem is open to abuser. Why did we have it in place anyway? Apart from the front row. Where there are safety implications why allow a player to come back on? If you use your replacements and a player breaks his leg though yoiu are down b tho 14. Why any different for a HI? Let's do away with uhh t an d blood. Off they go for treatment / assessmnent and you are a man down if they are back on within 10 mins fine if not tough.
One difference is that one can often play on with a head injury, and not with a broken leg. Broken legs also don't obscure the player's ability to tell whether or not they have a broken leg - quite the opposite, in fact. And while a broekn leg may turn into a chronic injury when improperly treated, it's less likely to lead to death or lasting mental deficiency.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#37
So the ref orders the player from the field. As the laws allow him to do already. The point is that . With out the replacement yoou could not use ca false HIA to your advantage.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#39
The whole concept of an HIA is wrong.

1 It's purpose is to allow players whom we suspect are concussed to be allowed to play on. .. so it's fundamentally a bad idea. Elite matches should be using Recognise and Remove, same as everyone else.
The eventual backlash will be how doctors ever agreed to the HIA protocol.

2 by attaching special on field privileges to suspected head injuries, WR are encouraging teams to pretend they have symptoms . This is not a good idea. It's not as bad as hiding symptoms, but in the long run lots of pretence means confusion, clouds the water and makes concussions harder to detect
 

SimonSmith

, Referees in America, Rank Bajin!
#40
One difference is that one can often play on with a head injury, and not with a broken leg. Broken legs also don't obscure the player's ability to tell whether or not they have a broken leg - quite the opposite, in fact. And while a broekn leg may turn into a chronic injury when improperly treated, it's less likely to lead to death or lasting mental deficiency.
Stuart Pearce would tell you otherwise