Knock out

First topic message reminder :

Despite some great performances and a very welcome win what will stick in my mind is George North. He d already had 1 concussion check and took another hefty blow to the noggin and stayed on. How and why it was allowed is beyond me. Its too serious a pointtobe ignored. Does the tmo need to be involved more here?

If a player was KO'd the PSCA is only used as a research tool. The player should not be allowed to return to play regardless of the results of the PSCA.

TA

My problem is not the first trauma.  For sake of discussion, let's assume (and yes, I know what happens when we assume) North went off, was properly checked and cleared.  My issue is the second trauma, the collision with Hibbard's head.  North dropped like a stone.  Although he was up again fairly soon, to me, that should have been an instant removal from the game.  Full stop.  

This is where any inquiry should focus.  And this is where a wrong decision was made.

doctor_grey wrote:My problem is not the first trauma.  For sake of discussion, let's assume (and yes, I know what happens when we assume) North went off, was properly checked and cleared.  My issue is the second trauma, the collision with Hibbard's head.  North dropped like a stone.  Although he was up again fairly soon, to me, that should have been an instant removal from the game.  Full stop.  

This is where any inquiry should focus.  And this is where a wrong decision was made.

+1

Leaving North aside, I was also concerned for Biggar's welfare (a sentence I thought I would never say). After his head injury, he continued to take a real battering. No single knock-out blow like North, but repeated heavy contacts. Makes me wonder about what we will be seeing in these players in 30 years time.

doctor_grey wrote:My problem is not the first trauma.  For sake of discussion, let's assume (and yes, I know what happens when we assume) North went off, was properly checked and cleared.  My issue is the second trauma, the collision with Hibbard's head.  North dropped like a stone.  Although he was up again fairly soon, to me, that should have been an instant removal from the game.  Full stop.  

This is where any inquiry should focus.  And this is where a wrong decision was made.

Do you not think he was KO'd in that first incident?

Lying face down motionless on the pitch after a kick to the head?

He should never have been on the pitch for the second incident to occur. It is distinctly possible that the second incident would not have had the same result if the first had not occurred. The sequelae, both long term and short term of that second impact are likely to be worsened by the first.

at the time i thought george north staying on after the obvious second knocking out, had a lot to do with cuthbert on the other wing already being in the bin, and wales being behind in the match.

sometimes, the answer is the obvious one.

I just looked at the article on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31202835
I know this has been mentioned, but this is where the incidents are reviewed by dr O'Driscoll.

I would not at all be surprised if the 2nd collision would not have had the same effect had he not had the first blow earlier.

It is not good at all, and I sincerely hope they take their time over reintroducing him so as to make sure he is fit. I think it is now a worry that, based on what the welsh camp is saying, he is going to be playing next week.

Read that Wales don't have a video screen in the booth and that going forward they will use one.


There surely not that far behind the times

how many bare-faced lies will world rugby allow them to get away with?

were treating another player when the second North knockout happened?

dont have a video screen in their booth?

c'mon, more often the obvious answer is the right one. wales couldnt afford for him to come off at that point in time.

quinsforever wrote:how many bare-faced lies will world rugby allow them to get away with?

were treating another player when the second North knockout happened?

dont have a video screen in their booth?

c'mon, more often the obvious answer is the right one. wales couldnt afford for him to come off at that point in time.

Bare faced lies? I don't know, lets asked Dean Richards shall we?

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:how many bare-faced lies will world rugby allow them to get away with?

were treating another player when the second North knockout happened?

dont have a video screen in their booth?

c'mon, more often the obvious answer is the right one. wales couldnt afford for him to come off at that point in time.

Bare faced lies? I don't know, lets asked Dean Richards shall we?

According to beshocked, Deans maybe lied for the good of the sport and kids, which is forgivable I suppose.

Gwlad.

You seem very keen to defend the indefencable here?

What on earth has what happened at Quins years ago got to do with player safety now?

SecretFly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:how many bare-faced lies will world rugby allow them to get away with?

were treating another player when the second North knockout happened?

dont have a video screen in their booth?

c'mon, more often the obvious answer is the right one. wales couldnt afford for him to come off at that point in time.

Bare faced lies? I don't know, lets asked Dean Richards shall we?

According to beshocked, Deans maybe lied for the good of the sport and kids, which is forgivable I suppose.

Totally, i now forgive him for lying.

Using fake blood to prove a player is injured in order to exploit the blood replacement rule is justifiable if it is for the good of the game or some kids, i now see that doing this is clearly beneficial to both the game of rugby and the children who come and watch it believing it to be a historical british tradition and an honest game played by adults

i hope the IRB take note, maybe Lance Armstrong should come aboard as an advisor.

i admit that what happened at quins was shocking and embarrassing

not holding my breath for reciprocity

MrsP wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:My problem is not the first trauma.  For sake of discussion, let's assume (and yes, I know what happens when we assume) North went off, was properly checked and cleared.  My issue is the second trauma, the collision with Hibbard's head.  North dropped like a stone.  Although he was up again fairly soon, to me, that should have been an instant removal from the game.  Full stop.  

This is where any inquiry should focus.  And this is where a wrong decision was made.

Do you not think he was KO'd in that first incident?

Lying face down motionless on the pitch after a kick to the head?

He should never have been on the pitch for the second incident to occur. It is distinctly possible that the second incident would not have had the same result if the first had not occurred. The sequelae, both long term and short term of that second impact are likely to be worsened by the first.

What I was mentioning was the hypothetical situation in which he was properly evaluated and cleared after the initial hit (assumes no KO and any residual effects). I know this is a pretty massive assumption. My point was the second hit should have been an automatic removal, regardless of what happened with the first impact.

doctor_grey wrote:

MrsP wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:My problem is not the first trauma.  For sake of discussion, let's assume (and yes, I know what happens when we assume) North went off, was properly checked and cleared.  My issue is the second trauma, the collision with Hibbard's head.  North dropped like a stone.  Although he was up again fairly soon, to me, that should have been an instant removal from the game.  Full stop.  

This is where any inquiry should focus.  And this is where a wrong decision was made.

Do you not think he was KO'd in that first incident?

Lying face down motionless on the pitch after a kick to the head?

He should never have been on the pitch for the second incident to occur. It is distinctly possible that the second incident would not have had the same result if the first had not occurred. The sequelae, both long term and short term of that second impact are likely to be worsened by the first.

What I was mentioning was the hypothetical situation in which he was properly evaluated and cleared after the initial hit (assumes no KO and any residual effects).  I know this is a pretty massive assumption.  My point was the second hit should have been an automatic removal, regardless of what happened with the first impact.  

With that I wholeheartedly concur!

I'll repeat my point from way up there somewhere.

People blame the Welsh sideline guys and say they were either not alert enough to see North go down that second time, or were blatantly not responsive enough because they were compromised by the 'need' to keep him out there.

One is a accusation of negligence...the other is much more serious, and I don't know that I'd easily throw that accusation around without detailed evidence.  It's just not in anyway a nice accusation to make if there is no foundations to it.

BUT............... my point is that we maybe should forget what the sideline medics and staff saw or didn't see, what they reacted to or didn't react to.  
I know there were 30 players on the field and the ref. I know a good few of them would have been conscious of North's first incident and the initial removal, and I know some of those same players (not all of them) but some of them must have seen him drop unconscious to the ground.

They - the players themselves, from whatever side, shouldn't feel they're aloof from those decisions made to protect a colleague on the field.  They shouldn't close their minds to what's in front of them.  They should appreciate the seriousness of the subject and one of them should have mentioned something to the ref, one of them should have suggested a TMO look-back out of concern for a player.

Players shouldn't run for cover under the guise that battle-heat was up, it wasn't their business, and they were interested in doing their work/duty and being in their right positions.  One or two of them must have seen him fall.  If medics missed it, they should have called attention to it.

doctor_grey wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

MrsP wrote:One of the English players goes straight to North to check if he okay. Even the look on his face when he is next shown on screen suggests that all was not okay.

I don't want to seem melodramatic about this but there are very very good reasons why this is literally vitally important.

People die from Second Impact Syndrome. They go from seeming a bit off to dead with a second blow to the head. It does not even have to be anywhere near as hard a blow as North suffered.

North should not have been allowed back on the pitch after the first incident.

In fairness you are comparing probably smaller less robust people than George North on what is one of the rarest forms of death, it would take an almighty blow to North's head to cause SIS and one that would cause catastrophic injuries anyway.

I've always been split on this debate, I remember Moody being knocked out twice against France in the 2007 semi final I believe, much of what made him a good player was his resillience, take that away and you change the player.

I doesn't matter how big and strong a person may be.  Concussion and all associative forms of trauma are unrelated to size and strength.  It has entirely to do with speed and severity of sudden motion and impact of the brain.  Bigger and stronger athletes have no extra internal cushioning to prevent this.  In my opinion many people do believe the big blokes are somehow more resilient, and therefore they can be treated differently than smaller guys.  

Now, this was the same sequence of play where Haskell ran into the post and Cuthbert received his Yellow.  A lot was going on.  But it was seen by 70,000 people live and shown on replay at home.

It really does have everything to do with size and build, a stronger neck means you are less susceptible to concussion, a thicker skull or stronger legs, it is the exact reason why boxing for instance has weight divisions. George North simply put is less likely to suffer from SIS than say Danny Care and it will take a bigger impact to rattle his brain enough to concuss him.

You can try to ignore size making a difference but it does.

If what you are saying is true then why was North KO'd twice in one match?

If he is so strong with a strong neck and a thick skull surely, by your reckoning, he should be able to with stand any head blow?

Why would he be invulnerable to SIS if he is vulnerable to being KO'd?

Can you show me any research to back up your assertion that size has a protective effect from SIS?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
It really does have everything to do with size and build, a stronger neck means you are less susceptible to concussion, a thicker skull or stronger legs, it is the exact reason why boxing for instance has weight divisions. George North simply put is less likely to suffer from SIS than say Danny Care and it will take a bigger impact to rattle his brain enough to concuss him.

You can try to ignore size making a difference but it does.

Come now Hammersmith.  North is a fine specimen of an athlete sure enough.  
But that might be a point in itself.  He was created big through training rather than him being 'naturally' big.  I'd say his bone/body frame is actually more naturally on the lanky side (had he never engaged in training and diet work) rather than beefy and naturally heavy boned/muscled.  The man has a lot of developed muscle, especially from the hips down - but it relatively slighter much higher up (long necked and narrow long face.
He's not a natural squat and heavy set guy at all and I'm not sure your theory would work fully on him.  Bastereaud perhaps, North...?????

Absolute nonsense Ham harry! Seriously! Thickness of skulls is nothing to do with size of body and has no significant effect of concussions, heavier people have more energy to dissipate in impacts of the same speed, neck strength is nothing to do with concussion as concussion is simply a catch all term for many differnt types of brain injury whjich all have different mechanisms
got any medical data to back up your assertions? I have worked in head injury, I understand the mechanisms of head injury a little bit, I have never seen any data to suggest what you claim.

some links to peer reviewed articles perhaps?

Where have I asserted he can withstand any head blow, I have merely stated that his physical and probably physiological make up means he is less likely to be knocked out. Getting booted in the head is going to have an effect on anybody but the majority of international rugby players are in a better position to take such blows.

Rugby being such a physical game is going to take it's toll on the players but we cannot compare them to people who's job doesn't consist of being battered around a pitch for 80 minutes.

The causes of SIS are no different to those that cause first impact concussion but they can lead to more serious repercussions, it's a case of some debate if it even exists anyway. If we assume it does then it's rarity makes it a mute point on a rugby pitch or in general, we might as well start worrying about getting hit by a bus each time we cross the road. Coincidentally that's more likely to happen.

TJ wrote:Absolute nonsense Ham harry!  Seriously!  Thickness of skulls is nothing to do with size of body and has no significant effect of concussions,  heavier people have more energy to dissipate in impacts of the same speed, neck strength is nothing to do with concussion as concussion is simply a catch all term for many differnt types of brain injury whjich all have different mechanisms
got any medical data to back up your assertions?  I have worked in head injury, I understand the mechanisms of head injury a little bit, I have never seen any data to suggest what you claim.  

some links to peer reviewed articles perhaps?

Neck strength has a lot to do with concussion, a stronger core means that little old brain is less likely to rattle around in your head, there are numerous articles that back up what i'm saying.

Fortunately i've watched a documentary or two on the Canadian boxer George Chuvalo, who's ability to absorb punishment was largely put down to his rather absurd neck muscles.

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
It really does have everything to do with size and build, a stronger neck means you are less susceptible to concussion, a thicker skull or stronger legs, it is the exact reason why boxing for instance has weight divisions. George North simply put is less likely to suffer from SIS than say Danny Care and it will take a bigger impact to rattle his brain enough to concuss him.

You can try to ignore size making a difference but it does.

Come now Hammersmith.  North is a fine specimen of an athlete sure enough.  
But that might be a point in itself.  He was created big through training rather than him being 'naturally' big.  I'd say his bone/body frame is actually more naturally on the lanky side (had he never engaged in training and diet work) rather than beefy and naturally heavy boned/muscled.  The man has a lot of developed muscle, especially from the hips down - but it relatively slighter much higher up (long necked and narrow long face.
He's not a natural squat and heavy set guy at all and I'm not sure your theory would work fully on him.  Bastereaud perhaps, North...?????

It was a mere generalisation SF, if anybody thinks an International rugby player is as susceptible to concussion than you or I then they sadly are living in a fantasy world.

American football has bigger issues with concussion for the exact reasons you've stated, they are all manufactured and because of the ridiculous protective gear do not build up a natural resillience or toughness.

Bastereaud i'll agree is a better example but I know for a fact that George North can absorb a heavier impact than I can.

Sorry but the big guy, big neck thick skull theory is a crock…ask Muhammad Ali, or me for that matter; at 280lbs and 6ft 3 i have had perhaps 5-10 concussions in my 25 years playing. And believe me I can tell they have had an effect on mood and sleep.

How on earth can a stronger core mean your brain is less likely to move inside you skull?

I guess Mrs P has some medical knowledge from her posts. I do have some. I have studdied TBI on a variety of levels. I have never come across this assertion that neck muscles mean less chance of TBI and cannot see a mechanism by which it would reduce the risk. What is your qualification / experience in this area?

Links to evidence please. And not a TV programme

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but the big guy, big neck thick skull theory is a crock…ask Muhammad Ali, or me for that matter; at 280lbs and 6ft 3 i have had perhaps 5-10 concussions in my 25 years playing. And believe me I can tell they have had an effect on mood and sleep.

Poor example bringing up Ali, not a natural heavyweight by any means, obviously a small man is no more likely to be concussed by a punch or any other impact than a bigger man, what a load of old garbage right?

What you actually want to do is compare somebody smaller than yourself taking those same blows and see what happens, for instance putting a 160lb man in the ring with Frazier or Foreman would be tantamount to manslaughter.

Also being Welsh i'd assume you know the story of Johnny Owen quite well too.

Density of anything around the brain is obviously going to give the brain more protection.  Bone thickness - it's there for a reason - flesh thickness. Both can offer some dampening protection. Helmets too are the proof that the theory is right.  A helmet disperses the impact, thus lessening the single point trauma.

And .....you might say boxers can take a lot of punishment due to well developed neck muscles, with the benefits that the neck keeps the head and brain from taking too many sudden violent jolts/keeps it more stable under impact.

But .... boxers are also in a sport where they know they are going to be getting attention around the head area for pretty much every round they're in.  This means they're ready for battle and muscles are tense, brains are ready to advance muscle responses in miliseconds to stabilise and protect.  It's the same with ribs and spleen and kidneys.  Some of the protection comes from well developed torso muscles but a good bit of the protection comes from the expectation of impact there and muscles reacting to the advance warning - tensing when needed.

A rugby player can predict a lot based on the normal run of a game but he can also get caught out completely cold too and it's no coincidence that many of the knock out injuries seem to come when one player hasn't been expecting the impact. His muscles are loose, his brain has no pre-warning and that kick of violent movement happens and he's gone.  
The brain got its rattle because the player's body wasn't prepared.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but the big guy, big neck thick skull theory is a crock…ask Muhammad Ali, or me for that matter; at 280lbs and 6ft 3 i have had perhaps 5-10 concussions in my 25 years playing. And believe me I can tell they have had an effect on mood and sleep.

Poor example bringing up Ali, not a natural heavyweight by any means, obviously a small man is no more likely to be concussed by a punch or any other impact than a bigger man, what a load of old garbage right?

What you actually want to do is compare somebody smaller than yourself taking those same blows and see what happens, for instance putting a 160lb man in the ring with Frazier or Foreman would be tantamount to manslaughter.

Also being Welsh i'd assume you know the story of Johnny Owen quite well too.

Oh I see so the converse should also be true, because North is huge lump if he gets hit by a smaller player he should be fine. Makes no sense does it. Of course a 160lbs man v Frazier - lighter than Ali- would be manslaughter but that wasn't the reason i mentioned Ali, it was because at 215lbs in his day he was a huge man with a strong neck and a strong skull. Now he is a vegetable.

So Ali at 215lbs being able to absorb a bigger impact without suffering a concussion that would do more damage to a smaller man disproves my point how exactly?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So Ali at 215lbs being able to absorb a bigger impact without suffering a concussion that would do more damage to a smaller man disproves my point how exactly?

Not sure, feel like a just took a haymaker blow to chin, will get back to you once i have worked it out….1…2….3….4….5…6...

But what is your point, Hammersmith? I know the medical/muscle theory you're presenting, but what's your conclusion?

Are you saying people should just let players get on with it and not be too precious about kicking up a media storm after every concussion incident (treated or not)?

Or are you saying players know the risks, have trained hard to bulk up and minimise them but want to be let run their own risks without interference from sideline theory experts?

I'm not just sure where your theory about the ability of certain players to withstand concussion is leading to in how you'd prefer things to proceed?

Personally the players themselves know the risks, so I don't see the need for what is essentially pointless protocol to appease the doom mongers. Rightly or wrongly North was going to stay on the pitch and at the end of the day his life is his responsibility. 

Nobody wants to see a player seriously injured but the nature of the sport means it can and will happen. In high pressure situations like England did with Moody you want your best players on the pitch and in my opinion it was the right decision we won.

Too many people complain about issues that affect them in no way, if a player wants to continue after a concussion, well that is there decision.

After a concussion you cannot make rational decisions - your intellect is impaired.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Personally the players themselves know the risks, so I don't see the need for what is essentially pointless protocol to appease the doom mongers. Rightly or wrongly North was going to stay on the pitch and at the end of the day his life is his responsibility. 

Nobody wants to see a player seriously injured but the nature of the sport means it can and will happen. In high pressure situations like England did with Moody you want your best players on the pitch and in my opinion it was the right decision we won.

Too many people complain about issues that affect them in no way, if a player wants to continue after a concussion, well that is there decision.

I couldn't have gotten a clearer answer than that - and thanks for the clarity and honesty.

Ask him today if he'd change his decision and I doubt he would. 

Just like you have no right to a say in my life or I in yours, why does anybody feel they have the right to a say in a sportsmens life?

So you are putting the decision in the hands of a brain injured player?

Do you think that is a good idea?

My point was that if North (or any other player of any size) is able to be KO'd then they must be susceptible to SIS as it starts in the same way. It has been very clearly documented that the second impact need not be very severe at all. It is also thought that even the initial blow does not need to be huge and in fact there may be more cases of SIS where there has not been a severe initially hit and so some under reporting may occur.

The boxing comparison is not very informative. People fight in different weight categories to make the fights more even, not just for safety reasons.

This "doom monger" has had the horrible experience of standing with her son for a minutes silence on the day a 14 year old rugby player was buried having died from SIS.

That sort of thing makes you want to make sure that head injuries are treated properly. What Ben Robinson needed was someone to remove him from the pitch after the first head injury, not for someone to tell him it was up to him.

...just a follow up point though.  There is absolutely no way North was operating as a 'best' anything after that second fall.  He was a liability not an advantage.  He'll deny it now but the images suggest he was far from being all at home in the aftermath.

So even as a strategy for the game itself, it would have been best to replace him.

But had North gone into a serious coma on the field and gone to hospital and things didn't work out (hate even hypothesising about that) but supposing that's what happened - real people, with real families and careers would have been brought to court and charged with some very serious accusations that they'd then be forced to defend themselves against for perhaps years of trial time.

There are genuine consequences for negligence if provable so it's not just in a caring capacity that medics are there on the sidelines, it's for quite strict legal reasons too.  Tragedy on top of tragedy if player is seriously hurt or worse and negligence is proven.

There aree a number of former players with permanent brain damage from repeated concussions - this is why this whole debate started. Ask them if they would play on now?

Former England captain, nicknamed Mad Dog for his combative style. Retired from rugby in 2012

I have been out cold five times, but towards the end of my career I was getting other forms of concussion far more frequently. It got to the stage that whenever I had a blow to the head I had the feeling for a minute or so that the game was going in slow motion. I had a couple of really bad ones for England against Australia in 2010, when I was stumbling around the pitch for several minutes, and against Tonga in 2007. I got knocked out twice in that game and that was the only time I had really severe migraines afterwards. The big problem is when it happens in a big match and the club and player want to play on. I have played on in games when I have been knocked out cold. The doctor will come on and ask a series of questions such as 'say the months of the year backwards' and crucially they will say 'are you OK?' As a player you will do whatever you can to stay on. Concussion is viewed as a minor injury you can run off in a couple of minutes. We need to change that mind-set.

Sorry to be blunt and not compassionate but one person dies from SIS in the UK in recorded history and you want a complete overhaul?

It was a freak accident that has almost no chance of being replicated, there are unfortunately more serious issues to worry about.

Neuropathologist at Glasgow's Southern General Hospital

I have seen the same pathology in a former rugby player in his fifties as that described in American footballers and boxers. It used to be called Dementia Pugilistica but it's now known as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. It came as no surprise to see a former rugby player with this pathology. No game which involves repetitive head injury can be immune to this. The big questions now are: How many people will be affected? How many times does someone need to be hit? Are there other factors like genetics that might increase the risk? The size and athleticism of players now is considerably advanced from the Seventies and the frequency and severity of contact has increased. We might assume that players would be at greater risk today but that would only be an assumption. I expect there will be more cases out there. Whether there are many more, I couldn't say. In the past two weeks I have been notified of 10 people who died of dementia after playing rugby or are currently living with early onset dementia. That doesn't prove anything - there are many reasons why people get dementia - but at least in a couple of those cases the families who got in touch have always believed their father had dementia because of playing rugby. I have seen the George Smith incident and I don't think anybody within the game would support people coming back on to the pitch with concussion. That was an aberration and I don't think we should assume it will happen every week. I'm sure it's not what the rugby authorities want to happen. We're currently setting up a study looking at living people who have been exposed to head injuries and monitoring them over a number of years to try to test if there is any neurological impairment. From that we hope to be able to add information in terms of how many times someone needs to be hit, how hard, and the frequency required to trigger dementia.

What did Lewis Moody think of the decision to keep North on the pitch?

"Why was George North not taken off terrible decision by the medics. Out cold ."

I wonder what Lamont, Hape, Fogarty, Hazel think about it?

Why do their opinions matter? They made their own decisions which they now regret in retirement but they'd be lying if they say they would change them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Sorry to be blunt and not compassionate but one person dies from SIS in the UK in recorded history and you want a complete overhaul?

It was a freak accident that has almost no chance of being replicated, there are unfortunately more serious issues to worry about.

Yes, I do. So do the IRB.

And if you can think of a more serious issue than death or long term disability from rugby you have a strange value system.

And it was not a freak accident. It was an entirely avoidable death of a 14 year old caused by ignorance.

I don't see why you or I have a say in it, one incident the only of it's kind in the UK and you have an overboard reaction as if it was anything other than a tragic accident.

It was tragic. But it was preventable.

It was the first documented case in the UK.

I would be happier if it was the last.

Every single death not caused by natural causes is avoidable so you sometimes have to separate yourself and realise the reality that these things happen regardless of overbearing health and safety.

MrsP wrote:What did Lewis Moody think of the decision to keep North on the pitch?

"Why was George North not taken off terrible decision by the medics. Out cold ."

I wonder what Lamont, Hape, Fogarty, Hazel think about it?

Assuming they still can, i think they would have everyone play rugby in helmets because we know that works don't we…
I
But look, wouldn't rely on anything Mad Dog says, years of putting his noggin on the line mean he is permanently concussed and hardly a reliable speaker.
Fact is if you look at the stats players who have played and player hours it must run into billions, one or two deaths is going to happen. I am sure any sport has deaths and serious injuries but there is a principle of implied consent to take part in contact sport and for those of us that have played we all know the risks.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Every single death not caused by natural causes is avoidable so you sometimes have to separate yourself and realise the reality that these things happen regardless of overbearing health and safety.

Only if we never get out of bed, and then we'd die cheaply holding our manhoods etc

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856