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?

just watched match again. medics were next to north immediately he collapsed, and it looked like watson beckoned them on as he clearly saw north was out cold. clear replay of north being knocked out shows on big screen at 62:05.

and he's not picked on saturday because of his concussion in november.

bit predictable and a bit sad really.

MrsP wrote:I find it difficult to listen to advice on head injury in rugby from someone who was saying a few pages ago that North was not KO'd in the second incident because he put his arm out.

I am very glad that North is to be rested. I am not sure the route they took to that decision was appropriate but the correct decision has been made. One out of three is not a very good strike right for correct management of head injury but ...

Bambam,

It is possible that your experiment has already been conducted?

Starting to think it might have been, but didn't want to get in trouble with the mods so thought it was best to delete it!

quinsforever wrote:just watched match again. medics were next to north immediately he collapsed, and it looked like watson beckoned them on as he clearly saw north was out cold. clear replay of north being knocked out shows on big screen at 62:05.

and he's not picked on saturday because of his concussion in november.

bit predictable and a bit sad really.

You are but I won't hold it against you.

Having read the WRU statement, I interpret their decision to rest North as giving him extra time to rest and recover from his knocks this weekend because he also had a concussive incident in November.  Not ony because of an incident last year.  I think that is OK, though not clearly written.  

Although this is the right thing to do - obviously - I suppose we all wonder if they would have done this on their own if there was no pressure from the public, players, and the media.  And we will never know.  But the right decision was made.

And for North, I would speculate he was concerned as well.  Athletes and former athletes all talk to each other.  I am sure he was receiving direct feedback from many people to sit, including his peers.  Besides, George is no dummy.  I have to believe he gets it and understands.

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:just watched match again. medics were next to north immediately he collapsed, and it looked like watson beckoned them on as he clearly saw north was out cold. clear replay of north being knocked out shows on big screen at 62:05.

and he's not picked on saturday because of his concussion in november.

bit predictable and a bit sad really.

You are but I won't hold it against you.

Gwlad, I've argued with some on here about their condemnation of the WRU about certain things, Independent Doctors etc, what I can't condone and totally disagree with you about is whether he was KOd in the 2nd incident and what to do in the aftermath, even the WRU whether it be the Medical Staff or the Playing Staff have said if they had seen the incident, he would have been taken off.
Some on here don't believe the WRU over any of the issues, they are the usual suspects, and you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt, and yet some are very insightful, it's picking the one from the other because some are really good wummers.

doctor_grey wrote:Having read the WRU statement, I interpret their decision to rest North as giving him extra time to rest and recover from his knocks this weekend because he also had a concussive incident in November.  Not ony because of an incident last year.  I think that is OK, though not clearly written.  

Although this is the right thing to do - obviously - I suppose we all wonder if they would have done this on their own if there was no pressure from the public, players, and the media.  And we will never know.  But the right decision was made.

And for North, I would speculate he was concerned as well.  Athletes and former athletes all talk to each other.  I am sure he was receiving direct feedback from many people to sit, including his peers.  Besides, George is no dummy.  I have to believe he gets it and understands.

That all makes sense except it does make you wonder why they were not more careful with him after he was KO'd by Attwood's boot.

North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

I hope not or that'll be yet another episode for them to complain about

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

I can only presume you haven't any kids that play rugby with comments like that.

nathan wrote:

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

I can only presume you haven't any kids that play rugby with comments like that.

Well you presume wrong and such a statement is grossly inappropriate here as the inference in your low baller is clear. Grow up.

Having just Watched the interview with Gatland about George North being omitted from the side for this week end's game. He said George is not a happy chappy. But they have decided to give liam Williams a chance.

Cannot understand why the coaches ( Failed ) to see George North concussed, especialy when every body else did.

i

majesticimperialman wrote:Having just Watched the interview with Gatland about George North being omitted from the side for this week end's game. He said George is not a happy chappy. But they have decided to give liam Williams a chance.

Cannot understand why the coaches ( Failed ) to see George North concussed, especialy when every body else did.

i

Everybody didn't, even his own club team mate Burrell, at the end of the game said he was fine.

Doc Burrell............... ...oh well then, that's the horse's mouth then. This topic is officially over.........

MrsP wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Having read the WRU statement, I interpret their decision to rest North as giving him extra time to rest and recover from his knocks this weekend because he also had a concussive incident in November.  Not ony because of an incident last year.  I think that is OK, though not clearly written.  

Although this is the right thing to do - obviously - I suppose we all wonder if they would have done this on their own if there was no pressure from the public, players, and the media.  And we will never know.  But the right decision was made.

And for North, I would speculate he was concerned as well.  Athletes and former athletes all talk to each other.  I am sure he was receiving direct feedback from many people to sit, including his peers.  Besides, George is no dummy.  I have to believe he gets it and understands.

That all makes sense except it does make you wonder why they were not more careful with him after he was KO'd by Attwood's boot.

See what I mean Gwlad, you get a perfectly responsible post by the Doctor here, and IMO and has it about right, and he says about George having his knocks, then along comes this idiot, trying to justify his premise that he was knocked out in the first incident, when he patently wasn't.

SecretFly wrote:Doc Burrell............... ...oh well then, that's the horse's mouth then.  This topic is officially over.........

Well we've had the organ grinder all day, I was wondering when the monkey would chip in, and along he comes.

Well an organ grinding monkey seems to be qualification enough to have a medically sound opinion on this one.  

Why not?    Let's hear what a guy like Doc Monkey has to say about it.

Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

What makes you think he was? What does being 'knocked out' even mean; hardly medical terminology is it.

If you are going to adopt the stance of self appointed expert at least use the correct name…assuming you even know what it is.

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

Well, kinda, sorta..........

Gwlad wrote:

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

What makes you think he was? What does being 'knocked out' even mean; hardly medical terminology is it.

If you are going to adopt the stance of self appointed expert at least use the correct name…assuming you even know what it is.

term. names are for people. terms are for conditions.

you're welcome.

quinsforever wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

What makes you think he was? What does being 'knocked out' even mean; hardly medical terminology is it.

If you are going to adopt the stance of self appointed expert at least use the correct name…assuming you even know what it is.

term. names are for people. terms are for conditions.

you're welcome.

You have obviously had another hit on the head quins, this is as bad as asserting Wales isn't a country….that reality lag is starting to indicate something more serious.

In the interest of not being repetitive - something you ought to consider - i chose to use name having already used terminology. I used it entirely correctly, suggest you do some research.

I had considered using nomenclature but decided against it because i just knew you wouldn't understand it quins.

Thanks for playing.

Okay,

I'll try again.

What makes Wayne so sure that he did not suffer a temporary loss of consciousness in the first incident?

BamBam wrote:

MrsP wrote:I find it difficult to listen to advice on head injury in rugby from someone who was saying a few pages ago that North was not KO'd in the second incident because he put his arm out.

I am very glad that North is to be rested. I am not sure the route they took to that decision was appropriate but the correct decision has been made. One out of three is not a very good strike right for correct management of head injury but ...

Bambam,

It is possible that your experiment has already been conducted?

Starting to think it might have been, but didn't want to get in trouble with the mods so thought it was best to delete it!

Multiple blows to the head apparently.... utter farce

doctor_grey wrote:

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

Well, kinda, sorta..........

Weeeeeeeeeelllllll. You are only a surgeon (I think) after all. Only know which limb to remove if the nurse draws on it. And you seem to believe you have 5 hearts.

Fairly scathing article in the press this morning, rubbishing the WRU's claims that they didn't see anything, saying it is a pitiful excuse:

With the recent furore surrounding George North’s head injury while playing for Wales against England in the Six Nations, Jamie Lyall asks why concussions in rugby aren’t being treated with the seriousness they should be

Not six months ago, in a far-flung corner of cyberspace, I told the tale of Dr Ryan Kohler, a shrewd but steely Capetonian employed by the ARU as Australian Rugby’s all-new ‘concussion consultant’.

Ryan’s role took him far and wide across the nation; he delivered fresh education programmes to the masses, the lifeblood of rugby union who remain relatively starved of knowledge, care and guidance, while simultaneously keeping a watchful eye over the green-and-gold clad heroes at the pinnacle of the Australian game.

I had followed the tempestuous beast of sports concussion since the first woozy steps of George Smith’s snake-dance from the Sydney turf in the Lions’ Third Test of 2013, as it hurtled, snowballing down a treacherous slope of litigation, pain and wanton tragedy.



When it came to Ryan, I didn’t hold back. But you can always count on a South African for frankness and pragmatism.

I was impressed by his practical, front-line approach to concussion –he zeroed in on what he could improve, the areas where his efforts would be felt most acutely, and let other experts worry about those he could not.

And one line, one bells-and-whistles humdinger of a head injury quote leapt off the page:“We’re now in a position where we will simply not have another George Smith, certainly at Test level,” he said of the Australian game.

Ryan is a fine physician with a wealth of very specific experience.

But as anyone who cast a glance towards Cardiff on Friday, Wales versus England, a knocked-out, wrongly assessed and returned-to-play George North, a bloodied and groggy Dan Biggar, and an unsteady Leigh Halfpenny will tell you, elsewhere in the elite game, Smith’s infamous snake-dance is alive and boogying.

For all the PR talk of improvement and engagement, here were yet more examples of the misuse of rugby’s controversial pitchside Head Injury Assessment protocol in the case of North – there is no need to test a player who has been knocked unconscious – and its questionable non-application in the cases of his teammates, for all the rugby world, and many more besides to see.

I wonder what the affable Dr Jamie Roberts, in between fly-half, winger and full-back in midfield made of it all.

We’ve seen it before, of course, with Brian O’Driscoll. We’ve seen it with Smith. We’ve seen it too with Brodie Retallick in Super Rugby and Florian Fritz in the Top 14 – that sorry episode yielding little but a shameful bout of buck-passing before the French authorities were forced to up their game.

I have spoken to the parents of Rowan Stringer in Canada, and Ben Robinson in the UK, both cut down in their teens by head injuries sustained on a rugby pitch. I’ve seen the tears. I’ve heard the despair. I’ve caught the merest glimpse of the inconceivable anguish that grips them.

Then there are doctors like Kohler, toiling at the grass-roots, and the men and women of brain science and medicine exasperated by the peril of North and company.

There are those too in other sports battling cognitive impairments – middle-aged men at the mercy of short-term memory loss and post-concussive headaches who forget their keys and flood the bath – and the threat of litigation that simmers just below the surface.

Meanwhile, the WRU claim ‘we didn’t see it’ via a pitiful ‘explanatory’ press release and video featuring Medical Manager, Prav Mathema – an absurd excuse, and a poor attempt at saving face.

An international management team might comprise ten individuals, each with access to around six camera angles and radio communications. Even supposing every member of the Welsh staff was simultaneously ‘unsighted’ as North crumpled to ground, the replays were shown on the stadium big-screen, and the BBC’s main feed.

Just where on earth were they all looking? Was Adam Jones perfecting his drop-goal technique in the coaches’ box? I might also ask would their eyes have been so conveniently averted had a player of lesser pedigree taken a mouthful of the Millennium turf.

The deeper, more pressing question though is this: will it take a lawsuit, a death, or an improbable punishment dished out by oft-impotent administrators to safeguard rugby’s prized assets? By the time we uncover the answer, it may be too late.

Let’s not forget that medics, coaches and, yes, players too, need consider their duty to the sport they represent, and from whence they derive a handsome living.

To those gracing not triple-tier stadia, nor destined for stardom, but careering around the local playing fields of a Saturday afternoon, swept along on a wave of lager and deep heat.

And to the thousands of youngsters – incidentally, like Rowan and Ben, the age group most susceptible to the effects of traumatic brain injury – who look to them as heroes and role models, and the message even a solitary mismanagement in the face of glaring physical and video evidence delivers.

If sitting it out is good enough for George North, Leigh Halfpenny or Dan Biggar, then it’s good enough for them. Friday’s events might lead some to believe the opposite is also true.

The fanfare given last September to new guidelines outlining the WRU’s ‘zero tolerance’ stance on concussion seem rather laughable now.

How many players, coaches or parents read it, or the document it says was distributed to all Welsh clubs? How many remember the guidance within?

These pamphlets are often found strewn around clubhouses and bar-lounges, dog-eared, beer-stained, hanging limply from muddied pinboards still adorned by flyers for the 2010 Pre-Season Bake Sale.

Contrast those figures with the pull of Wales’ biggest game of the season – the feverish build-up as the Six Nations opener drew near. How many were watching? And how many might be tempted to take a risk after seeing North, Biggar and Halfpenny stricken and failed anew?

The full-back’s muscle-bound torso is plastered across the cover of a well-known men’s glossy magazine this month. The WRU, it seems, care enough about their player’s health to allow them to dish out workout tips, but baulk at protecting them from the effects of a brain injury.

It all comes down to another of Kohler’s remarks, as relevant now as it was then: “at some point, people have got to realise they have a responsibility and a duty of care.” For the good of the game and all who cherish it, let that point be now.

RFU to survey the 800+ members of the England Rugby International Club, to try and understand the long term effects of playing rugby.

To be led by a Neurology Professor from Birmingham who in the article in the Times states that sports doctors (from football as well as rugby) feel pressured by coaches to get players back on the pitch. Suggestion seems to be that at times sporting need overcomes medical decision making.

Of course nothing new really - we have heard that from retired players and seen it with cases like Florian Fritz.

LondonTiger wrote:RFU to survey the 800+ members of the England Rugby International Club, to try and understand the long term effects of playing rugby.

To be led by a Neurology Professor from Birmingham who in the article in the Times states that sports doctors (from football as well as rugby) feel pressured by coaches to get players back on the pitch. Suggestion seems to be that at times sporting need overcomes medical decision making.

Of course nothing new really - we have heard that from retired players and seen it with cases like Florian Fritz.

The thing I don't understand about these coaches applying the pressure is, why do they do it? When has a concussed player forced back on the pitch ever performed at their usual level and made a real difference to the result? George Smith - ineffective on his return and subbed off. Fritz - ineffective on his return and subbed off, North - poor on his return, obviously lacking physicality.

So taking the medical side out of this, where is the rugby benefit of putting a player back on?

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

So if we ignore stuff like this then the problem will go away?

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

MrsP wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

MrsP wrote:It is a bit difficult to accept that the only people in the country who did not see it are in the employ of the WRU.

The English player closest to the incident knew North was in trouble as he can be seen stopping to check on him.

So they must be lying right?

Jeebus you have blown this trumpet endlessly. The WRU and IRB are happy with what happened, so are the players, so is George.

What exactly do you want to happen regarding this incident and future ones?

Should the game come to a stop after every tackle to check everyone is ok?

Have you ever played the game yourself?

Not at all sure what this has to do with anything but, yes I have!

And nowhere have I suggested the measures you mention.

But the IRB being happy with the situation is not really very reassuring, is it?

Yes it is, it means the rules are being followed.

Over cautious people would ruin this game entirely if the health and Safety czars are allowed anywhere near it we will end up playing touch rugby.

North is fine, he says he is fine, the WRU say he is fine

Fine, he might be dribbling over his porridge in his 50s but, THAT IS HIS CHOICE.

If we TMO collisions the game is as good as dead

The rules weren't followed in the second instance. The TMO/video proposed use would be to see if there were clashes of heads. The second one was missed by everyone but Watson (?) but was clear on replays. The fact that you don't give a flying fig about player safety says a lot about you.

Oh dear, are you trying to give me forum guilt, to cast aspersions on my character because I don't think we should TMO collisions. That way lies the end of this game and if you are so naive you cannot see that then it says even more about you. The typical polarization of the argument by people like you who would destroy the game with their over zealous attitude to a contact sport sickens me.

Anyone playing the game isa  fool if you believe that there is no effect later in life from playing rugby, you hit your head there are consequences and anyone who takes part knows that. We are all adults and we make those personal choices. That is life, otherwise stay in bed.

But that does not mean i would have the game policed this way which is what it will become. If we TMO the knocks then we introduce organizational liability and a litigious concept that the game as it stands can't possibly live with. Don't you get that?

I understand that you want to be entertained whatever the cost. I disagree.

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

So if we ignore stuff like this then the problem will go away?

Unless we sort these things out then the game will be sued out of existence. Of course that is polar opposite to Gwlads view. Problem is that it may already be too late as the vultures lawyers are already circling. We have to have rigorous and bombproof checks in place. Accidents will always happen, we need to remove negligence. And as WRU and World rugby have stated on Saturday there was negligence.

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

Well, kinda, sorta..........

Weeeeeeeeeelllllll. You are only a surgeon (I think) after all. Only know which limb to remove if the nurse draws on it. And you seem to believe you have 5 hearts.

It's getting close to Valentine's Day.  I have hearts to share.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i24pyZDO030

By the way, I thought the nurses marked up patients because they were bored.  I usually cut off body parts because it is easier than working.

LondonTiger wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

So if we ignore stuff like this then the problem will go away?

Unless we sort these things out then the game will be sued out of existence. Of course that is polar opposite to Gwlads view. Problem is that it may already be too late as the vultures lawyers are already circling. We have to have rigorous and bombproof checks in place. Accidents will always happen, we need to remove negligence. And as WRU and World rugby have stated on Saturday there was negligence.

I was about to put pretty much the same thing. If you want to maintain Rugby as a contact sport you need to demostrate that player's welfare is a key point. You don't encourage lawyers by having a robust and safe practice. You encourage lawyers by having a 'ah it, just get with it' attitude. The one that says it's the players choice when the player doesn't have all the relevant information.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:RFU to survey the 800+ members of the England Rugby International Club, to try and understand the long term effects of playing rugby.

To be led by a Neurology Professor from Birmingham who in the article in the Times states that sports doctors (from football as well as rugby) feel pressured by coaches to get players back on the pitch. Suggestion seems to be that at times sporting need overcomes medical decision making.

Of course nothing new really - we have heard that from retired players and seen it with cases like Florian Fritz.

The thing I don't understand about these coaches applying the pressure is, why do they do it? When has a concussed player forced back on the pitch ever performed at their usual level and made a real difference to the result? George Smith - ineffective on his return and subbed off.  Fritz - ineffective on his return and subbed off, North - poor on his return, obviously lacking physicality.

So taking the medical side out of this, where is the rugby benefit of putting a player back on?

On Friday night, Gatland probably thought that North, as one of his key players, could turn the game around for him if he kept on playing. Desperation?

Also many of the cases are not as clear cut as the examples given. But yes, desperation does indeed play a part.

Maybe, if we really want to make a change, we need to do a study on the effectiveness of players on the pitch after a suspected concussion. If we can show that they drop off tackles, make less grounds, etc. coaches will give a

HammerofThunor wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:North passed the protocols this week and is fit to play. His withdrawal is due to disproportionate pressure from press and people who think they know better than the medics.

Rugby as a contact sport is now on the ropes and the do gooders will eventually deliver the knock out blow

So if we ignore stuff like this then the problem will go away?

Unless we sort these things out then the game will be sued out of existence. Of course that is polar opposite to Gwlads view. Problem is that it may already be too late as the vultures lawyers are already circling. We have to have rigorous and bombproof checks in place. Accidents will always happen, we need to remove negligence. And as WRU and World rugby have stated on Saturday there was negligence.

I was about to put pretty much the same thing.  If you want to maintain Rugby as a contact sport you need to demostrate that player's welfare is a key point.  You don't encourage lawyers by having a robust and safe practice. You encourage lawyers by having a 'ah  it, just get with it' attitude.  The one that says it's the players choice when the player doesn't have all the relevant information.

Right on. Head trauma impacts all sports. For someone over 30 who have played any sport, we all know head trauma was the ultimate gut-it-out injury. A lot of that old school mentality survives with many people. Did that impact what we saw at the Millenium Stadium? Don't know, though it is likely. Doesn't matter now. Back when I was playing at a good level, headaches were frowned upon and many injuries were treated by the Magic Sponge, a lot of tape, and Nurofen Plus and Scotch. We have made massive progress with other injuries, and head trauma treatment needs to catch up.

In my opinion, this doesn't not impact Rugby exclusive of other sport. Concussion and associative head trauma is a problem in all sport. If we don't get a handle on it now, we all will have a problem which makes this look like a bump in the road. It is all sport which is at risk. In other words, this is NOT a Rugby problem. It IS a problem in Rugby. And it is long past the time to get ahead of the curve.

It has been so public with the NFL due to the huge size of the NFL in financial terms combined with the incredible physical nature of their sport. It is also due to the openness of the NFL, as compared to sport outside the US as well as the obvious litigious nature of the US. In this case, the lawyers are actually doing us a favour.

Here is the deal: The train is coming down the track, we get with it and guide it, or we get run over by it. I do not think this will damage the product we see on the pitch or the game we enjoy playing so much. I believe this will ultimately make our physical game just a bit safer for everyone at all levels.

HammerofThunor wrote:Maybe, if we really want to make a change, we need to do a study on the effectiveness of players on the pitch after a suspected concussion.  If we can show that they drop off tackles, make less grounds, etc. coaches will give a

The study has already been done. Apparently, the subject is alive and well and posting on social media from a booth in the Millenium Stadium....

In the interest of balance, heres an article from the Telegraph which I actually agree with in the main.

I think it was shocking that they 'missed' the event. But when has a player ever made a positive game-changing contribution after receiving a knock to the head/been knocked out? They do go above and beyond the call of duty and ensure theres 2 independant Doctors along with their own medical team. There's so many angles to consider, I dont believe in the slightest that there's a big conspiracy to 1)get North back on the pitch in the knowledge hed been knocked out and was unfit to play and 2) to cover up that decision. I actually think they're just being honest, and I'm really not a big WRU fan at all.

__________________________________________

Six Nations 2015: Doctors in George North controversy should sue

To suggest Wales medics and Warren Gatland are part of a great 'win-at-all-costs' conspiracy, as outraged online moral crusaders are suggesting, is ignorant and offensive

Essentially they are not calling just Warren Gatland a liar, but also a highly qualified medical manager and the three doctors who were on duty at the Millennium Stadium, men who live under the Hippocratic Oath.

They believe a conspiracy took place in the Six Nations opener, one which involved collusion between a rugby team’s management and health professionals to ensure George North did not have to leave the field.

They believe that the player’s safety was ignored because of the desperation to win. Success over suffering, glory at all costs, that sort of thing.

Who exactly are “they”. You can find out by trawling social media and seeing their thinly veiled accusations. Phrases such as “the medics say they didn't see North knocked out cold – I simply cannot accept that”.

“They” are multiplying as the issue transcends the game and attracts that great ethical army who chase those metaphorical ambulances in their frenzy to add their oh, so bold and gallant viewpoints.

In effect, this moral jury have tried and convicted Gatland, his fellow coaches and the medical team on them evidence of one replay. Which it is quite conceivable none of them saw.

At least in New Zealand, “they” are rather more honest when pointing the finger. In one remarkable column, the journalist calls for Gatland to be banned and says that yes, the docs were part of the crime against rugby union. How can he be so sure? Well, as the columnist so wisely wrote: “The WRU are bound to cover up. They have a track history of doing so [see Grannygate].”

If I were one of the doctors, I would sue. We are not talking about Arsène Wenger being unsighted for an Arsenal penalty or a dodgy offside decision.

We are talking about people who have been GPs for two decades before going into sports medicine, we are talking about a leading neurologist who knows a trifle more about head injuries, and the risk they pose, than those who basically say he was jeopardising a fellow human’s existence.

Do you know what happens when a doctor commits such malpractice? They are struck off, lose the right practise medicine, face a lifetime of ignominy.

Theirs is a calling, not a vocation and although there are bad apples in ever cart, to imply that a trio of doctors – men who took decades to achieve their station – were telling a collective mistruth when saying that no, they did not see the lights go out for North after that sickening bang of heads, is a stunning claim. Stunning and dangerous and stupid.

What makes it thoroughly numbskulled is the fact two of these doctors were there in an independent capacity. World Rugby does not yet require independent doctors to be on site; the WRU took this decision itself. It went above and beyond what was expected of them when it comes to applying safeguards.


Warren Gatland is arguably over-protective of players, rather than the opposite

Why? Because that is the way it is in Camp Gatland. I have heard several players – past and present – moaning about what they believe is the management’s “paranoia” when it comes to the checks on their physical well-being.

Right now, North is spitting blood, not because of any injury, but because Gatland elected to rest him for Saturday’s match in Scotland. Again, there was no necessity for him to do so, because North has passed all the tests since hitting the canvas. Gatland put the lad’s health before the team’s chances.

Of course, many will say that Gatland only did so because of all the exposure and the potential backlash. If you think that, then you do not know the gruff Kiwi very well. Anybody and everybody who recalls the Welsh-dominated selection for the final Lions Test three years ago should realise that here is an individual who does not a give a fig about public opinion.

Indeed, if Gatland cared what others thought, he would have made more changes to the side which submitted so meekly in the second half against England. Gatland made one. On health grounds.

Saying that, it is right that North does not play, just as it would have been right for him to be taken off on Friday night. Gatland and the doctors have said as much. The reason North stayed on was because nobody with the power to act viewed the incident. That is the reality, no matter what the conspiracy theorists and concussion grandstanders claim

So if you really want a villain look no further than World Rugby, which draws up the protocols. This weekend at each of the Six Nations matches, extra securities will be in place to try to guarantee there is no repeat of such an appalling spectacle. It will then be up to World Rugby to extend this throughout the professional game.

North was lucky. He emerged largely unscathed. Rather disgracefully the same cannot be said of Gatland and the entirely honest medics on duty.

__________________________________________

Well said Doc, can't disagree with a thing you have said.

Your hearts, wouldn't be the body parts you cut off would they?

Good to see the post from Comfort too. It doesnt explain the 2 things that bug me about North.
1) He was playing poorly after the , err, 'incidents' (and looked dazed)
2) The way he went down so easily the 2nd time

Now 1) should have been sorted by substituting him, which goes back to how the coaches perceived the player performances. Medical staff can advise, and put their foot down if they think there is a real problem but if they think things are OK its down to the coaches.

2) I can't tell for sure because we dont have enough information about how hard the impact was between North's head and Hibbard, but my subjective view is that I think that blow would not have been hard enough to lead to the apparent LOC on its own, which also suggests that he was still under the influence of the first blow.

I don't get the fuss in the other article about Biggar and 1/2p. 1/2p had a neck issue not a head injury. Biggar's collision didnt look great but that is because of the blood. It didn't impact his game and there were no obvious signs he had any problems, beyond trying to breathe with cotton wool up his nostrils.

Biggar's face acted as a crumple zone to lessen the impact.

As for the Telegraph article posted by Comfort, I don't think anyone lied. But they haven't been entirely clear. The question I have is whether anyone in the Welsh team (players and support) saw the replay of the KO, and if they did why didn't it get passed on to the medical team? As far as I'm aware that hasn't been covered.

The Welsh management team have said that their handling of North was not correct.

I think we all have the right to question poor head injury management when we see it.

What were supposed to do? Just sit there and nod sagely as a clearly KO'd player stayed on the pitch? Could that attitude be why no-one from the Welsh management or playing team questioned why North was still on the pitch?

I can accept that the Welsh medic did not notice that North was KO'd in the second incident. I find it much more difficult to accept that no one else, manager, player or support staff, saw the replay.

I have serious questions about their management of the first incident.

I have no problems with the actions of the indepedent medic unless he/she was told that North was KO'd in the first incident.

I do think we have the right/responsibility to ask questions.

Gatland can't resist the bite though, can he?

Always paints the Welsh into a corner whenever he can - draws lines in the sand and says the world, once again, 'is on our backs and what are we going to do about it???'

It's been a blessing (of a kind!) in disguise to him - as he now has a focal point for his ever ready seething inner rage.

North, we got told in that familiar Gats semi grimace, wasn't "happy".  
The inference being that public pressure from competitors has done the dirty once more.

North wasn't happy - and someone's going to pay for that - over to you Scotland - first victim of the fight back?

MrsP wrote:Wayne.

What makes you so sure that North was not KO'd in the first incident?

And, that's no way to talk about Grey. I know he's a Saints supporter but he's not really an idiot.

Mrs P this is in answer to this post and one a little bit later, it is NOT for me to prove that he wasn't knocked out, YOU made the statement, you prove it. Just to add I have first hand knowledge of taking a crushing blow to the jaw and NOT being unconscious for a millisecond. I'll be sending you a PM about it And to infer I was talking about Grey is infantile

SecretFly wrote:Well an organ grinding monkey seems to be qualification enough to have a medically sound opinion on this one.  

Why not?    Let's hear what a guy like Doc Monkey has to say about it.

Fly, personally I would rather believe a club team mate of his, rather than somebody who has many issues with the WRU, also didn't you see what I did with your statement, no of course not, it takes somebody with a sense of humour to spot it.

wayne wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well an organ grinding monkey seems to be qualification enough to have a medically sound opinion on this one.  

Why not?    Let's hear what a guy like Doc Monkey has to say about it.

Fly, personally I would rather believe a club team mate of his, rather than somebody who has many issues with the WRU, also didn't you see what I did with your statement, no of course not, it takes somebody with a sense of humour to spot it.

I'm wondering how you wrote it, then....... Miracles do happen?

Well actually it is not up to me to prove he was KO'd.

You said he "patently wasn't".

To remove him from the pitch all that is required is "Suspected loss of consciousness."

Now I know very well why I suspect he had lost consciousness. But you are certain that he did not. Can you explain how you are certain he wasn't KO'd?

Paul Rees weighs in on the matter in The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/12/breakdown-george-north-wales-concussion

...The questions that needed to be put had nothing to do with blame: the whys and wherefores of what happened on Friday night, and what did not happen, had been established and action taken to ensure that there is minimal prospect of a repeat. After McBryde had read out a statement about North and answered a couple of questions, the subject was declared off-limits and three further questions, none of which was accusatory or provocative, were blocked. Even for a union that does not have a reputation for public relations expertise, it showed an insensitivity to public feeling on the issue.

The preoccupation should have been the health and welfare of North, not the absolution of others. The question that needed to be put to Mathema was, never mind protocols and symptom-free tests, would it not be sensible for a player who had suffered one concussion this season and taken two clear knocks to the head on Friday night to be given a week off from all physical contact, never mind play against Scotland?

Less then 24 hours after North was being examined in the Wales dressing room, another 22-year old, Kariym Irving, was playing in a football match in Surrey. An all-round sportsman who also plays rugby, he was involved in a clash of heads and carried on playing. He was this week in hospital in an induced coma after collapsing when he returned home, though he has since regained consciousness.

The Wales head coach, Warren Gatland, sensibly decided that North should not play against Scotland, regardless of whether he was symptom-free for the requisite number of days before the match. Rugby union has to put the welfare of players above everything, which means countries following the guidelines laid down by World Rugby. Otherwise it is risking lives.

I thought the 2 articles were well written and very informative, it took me back to the early to mid 90s, when I was taking my Open University courses, the majority of which was Science based, the many Professors and Intellectuals worldwide who were diametrically opposite in their views on the causes of and actually if there was Global Warming, reading a paper last year it is not much different now.
As I've already said I've no problem with George being taken off after the 2nd incident, as he was clearly unconscious for a period of time, and even though his club team mate Burrell said he was fine at the end of the match, Fly especially for you this was to show things are NOT black and white there are MANY shades of grey in between, and as I've already said BEFORE the decision was released to drop him for this weekends game, he shouldn't be involved.
What I do have issue with is the fact that one person in particular says he was knocked out in the first incident, IMO there is NO evidence to support this, from the Welsh Medical Team getting to him very quickly and then the Independent Doctor or is it now in the plural examining him to the latest protocols and allowing him to return to the field.
If the testing procedures are NOT rigorous enough and that could possibly be the case, due to Dr Barry O'Driscoll resignation from the IRB over this very issue, isn't it ironic where the IRB or whatever it is now called is based.
Hopefully George will suffer no ill effects and come back in a few weeks better than ever and put somebody to the sword.

Wayne,

"What I do have issue with is the fact that one person in particular says he was knocked out in the first incident, IMO there is NO evidence to support this, from the Welsh Medical Team getting to him very quickly and then the Independent Doctor or is it now in the plural examining him to the latest protocols and allowing him to return to the field."

First of all this is not quite the same as stating that he "patently wasn't" (KO'd) which was your position earlier.

I shall try to deal with your reasons one by one.

(1) "the Welsh Medical Team getting to him very quickly"

Now, we have been assured by the same Welsh Medical staff that they did not notice that North was KO'd the second time so it is very clear that they could have missed him being KO'd the first time.

(2) " the Independent Doctor or is it now in the plural examining him to the latest protocols and allowing him to return to the field."

These tests have nothing to contribute to the debate as to whether he was KO'd or not. If those doing the tests were unaware of a suspicion of LOC then they could very well have performed those tests perfectly and passed North as fit. The point is that those tests should not be used in the case of a player who is suspected to have been KO'd.

If a player is suspected of having LOC they should be removed from the match and not allowed to return.

Now, North is kicked hard in the head and lies motionless on the pitch for some time, much longer than after the second incident in fact from what I can see. In my opinion that is at least enough to raise the suspicion that he had suffered LOC. And from reading what others have said in many other platforms I am not alone in that view.

I completely concur with your hope that North is okay.