No cite on the bight/bite

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/39336621

SecretFly wrote:Well, a medical professional that uses hunches instead of his skills and methodology would be potentially guilty of professional misconduct anyway if they were allowing their emotional involvement in a game (it's a tough game but my guy is tough enough to handle some more) put a player back on the field who is still concussed.

If the systems are rigid and if medics are forced to apply them clinically, then a player should not have the smarts to pretend he's decent when the vast majority of the viewing public (non medical) can see that he's still off/groggy/doing silly things/concussed.  

I keep going back to O'Gara.  The man now gets laughed at for a certain performance on a certain day - laughed at.  And yet, there was a player treated with criminal neglect by every medic of influence (team) looking on that day.  O'Gara seemed to have 'fooled' the medics - he didn't fool me or many others looking on TV.  The medics get too many excuses.

HIAs are not fool proof, its why Barry O'Driscoll resigned from the then IRB. The only way to be sure regarding to concussion is to just pull a player and carry out a fuller range of tests on the player to be sure.

The current protocols pretty much say any symptom of concussion should be automatic removal yet its not happening.

If you take the Goerge North case with Northampton, he looked to be knocked out, he says he wasn't. Does a doctor call him a liar and pull him or take his word for it?

Ideally you'd want to have an independent Dr and someone who has full access to tv footage separate to the tmo. So hard to pick up everything which happens on first view and tmo has plenty more to look for too.

marty2086 wrote:

The current protocols pretty much say any symptom of concussion should be automatic removal yet its not happening.

If you take the Goerge North case with Northampton, he looked to be knocked out, he says he wasn't. Does a doctor call him a liar and pull him or take his word for it?

A doctor doesn't call him a liar - a doctor says "My professional judgement is that you are not fit to carry on." But medics throughout all teams must be told in no uncertain terms that their obligation is to their oath, their expertise and to the welfare (short-term and long-term) of the player. They must be told bluntly that there will be no tolerance of medics acting on team orders, coach hints or pressure, or relaxing their own opinions to show allegiance to their employers, the team.

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The current protocols pretty much say any symptom of concussion should be automatic removal yet its not happening.

If you take the Goerge North case with Northampton, he looked to be knocked out, he says he wasn't. Does a doctor call him a liar and pull him or take his word for it?

A doctor doesn't call him a liar - a doctor says "My professional judgement is that you are not fit to carry on."  But medics throughout all teams must be told in no uncertain terms that their obligation is to their oath, their expertise and to the welfare (short-term and long-term) of the player.  They must be told bluntly that there will be no tolerance of medics acting on team orders, coach hints or pressure, or relaxing their own opinions to show allegiance to their employers, the team.

Getting knocked out is a symptom, if that is being used to tell a tell player he's being remove and they are insisting they weren't knocked out that is calling them a liar

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The current protocols pretty much say any symptom of concussion should be automatic removal yet its not happening.

If you take the Goerge North case with Northampton, he looked to be knocked out, he says he wasn't. Does a doctor call him a liar and pull him or take his word for it?

A doctor doesn't call him a liar - a doctor says "My professional judgement is that you are not fit to carry on."  But medics throughout all teams must be told in no uncertain terms that their obligation is to their oath, their expertise and to the welfare (short-term and long-term) of the player.  They must be told bluntly that there will be no tolerance of medics acting on team orders, coach hints or pressure, or relaxing their own opinions to show allegiance to their employers, the team.

Getting knocked out is a symptom, if that is being used to tell a tell player he's being remove and they are insisting they weren't knocked out that is calling them a liar

Yeah, I'm acknowledging the sematics, marty.  The semantics mean nothing though.  

A player is saying "let me go, I'm alright... I can play on"  The doctor/medic is saying "I looked at the incident, I'm looking at you now and my judgement is that you are neither fit enough to go on or fit enough to tell me you're okay."  
Now if that is simply another way of telling the player he's a liar, then so be it.  It's not directly telling him he's a liar it is saying you do not believe he is in a position to continue.  You're doing it to protect him.  If his feelings are hurt in the process - tough.

I know a player who got tackled, banged her head a bit but swore she was all right. The referee told her to leave the pitch. When she discussed the issue with her team, it transpired she got kicked in the head after the tackle and doesn't remember that bit.

She told the ref she didn't get knocked out and was fine to continue. She wasn't lying, she was just wrong.

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The current protocols pretty much say any symptom of concussion should be automatic removal yet its not happening.

If you take the Goerge North case with Northampton, he looked to be knocked out, he says he wasn't. Does a doctor call him a liar and pull him or take his word for it?

A doctor doesn't call him a liar - a doctor says "My professional judgement is that you are not fit to carry on."  But medics throughout all teams must be told in no uncertain terms that their obligation is to their oath, their expertise and to the welfare (short-term and long-term) of the player.  They must be told bluntly that there will be no tolerance of medics acting on team orders, coach hints or pressure, or relaxing their own opinions to show allegiance to their employers, the team.

Getting knocked out is a symptom, if that is being used to tell a tell player he's being remove and they are insisting they weren't knocked out that is calling them a liar

Yeah, I'm acknowledging the sematics, marty.  The semantics mean nothing though.  

A player is saying "let me go, I'm alright... I can play on"  The doctor/medic is saying "I looked at the incident, I'm looking at you now and my judgement is that you are neither fit enough to go on or fit enough to tell me you're okay."  
Now if that is simply another way of telling the player he's a liar, then so be it.  It's not directly telling him he's a liar it is saying you do not believe he is in a position to continue.  You're doing it to protect him.  If his feelings are hurt in the process - tough.

Look al that needs to happen is for the laws to reflect the need to remove autonomy from the player when it comes to injury. If the medics and referee have the authority to make the decision over the player then their input becomes incidental.

As a player you try and cheat the rules by slowing down opposition ball in rucks. You drop scrums, wheel. Don't take the hit. Etc. At lineouts if you can take down the opposition jumper you do. Likewise if you can "ignore" head injury to stay on the pitch, then a lot of players will. Gwlad is bang on - take the decision completely out of the hands of the player and put it into an independent medical person and if needs be the referee, plus tv official. Player safety has to take precedence over whatever the player says or thinks.

But players at Professional level already are held to the decisions of medics. They don't run back onto the field with docs shouting at them from the sideline to come back in.

SecretFly wrote:But players at Professional level already are held to the decisions of medics.  They don't run back onto the field with docs shouting at them from the sideline to come back in.

nobody has said they do have they?

point is , for clarity and to negate equivocation, the rules should say that player has no input whatsoever, ref and medics make decision and frankly the medic should be independent of either side. There is a cost implication but thanks to the likes of Richards and Noves the game is at risk of incurring a far greater cost.

Gwlad wrote:

SecretFly wrote:But players at Professional level already are held to the decisions of medics.  They don't run back onto the field with docs shouting at them from the sideline to come back in.

nobody has said they do have they?

Well, two people suggested the solution is to remove the 'autonomy of the player'.  So my response holds.  They don't have autonomy, they have an opinion.

BTW, being nitty gritty myself   , the player will always have an opinion, as part of the very protocols to diagnose concussion is asking questions of the player and looking for tell-tale signs in his/her responses.  The player's opinion can't be completely dispensed with as it's an important ingredient in forming a medical judgement.

And that brings us back to my original point - a doc declaring a player a 'liar' is merely a doctor diagnosising that a player is concussed enough to be incapable of making a judgement.  Brain fog - i.e. car accident victims walking away from the scene and saying they're fine then quickly losing consciousness.

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The current protocols pretty much say any symptom of concussion should be automatic removal yet its not happening.

If you take the Goerge North case with Northampton, he looked to be knocked out, he says he wasn't. Does a doctor call him a liar and pull him or take his word for it?

A doctor doesn't call him a liar - a doctor says "My professional judgement is that you are not fit to carry on."  But medics throughout all teams must be told in no uncertain terms that their obligation is to their oath, their expertise and to the welfare (short-term and long-term) of the player.  They must be told bluntly that there will be no tolerance of medics acting on team orders, coach hints or pressure, or relaxing their own opinions to show allegiance to their employers, the team.

Getting knocked out is a symptom, if that is being used to tell a tell player he's being remove and they are insisting they weren't knocked out that is calling them a liar

I think you need a lesson in semantics.

A doctor is saying "I suspect you have concussion". That is a true statement of their opinion. The player might honestly believe they do not and might say so. That is another true statement of their opinion.  The statements in no way contradict one another because they are each talking about different things, their own beliefs. A doctor stating their professional opinion in no way amounts to calling the player a liar.

As for the bigger matter. There are two opinions in play here. One is the opinion a professional trained in the relevant subject. The other is the opinion of a lay person who is not in a position to make a judgement because they do not have the training, because the diagnostic tools cannot be self administered and finally because they may be subject to concussion.

The safest rule is that the player must be removed if the player, any team mate, the team doctor, referee or TMO suspect they may have been subject to concussion. They then should not be allowed back on. There should be no HIA. The safest thing is to keep them off the field of play. God knows there are enough subs these days.