No cite on the bight/bite

by Allty Tue 21 Mar 2017, 8:17 am

First topic message reminder :

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

by Cyril Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:37 pm

Mock outrage alert!

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:37 pm

I didn't infer anything of the sort but do jump to conclusions as always and that is the exact point I was making, you can use any excuse you want but you lost that game fair and square, in fact should have lost it much sooner.

I'm in neither camp to be honest, there is no evidence to show when it happened so it would be speculation as to who did it, highly unlikely to be North himself but you can't award a penalty based on just that.

by Gwlad Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:51 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup I've read it. And there's no instance where a penalty try should have been given. Repeated pens don't cut it.

That depends on whether you think the infringements were the only thing stopping forward momentum.

Must have been the imaginary biting instead

by Gwlad Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:52 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

This is what you said, then you asked for evidence of biting which is well documented then you state you're in neither camp….you change position faster than Guy Noves

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:53 pm

If you can provide any evidence as to when it happened and who did it go ahead Gwlad but more likely you're just throwing your toys out the pram as it's easier than admitting you were crap this year.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:53 pm

Gwlad wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

This is what you said, then you asked for evidence of biting which is well documented then

That comment infers what exactly?

by Gwlad Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:55 pm

You clearly infer that the problem being discussed i.e. the biting of North by a French player, is as a result of infringements at scrum or breakdown. Dont try and hide from it.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:56 pm

I'm struggling to see how you've come to that conclusion but at the same time i'm hardly surprised.

by Gwlad Tue 21 Mar 2017, 9:59 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm struggling to see how you've come to that conclusion but at the same time i'm hardly surprised.

Well then surprise me and tell me what 'problem' you were referring to?

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 21 Mar 2017, 10:02 pm

The problem being the game going on that long, it shouldn't have got to a point where an incident in the 89th minute was a talking point.

by Gwlad Tue 21 Mar 2017, 10:06 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The problem being the game going on that long, it shouldn't have got to a point where an incident in the 89th minute was a talking point.

But of course and there was me thinking you were condoning the biting of a player by the French as a result of Welsh infringements. Nice work. thumbsup

by SecretFly Tue 21 Mar 2017, 10:11 pm

What was the name of the French player who was declared to have biten North?

by Gwlad Tue 21 Mar 2017, 11:35 pm

SecretFly wrote:What was the name of the French player who was declared to have biten North?

George Le Nord

by Allty Wed 22 Mar 2017, 11:22 am

Guys it was not a bite ....twer a big suck

by SecretFly Wed 22 Mar 2017, 11:28 am

I think you are right. I think Wayne actually was negligent in only giving the 'bite' a cursory glance and then proceeding to take North's word for it. He should have observed that North's mouth guard was missing when he spoke to him.... Da! Da! Daa!!!

It looked a love bite to me - which is despicable carry-on on an International Playing Field.

by marty2086 Wed 22 Mar 2017, 12:45 pm

Allty wrote:Guys it was not a bite ....twer a big suck

It could have been a suck that turned into a bite, I bet it was Barnes as well because he sucks that badly drumroll

by TightHEAD Wed 22 Mar 2017, 12:55 pm

Lost count the number of times I've been bitten, pinched, kicked etc etc....

Never ran up to the touch judge crying about it though!

by Gooseberry Wed 22 Mar 2017, 1:00 pm

TightHEAD wrote:Lost count the number of times I've been bitten, pinched, kicked etc etc....

I have no idea why people would be driven to do these things to you

by TightHEAD Wed 22 Mar 2017, 1:43 pm

I know, all on a rugby field too!

I always though I was a joy to play with!

by Gwlad Wed 05 Apr 2017, 7:16 pm

Good to hear that France cheating in the game v Wales by taking a player off for a HIA is being scrutinized. Arguably the result should be revised which would be a first but then that game was a first.

by majesticimperialman Wed 05 Apr 2017, 7:31 pm

I know North complaind at the time, Surely if there was any sign of teeth marks sure the game should have been stopped.

Which begs the question, was there actual ( teeth marks) on his arm?

by Gwlad Wed 05 Apr 2017, 7:57 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:I know North complaind at the time, Surely if there was any sign of teeth marks sure the game should have been stopped.

Which begs the question, was there actual ( teeth marks) on his arm?

No it doesn't unless you're a plank. Rolling Eyes

by robbo277 Wed 05 Apr 2017, 8:26 pm

The game was stopped. The TMO had a look at it.

by Guest Wed 05 Apr 2017, 9:14 pm

And there were bite marks, as shown on tv. Hence they went to the tmo. But he didn't have a view.

To be honest I wish all of this just took place behind closed doors and out of the media. If and when some wrong doing has been found then yes the outcome should become public. But until then it just causes hostility on both sides. I've been reading about 'Welsh whinging' on this ever since the game. Yet it's not Wales investigating the incidents or pursuing them. Word Rugby, or whoever it is, are the ones deciding to pursue this.

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 10:00 am

Griff wrote:And there were bite marks, as shown on tv. Hence they went to the tmo. But he didn't have a view.

To be honest I wish all of this just took place behind closed doors and out of the media. If and when some wrong doing has been found then yes the outcome should become public. But until then it just causes hostility on both sides. I've been reading about 'Welsh whinging' on this ever since the game. Yet it's not Wales investigating the incidents or pursuing them. Word Rugby, or whoever it is, are the ones deciding to pursue this.

A bit hard to do unless all gams are played behind closed doors

by Guest Thu 06 Apr 2017, 10:40 am

marty2086 wrote:
Griff wrote:And there were bite marks, as shown on tv. Hence they went to the tmo. But he didn't have a view.

To be honest I wish all of this just took place behind closed doors and out of the media. If and when some wrong doing has been found then yes the outcome should become public. But until then it just causes hostility on both sides. I've been reading about 'Welsh whinging' on this ever since the game. Yet it's not Wales investigating the incidents or pursuing them. Word Rugby, or whoever it is, are the ones deciding to pursue this.

A bit hard to do unless all gams are played behind closed doors

Please explain. How is the investigation into this not able to be done behind closed doors? Why does it have to be in the media?

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 06 Apr 2017, 11:55 am

marty2086 wrote:
No9 wrote:Irrelevant... I was not questioning the result, and thought Barnes was bottling it slightly, as it became apparent he didn't want to settle the game on a penalty try decision. Now, should he have.. yes he should have IMO.

BUT, he also bottled the biting. Its obvious North was bitten, Barnes accepted he could see bite marks. Its also obvious from the position of the bites that North could NOT have bitten himself. So Barnes went to the TMO, they couldn't see who committed the offence. So Ok, you cant penalise the individual, which would have been a RED card (at least yellow). But he could have said, there has been an offence and awarded a penalty. Game over.

So either way, Barnes bottled it, in the end of the game, afraid to award a penalty to either team and seal the game on his decision. That is weak refereeing.

It was his the inside of his bicep, I don't know about you but I can easily get that into my mouth.

Great film.

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 12:03 pm

Griff wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Griff wrote:And there were bite marks, as shown on tv. Hence they went to the tmo. But he didn't have a view.

To be honest I wish all of this just took place behind closed doors and out of the media. If and when some wrong doing has been found then yes the outcome should become public. But until then it just causes hostility on both sides. I've been reading about 'Welsh whinging' on this ever since the game. Yet it's not Wales investigating the incidents or pursuing them. Word Rugby, or whoever it is, are the ones deciding to pursue this.

A bit hard to do unless all gams are played behind closed doors

Please explain. How is the investigation into this not able to be done behind closed doors? Why does it have to be in the media?

Explain how it is? Reporting on investigation taking place on an incident that was watched by millions isn't the same as the investigation happening in the media

by Guest Thu 06 Apr 2017, 1:19 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Griff wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Griff wrote:And there were bite marks, as shown on tv. Hence they went to the tmo. But he didn't have a view.

To be honest I wish all of this just took place behind closed doors and out of the media. If and when some wrong doing has been found then yes the outcome should become public. But until then it just causes hostility on both sides. I've been reading about 'Welsh whinging' on this ever since the game. Yet it's not Wales investigating the incidents or pursuing them. Word Rugby, or whoever it is, are the ones deciding to pursue this.

A bit hard to do unless all gams are played behind closed doors

Please explain. How is the investigation into this not able to be done behind closed doors? Why does it have to be in the media?

Explain how it is? Reporting on investigation taking place on an incident that was watched by millions isn't the same as the investigation happening in the media

What does that have to do with playing a match either in public or behind closed doors?

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 1:45 pm

Griff wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Griff wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Griff wrote:And there were bite marks, as shown on tv. Hence they went to the tmo. But he didn't have a view.

To be honest I wish all of this just took place behind closed doors and out of the media. If and when some wrong doing has been found then yes the outcome should become public. But until then it just causes hostility on both sides. I've been reading about 'Welsh whinging' on this ever since the game. Yet it's not Wales investigating the incidents or pursuing them. Word Rugby, or whoever it is, are the ones deciding to pursue this.

A bit hard to do unless all gams are played behind closed doors

Please explain. How is the investigation into this not able to be done behind closed doors? Why does it have to be in the media?

Explain how it is? Reporting on investigation taking place on an incident that was watched by millions isn't the same as the investigation happening in the media

What does that have to do with playing a match either in public or behind closed doors?

Because if no one sees it its the only way to stop the media reporting it Rolling Eyes

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 06 Apr 2017, 1:58 pm

On the bite. If the TMO couldn't pick anything up, what was Barnes meant to do? Award a penalty to Wales on the evidence of the bite marks? While the balance of probability points towards it being a French player, you can't award the penalty based on that. Moreover, would it not risk opening up a whole can of worms, with players biting themselves when they think the camera can't see them to get a penalty in similar circumstances (clock in the red)? Sounds far-fetched, but so do blood capsules, and dodgy HIAs...

Which brings me onto the next point. Good that the HIA of Antonio is being looked at, as it looked decidedly dodgy at the time (France trying to get their stronger scrummager back on). Not sure how much more can come of it though, unless the doctor admits to something. Again, nothing Barnes could do about it, he has no authority to overrule a medical doctor. Imagine for a second that he did, and Antonio ended up getting badly concussed!!

I personally felt Barnes handled an extraordinary situation as best he could, he was clear in his process and decision making, for instance with respect to Wales being able to bring on a prop when one was binned as sub was tactical rather than injury, the Antonio "injury", the non-giving of a penalty try, etc. Clearly explained his reasoning on all of them, and IMO his process was sound.

by SecretFly Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:03 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:On the bite. If the TMO couldn't pick anything up, what was Barnes meant to do? Award a penalty to Wales on the evidence of the bite marks? While the balance of probability points towards it being a French player, you can't award the penalty based on that. Moreover, would it not risk opening up a whole can of worms, with players biting themselves when they think the camera can't see them to get a penalty in similar circumstances (clock in the red)? Sounds far-fetched, but so do blood capsules, and dodgy HIAs... [and cheeky ballboys].

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:09 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:On the bite. If the TMO couldn't pick anything up, what was Barnes meant to do? Award a penalty to Wales on the evidence of the bite marks? While the balance of probability points towards it being a French player, you can't award the penalty based on that. Moreover, would it not risk opening up a whole can of worms, with players biting themselves when they think the camera can't see them to get a penalty in similar circumstances (clock in the red)? Sounds far-fetched, but so do blood capsules, and dodgy HIAs... [and cheeky ballboys].

point

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:17 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Which brings me onto the next point. Good that the HIA of Antonio is being looked at, as it looked decidedly dodgy at the time (France trying to get their stronger scrummager back on). Not sure how much more can come of it though, unless the doctor admits to something. Again, nothing Barnes could do about it, he has no authority to overrule a medical doctor. Imagine for a second that he did, and Antonio ended up getting badly concussed!!

I personally felt Barnes handled an extraordinary situation as best he could, he was clear in his process and decision making, for instance with respect to Wales being able to bring on a prop when one was binned as sub was tactical rather than injury, the Antonio "injury", the non-giving of a penalty try, etc. Clearly explained his reasoning on all of them, and IMO his process was sound.

The whole thing highlights that there should be an independent medical assessor to decide if a player should or shouldn't go for a HIA. The recent cases of Murray and North being returned to the field and investigations being needed after the fact to decide if there was wrong doing, would be negated by having someone independent of the players and teams making the call. The same goes in this case.

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:26 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Which brings me onto the next point. Good that the HIA of Antonio is being looked at, as it looked decidedly dodgy at the time (France trying to get their stronger scrummager back on). Not sure how much more can come of it though, unless the doctor admits to something. Again, nothing Barnes could do about it, he has no authority to overrule a medical doctor. Imagine for a second that he did, and Antonio ended up getting badly concussed!!

I personally felt Barnes handled an extraordinary situation as best he could, he was clear in his process and decision making, for instance with respect to Wales being able to bring on a prop when one was binned as sub was tactical rather than injury, the Antonio "injury", the non-giving of a penalty try, etc. Clearly explained his reasoning on all of them, and IMO his process was sound.

The whole thing highlights that there should be an independent medical assessor to decide if a player should or shouldn't go for a HIA. The recent cases of Murray and North being returned to the field and investigations being needed after the fact to decide if there was wrong doing, would be negated by having someone independent of the players and teams making the call. The same goes in this case.

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

On the first point, I think this is actually a good idea. In the same way we have neutral refs, we could have neutral medical assessors. I'm not suggesting crookedness, but the pressure alone under which the team doctor must feel to pass a player fit or not must be immense. As a converted Scottish fan, I was actually quite pleased that so many of the players who had HIAs stayed off afterwards, even in the case of a crucial player like Hogg. Shows they were at least taking things seriously.

Question: are all refs professional nowadays? An independent medical assessor would need to be, for obvious reasons. And while a team doctor is employed by his governing body to look after the team, who would employ these? The IRB? Just looking at practicalities.

Less sure on the second point. For me it puts too much demand on the ref, and opens another area it's all too easy to criticise him in. Also, if a player was allowed to return and then got concussed the ref would be criticised for allowing him back on, when he's not really competent to make a judgement.

by SecretFly Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:28 pm

marty2086 wrote:

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

That might seem like common sense but it would be a contentious one. Just imagine a central player going off for a check up in a big game with a lot riding on it that is oh-so-close on the scoreboard, the team docs saying he's okay to go back on and a referee (no medical background) overriding their opinion, not allowing the significant player back on and that team then losing what was to that point a tight game?

Mayhem in the media, amongst coaches, medical experts and.............em, places like here - 606v2.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:29 pm

SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

That might seem like common sense but it would be a contentious one. Just imagine a central player going off for a check up in a big game with a lot riding on it that is oh-so-close on the scoreboard, the team docs saying he's okay to go back on and a referee (no medical background) overriding their opinion, not allowing the significant player back on and that team then losing what was to that point a tight game?

Mayhem in the media, amongst coaches, medical experts and.............em, places like here - 606v2.

But we're always so reasonable when our teams lose Whistle

by SecretFly Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:33 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

That might seem like common sense but it would be a contentious one. Just imagine a central player going off for a check up in a big game with a lot riding on it that is oh-so-close on the scoreboard, the team docs saying he's okay to go back on and a referee (no medical background) overriding their opinion, not allowing the significant player back on and that team then losing what was to that point a tight game?

Mayhem in the media, amongst coaches, medical experts and.............em, places like here - 606v2.

But we're always so reasonable when our teams lose

Well I am.............. Whistle

Only person I'd ever blame is Wayne - even when he's not reffing and has a day off. Perfectly reasonable and consistent opinion, I'd say Wink

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:35 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Which brings me onto the next point. Good that the HIA of Antonio is being looked at, as it looked decidedly dodgy at the time (France trying to get their stronger scrummager back on). Not sure how much more can come of it though, unless the doctor admits to something. Again, nothing Barnes could do about it, he has no authority to overrule a medical doctor. Imagine for a second that he did, and Antonio ended up getting badly concussed!!

I personally felt Barnes handled an extraordinary situation as best he could, he was clear in his process and decision making, for instance with respect to Wales being able to bring on a prop when one was binned as sub was tactical rather than injury, the Antonio "injury", the non-giving of a penalty try, etc. Clearly explained his reasoning on all of them, and IMO his process was sound.

The whole thing highlights that there should be an independent medical assessor to decide if a player should or shouldn't go for a HIA. The recent cases of Murray and North being returned to the field and investigations being needed after the fact to decide if there was wrong doing, would be negated by having someone independent of the players and teams making the call. The same goes in this case.

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

On the first point, I think this is actually a good idea. In the same way we have neutral refs, we could have neutral medical assessors. I'm not suggesting crookedness, but the pressure alone under which the team doctor must feel to pass a player fit or not must be immense. As a converted Scottish fan, I was actually quite pleased that so many of the players who had HIAs stayed off afterwards, even in the case of a crucial player like Hogg. Shows they were at least taking things seriously.

Question: are all refs professional nowadays? An independent medical assessor would need to be, for obvious reasons. And while a team doctor is employed by his governing body to look after the team, who would employ these? The IRB? Just looking at practicalities.

Less sure on the second point. For me it puts too much demand on the ref, and opens another area it's all too easy to criticise him in. Also, if a player was allowed to return and then got concussed the ref would be criticised for allowing him back on, when he's not really competent to make a judgement.

Refs are Test level down to the likes of Super Rugby, AP, Pro12 etc are professionals in that they get paid, not all are full time refs though I know a few of the Irish refs side careers are working for the IRFU and in the referees department for the branches. A medical assessor would need to be a doctor and below Test level that is not required, in the laws I think it refers to a medical professional.

The reason I mentioned the refs stopping players playing is because there have been cases where obvious symptoms of a concussion have been visible and there has been no HIA, whether it be getting knocked out or jelly legs. Refs should be able to have a player assessed and deemed fit to play, this is already in their remit regarding playing surfaces, weather, equipment etc.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:35 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Which brings me onto the next point. Good that the HIA of Antonio is being looked at, as it looked decidedly dodgy at the time (France trying to get their stronger scrummager back on). Not sure how much more can come of it though, unless the doctor admits to something. Again, nothing Barnes could do about it, he has no authority to overrule a medical doctor. Imagine for a second that he did, and Antonio ended up getting badly concussed!!

I personally felt Barnes handled an extraordinary situation as best he could, he was clear in his process and decision making, for instance with respect to Wales being able to bring on a prop when one was binned as sub was tactical rather than injury, the Antonio "injury", the non-giving of a penalty try, etc. Clearly explained his reasoning on all of them, and IMO his process was sound.

The whole thing highlights that there should be an independent medical assessor to decide if a player should or shouldn't go for a HIA. The recent cases of Murray and North being returned to the field and investigations being needed after the fact to decide if there was wrong doing, would be negated by having someone independent of the players and teams making the call. The same goes in this case.

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

On the first point, I think this is actually a good idea. In the same way we have neutral refs, we could have neutral medical assessors. I'm not suggesting crookedness, but the pressure alone under which the team doctor must feel to pass a player fit or not must be immense. As a converted Scottish fan, I was actually quite pleased that so many of the players who had HIAs stayed off afterwards, even in the case of a crucial player like Hogg. Shows they were at least taking things seriously.

Question: are all refs professional nowadays? An independent medical assessor would need to be, for obvious reasons. And while a team doctor is employed by his governing body to look after the team, who would employ these? The IRB? Just looking at practicalities.

Less sure on the second point. For me it puts too much demand on the ref, and opens another area it's all too easy to criticise him in. Also, if a player was allowed to return and then got concussed the ref would be criticised for allowing him back on, when he's not really competent to make a judgement.

Amateur rugby in NZ is bringing in a blue card for concussions (all NPC/Super rugby games in NZ have a match doctor present to do HIAs). Refs are to be given training in recognising concussion symptoms, and are to blue card a player if he suspects they're concussed.

A blue carded player is out of the rest of the match and the player must then:
• Rest until there are no on-going symptoms
• Complete the minimum stand down period (21 days for adults, 23 days for under 19 players)
• Undertake the Graduated Return to Play Protocol
• Obtain medical clearance to return to play

http://rugbyheartland.co.nz/wp/2017/03/10/concussion-gets-the-blue-card-from-nz-rugby/

by GunsGermsV2 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:39 pm

No9 wrote:Well this is farcical.

On the TV, you see North showing Barnes the bite mark and Barnes clearly saying to the TMO there is a bite mark, so I think it can be disputed someone bit him. Now as the TMO could find any clip I can see why Barnes said it would have to be referred by the citing officer, but they didn't look for many camera angle, considering that would have ended the game. But it is what it is.

But, what I find the most ridiculous, is the statement that he bit himself. Look at the TV images again and where North shows Barnes to where the bite mark is. How the hell could he bite himself there (above the elbow and the back of his arm). He would have had to take his dentures out to do that.

Now, maybe there are no camera angles to find the guilty party, and hence the citing officer cant take any action, but to say North bit himself beggars belief and simply diverts from the blatant cheat of replacing the prop when he was not injured, especially not an head injury. That was no difference to the Leicester blood gate scandal of years ago, and completely undermines the seriousness of real head injuries.

Wayne Barnes bit him. He should be cited.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:41 pm

marty2086 wrote:
The reason I mentioned the refs stopping players playing is because there have been cases where obvious symptoms of a concussion have been visible and there has been no HIA, whether it be getting knocked out or jelly legs. Refs should be able to have a player assessed and deemed fit to play, this is already in their remit regarding playing surfaces, weather, equipment etc.

But - unless I'm misreading your previous point - that's not the same thing. Refs being able to say "this guy looks concussed, could you have a look at him?" to a team doctor (or independent medical assessor if we get there) would be fine IMO. I'm more wary of the inevitable controversy that would surround a ref being able to say "sorry, but even though the doc said you were ok to go back on, I disagree, so off you pop".

@Kwini, interesting, but I do wonder if asking refs to have (proper) medical training so as to be able to make those judgements is pushing the boat too far, and asking rather too much of them.

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 3:14 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
The reason I mentioned the refs stopping players playing is because there have been cases where obvious symptoms of a concussion have been visible and there has been no HIA, whether it be getting knocked out or jelly legs. Refs should be able to have a player assessed and deemed fit to play, this is already in their remit regarding playing surfaces, weather, equipment etc.

But - unless I'm misreading your previous point - that's not the same thing. Refs being able to say "this guy looks concussed, could you have a look at him?" to a team doctor (or independent medical assessor if we get there) would be fine IMO. I'm more wary of the inevitable controversy that would surround a ref being able to say "sorry, but even though the doc said you were ok to go back on, I disagree, so off you pop".

@Kwini, interesting, but I do wonder if asking refs to have (proper) medical training so as to be able to make those judgements is pushing the boat too far, and asking rather too much of them.

If there is an independent assessor then the refs role will not really matter but we have seen clear cases of players being concussed and not being removed for a HIA, refs should have the power to call for a HIA. Toulouse on two previous occasions have returned players to the field with very little assessment after being clearly concussed. The last time Palisson was off the field for 6 minutes, that includes walking up and down the tunnel. If you went into a GP or hospital and were cleared that quickly the doctor would be negligent but to return someone to a an arena where there's a high risk of recurrence then it's dangerous so yes referees should have the right to question the assessment and implementation of the protocols. After all they are meant to be the guardians of the laws of the game on the field of play.

Also a doctor is not required to carry out a HIA below test level, some leagues may have the requirement but World Rugby doesn't include it as part of the protocols.

by robbo277 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 4:22 pm

SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

That might seem like common sense but it would be a contentious one. Just imagine a central player going off for a check up in a big game with a lot riding on it that is oh-so-close on the scoreboard, the team docs saying he's okay to go back on and a referee (no medical background) overriding their opinion, not allowing the significant player back on and that team then losing what was to that point a tight game?

Mayhem in the media, amongst coaches, medical experts and.............em, places like here - 606v2.

If the referee stops a boxing match, then the fighter automatically loses. At least with a head injury in rugby you get automatic right of replacement, so I'd say there's less riding on it.

The other option is to have an independent doctor on the officials team, but that would cost quite a bit I'm guessing.

by Gwlad Thu 06 Apr 2017, 4:27 pm

robbo277 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

That might seem like common sense but it would be a contentious one. Just imagine a central player going off for a check up in a big game with a lot riding on it that is oh-so-close on the scoreboard, the team docs saying he's okay to go back on and a referee (no medical background) overriding their opinion, not allowing the significant player back on and that team then losing what was to that point a tight game?

Mayhem in the media, amongst coaches, medical experts and.............em, places like here - 606v2.

If the referee stops a boxing match, then the fighter automatically loses. At least with a head injury in rugby you get automatic right of replacement, so I'd say there's less riding on it.

The other option is to have an independent doctor on the officials team, but that would cost quite a bit I'm guessing.

its very concerning that the two overt cheats in rugby so far have been involving medics. And thats just the ones we've aught though obviously there will be many more ( clear conspiracies to cheat the game and fans) I'd say an independent doctor would be a good move if they insist on cheating. Alternatively if they get caught they could be banned for life

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 4:28 pm

robbo277 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Referees should also have the power to reject a player being returned to the field if they think they are concussed like a boxing ref stopping a match

That might seem like common sense but it would be a contentious one. Just imagine a central player going off for a check up in a big game with a lot riding on it that is oh-so-close on the scoreboard, the team docs saying he's okay to go back on and a referee (no medical background) overriding their opinion, not allowing the significant player back on and that team then losing what was to that point a tight game?

Mayhem in the media, amongst coaches, medical experts and.............em, places like here - 606v2.

If the referee stops a boxing match, then the fighter automatically loses. At least with a head injury in rugby you get automatic right of replacement, so I'd say there's less riding on it.

The other option is to have an independent doctor on the officials team, but that would cost quite a bit I'm guessing.

Why would it cost quite a bit? Teams already have to have ambulances, stewards etc for safety reasons why would a doctor be a huge stretch? If the doctor is independent it can be from a pool paid for by tournament organisers

by SecretFly Thu 06 Apr 2017, 4:48 pm

Just to point out as we're delving into this; all solutions are only relative solutions as all avenues directed at solutions are corruptible.

We openly infer that some teams potentially use undue pressure on their medics to come to the wrong decisions about players. That's the only reason we'd even discuss the concept of 'neutral'/'independent' doctors.

But of course the 'neutral' can be potentially got at or be unduly influenced too - and in the event of a neutral doctor's contentious decision in a high stakes game, the accusations would undoubtedly fall on his or her head concerning questionable decisions made on players.

Neutral English doc says a fired-up-and-ready-to-resume Warburton can't return to a game against France where a win for Wales would give them a Grand Slam and they are only 5 points away from victory in the 75th minute and are attacking hard. A lose would see England win the Championship on points.

Oh God! The Welsh hordes won't exactly believe that was all above-board neutrality..... Whistle

Just saying. Neutrality is a fine word ... in theory.

by marty2086 Thu 06 Apr 2017, 4:59 pm

Fly, one of the situations I was thinking about was a club doctor or 'medical professional' thinking that player X is a tough guy he has shaken of worse so he'll be ok

I think it was the NFL who had a problem with their protocols at one point in that that players did an initial assessment in pre season and that was the baseline for any assessment for season. Players got to know how to play the system because they knew how to answer the questions to the satisfaction of those doing the assessment. Its not corrupt just reckless from the players as the doctors etc were doing what they were told.

by SecretFly Thu 06 Apr 2017, 5:09 pm

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.

by WELL-PAST-IT Fri 07 Apr 2017, 8:29 am

Perhaps Becky got a little carried away on Friday night...........................................

by Sponsored content