Chiefs v British & Irish Lions, 20 June

First topic message reminder :

  
Chiefs v British & Irish Lions
20 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton

Live on Sky Sports, Sky Sports HD and SkyGo

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. FORM:

1993-06-29 
Waikato 38 - 10 British and Irish Lions

1983-07-12
Waikato 13 - 40 British and Irish Lions

1977-07-16
Waikato 13 - 18 British and Irish Lions

B. TEAMS:

Chiefs
1. Siegfried Fisi'ihoi (24)
2. Liam Polwart (2)
3. Nepo Laulala (11)
4. Dominic Bird (25)
5. Michael Allardice (20)
6. Mitchell Brown (14)
7. Lachlan Boshier (15)
8. Tom Sanders (19)

9. Finlay Christie (6)
10. Stephen Donald (c) (100)
11. Solomon Alaimalo (6)
12. Johnny Faauli (5)
13. Tim Nanai-Williams (82)
14. Toni Pulu (21)
15. Shaun Stevenson (21)

16. Hika Elliot (116)
17. Aidan Ross (2)
18. Atu Moli (24)
19. Liam Messam (159)
20. Mitchell Karpik (5)
21. Jonathan Taumateine (6)
22. Luteru Laulala (0)
23. Chase Tiatia (0)

British & Irish Lions
15. Liam Williams
14. Jack Nowell
13. Jared Payne
12. Robbie Henshaw
11. Elliot Daly
10. Dan Biggar
9. Greig Laidlaw

8. CJ Stander
7. Justin Tipuric
6. James Haskell
5. Courtney Lawes
4. Iain Henderson
3. Dan Cole
2. Rory Best (captain)
1. Joe Marler

16. Kristian Dacey
17. Allan Dell
18. Tomas Francis
19. Cory Hill
20. Alun Wyn Jones
21. Gareth Davies
22. Finn Russell
23. Tommy Seymour

C. PREVIEW

Gooseberry wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So from that no difference at all to here.

It may be the reporting of it but I hear a lot more about players in NZ being put through the process - could just be that there's extra transparency/awareness down under.

Did all the fuss about North pass you by?

I meant guys missing games due to return-to-play processes in general, not just where it appeared there was a mess up in the process.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So from that no difference at all to here.

It may be the reporting of it but I hear a lot more about players in NZ being put through the process - could just be that there's extra transparency/awareness down under.

There was a lot of press over Hartley and North going through the concussion protocols in the last season or so, with both being stood down by Northampton for a significant time. (Admittedly for North much was due to the high profile nature of the bangs he took).

Any number of Leicester players went through the protocols last season, varying from 6 days to 6 weeks dependent on the symptoms. This was reported on, but mainly in local press. Thing is rugby gets a small amount of press coverage in England and this will tend to focus on performance rather than missing players.

LondonTiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So from that no difference at all to here.

It may be the reporting of it but I hear a lot more about players in NZ being put through the process - could just be that there's extra transparency/awareness down under.

There was a lot of press over Hartley and North going through the concussion protocols in the last season or so, with both being stood down by Northampton for a significant time. (Admittedly for North much was due to the high profile nature of the bangs he took).

Any number of Leicester players went through the protocols last season, varying from 6 days to 6 weeks dependent on the symptoms. This was reported on, but mainly in local press. Thing is rugby gets a small amount of press coverage in England and this will tend to focus on performance rather than missing players.

Fair point


Possibly the fact that concussion is more widely reported in NZ due to rugby's position in the spotlight is helping the overall awareness - I know I'm on an NZ fan FB page (which has it's share of ****s, albeit short of Gwlad-level), and the odd htfu head-knock neanderthal tends to get shot down pretty quickly. Unlike the bring-back-rucking ones

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So from that no difference at all to here.

It may be the reporting of it but I hear a lot more about players in NZ being put through the process - could just be that there's extra transparency/awareness down under.

There was a lot of press over Hartley and North going through the concussion protocols in the last season or so, with both being stood down by Northampton for a significant time. (Admittedly for North much was due to the high profile nature of the bangs he took).

Any number of Leicester players went through the protocols last season, varying from 6 days to 6 weeks dependent on the symptoms. This was reported on, but mainly in local press. Thing is rugby gets a small amount of press coverage in England and this will tend to focus on performance rather than missing players.

Fair point


Possibly the fact that concussion is more widely reported in NZ due to rugby's position in the spotlight is helping the overall awareness - I know I'm on an NZ fan FB page (which has it's share of ****s, albeit short of Gwlad-level), and the odd htfu head-knock neanderthal tends to get shot down pretty quickly. Unlike the bring-back-rucking ones

It seems to get quite a bit of coverage here in Wales lately. We've had some high profile incidents recently and for a while it was THE hot topic in the rugby press. The Wales management took a lot of flak for the North incident, etc. More locally we've had a number of players retiring due to too many concussions and couple of suicides in rugby players that have been linked to too many head knocks through their careers. Not good, but helps to put the issue on the radar I guess.

Funnily enough one of my students just completed a research project on attitudes towards concussion in amateur rugby players in Wales, where she is a first aider I think. Not a great study as it was only 1 club. But the results were appalling with players knowing how to cheat the test, not knowing the signs and symptoms, playing and training when they know they're still suffering symptoms, etc. I'm sure the union/clubs are partly to blame but it's also the social norms of the players at these clubs. Some of the bravado and macho attitudes of players is at best stupid but at worst simply dangerous. More education needed and more robust testing protocols.

If it's one thing dragons do right, it's not rushing back concussed players e.g. Adam Hughes and Ashton Hewitt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I simply made the point to acknowledge ebop s wum.

I'm not wumming about concussion. So Lawes passes his tests and says 'he has no symptoms'. Good on him. Presumably he's had scans to show is brain is fine. He's been concussed a few times in recent years but it's not my brain and long-term welfare so no need to worry

So you're saying that nz s tests are based on whether players say they have no symptoms?

I'm sure Lawes is fine, he says he's fine

Not my question. Would you like to answer the question?

Symptoms reliant on the player, yup. Answered your question right there. Happy with that? Some players get stood down even if they pass HIAs.

You're saying that nz players rely on saying they re ok then? I don't believe that is correct. It's certainly not correct in the nh so I'd go back to your assertion that the sh are ahead of the nh here as incorrect if you're not lying which I believe you are. It at best just not right.

No I'm saying Lawes can pass his tests and say 'I feel fine' and he's good to go. That's the case right?

Is that the rule in nz? You seem to be saying it is. You seem to want to not want to answer direct questions. In the nh players don't get a say above medical opinion.

Is that the rule in nz? You seem to be saying it is. You seem to want to not want to answer direct questions. In the nh players don't get a say above medical opinion. Though yo quick to answer if he passes hia he's good to go. Anyone is.

Yes 7.5, similar protocols no doubt. You don't need to always accuse people of not answering your vague questions. But player honesty is important. Do you acknowledge that? That's a question for 'you' to answer.

Player honesty can't be trusted in concussion protocols in a lot of cases. You sill haven't answered several questions around hia protocols where you suggested if more than 1 in a couple of weeks should result in he player taking a break etc. How does he sh protocol differ from the sh which you suggested was better it's an important issue so if you have a serious point feel free to make it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Player honesty can't be trusted in concussion protocols in a lot of cases.

Maybe you've inadvertently explained the difference between NH and NZ (at least) right there. There's been a massive push for 'player honesty' in NZ, because in lieu of brain scans, no one truly knows except for the player themselves. Lawes says he's ok after a sickening blow and 5 minutes of sitting on the ground and then a head knock a week later. Ok, he's fine, he passed his tests whatever they are and the doctor says he's fine and he 'must' also be saying he's fine himself. So he's fine. Good to go for another possible head knock this week.

So you admit then you're unsure of what either the nh or sh protocols actually are then.

Lol, that all you got

How very typical of you 7.5

Yes you can prove anything with facts. Stewart Lee.

Which you have not provided

Didn't need to you provided if through lack of backing to your statements. You still have a chance if you have real statements to make. What differences has the nh to sh protocols. Where are the additional safeguards that the sh has. Including around hia s as well which you insinuated are a reason to keep players from playing rather than failing them.

Can't help it if you can't read and comprehend 7.5. It's all there.

You haven't answered those points. It's a good issue to talk about but you don't seem to want or be able to back your initial points up. Maybe I misunderstood those points? I assumed from your remarks you were saying that nz had better and more advanced protocols. Was that correct of not and if so what are the benefits of the sh protocols in comparison to the nh ones?

No

I'm asking

'was it irresponsible for Lawes to play this week after receiving a sickening head knock against the Highlanders?'

You're the one trying to compare NH v SH

Not the point 7.5, so stop trying to make it the point

You won't respond to the points then? To answer your question there in the hope you may respond in kind no I don't think it was irresponsible as the team will have followed protocols in response to the suspect head injury.

To again pose you questions why do you feel that he lions and thus the nh protocols are lacking and how do they differ to sh protocols? You also seem to question hia or more than one even if passed if a player in the sh have to have more than 1 hia which they pass are they banned from playing anyway?

IMO the welsh and english unions were slow and hesitent to implement the concussion protocols and for a long time saw it as an imposition not protection for the players. they now have caught up with the rest of the world but it took some time. the SRU clearly adopted the protocols more fully earlier.