France investigated

They looked to be taking the mick on saturday with players going down with leg injuries and going off for hia s allowing players back on. The decision were made by the match Dr but it's not clear whether they were indicating (cheating) themselves so forcing the doc s hand. To be fair they got away with it last year so chancing it again despite th potential impact of boy who cried wolf. Personally hope they get done but I have no idea what the potential punishment is.
Six Nations: France HIAs against Ireland under investigation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42936200

How do you punish it? Players are always hitting their heads and you can't prove that they weren't concerned. Nor does the impact have to be in the immediate period before the HIA. The doctor has to listen to them.

You have to remove the chance for it to be beneficial, without punishing players for following protocol. Easier said than done.

Very hard to do so. Given it was obvious last year and they couldn't prove france were cheating we'relikely to see the same thing. Hard to prove but blatantly obvious.

If the players removed from play and deemed in need of receiving an HIA were underwent that assessment, then nothing to be done really. If however Jailbait spent the full time allowed having treatment on his knee - then guilty as sin.

I don,t think that France would say they have a HIA if they don,t.

But it does look a bit suspect when a player goes down with a (knee injury) and does not pay any attention to his head. (his knee is giving him the problem ) not his head. Then the team doctor say,s he as HIA.


I just hope it is genuine HIA. And not some form of back door cheating going on.

Guilty as.sin even if they had a hia in this case.

It is a loophole in the procedure and France seemed to have used it. If instructed to, all players who get an injury can say to the independent Dr that they also have hit their head. No independent Dr is going to refuse to grant an HIA in these occurrences.

I cant see France being found guilty of anything but it could lead to a review of the HIA protocol which could mean players who claim HIA may have to sit out the rest of the match.

Regardless of what emerges about the facts of whether he'd separately had a knock to the head, it seems a perverse application of the rules that a player who 100% needs to leave the field because of a knee injury can be put in the HIA category to allow the starter back onto the field.

I get that the HIA caveat for bringing subbed players back on needs to be there so that teams aren't disincentivised from removing potentially concussed players, but in this case he was definitely coming off either way.

eirebilly wrote:It is a loophole in the procedure and France seemed to have used it. If instructed to, all players who get an injury can say to the independent Dr that they also have hit their head. No independent Dr is going to refuse to grant an HIA in these occurrences.

I cant see France being found guilty of anything but it could lead to a review of the HIA protocol which could mean players who claim HIA may have to sit out the rest of the match.

Then players will be hesitant to report potential head injuries. It's a shame that France would abuse something that's there to protect player welfare but this is the country of Cudmore vomiting in the dressing room after being knocked out and being allowed to return, after head knocks twice the week before.

eirebilly wrote:It is a loophole in the procedure and France seemed to have used it. If instructed to, all players who get an injury can say to the independent Dr that they also have hit their head. No independent Dr is going to refuse to grant an HIA in these occurrences.

I cant see France being found guilty of anything but it could lead to a review of the HIA protocol which could mean players who claim HIA may have to sit out the rest of the match.

Theres nothing stopping a doctor checking their head but not allowing it to be a HIA

The first one for me is ok, Jallibert did hit his head on a Murrays? hip for me so was a fair call

eirebilly wrote:It is a loophole in the procedure and France seemed to have used it. If instructed to, all players who get an injury can say to the independent Dr that they also have hit their head. No independent Dr is going to refuse to grant an HIA in these occurrences.

I cant see France being found guilty of anything but it could lead to a review of the HIA protocol which could mean players who claim HIA may have to sit out the rest of the match.

Surely the whole point of the HIA system is exactly so that that doesn't happen. If they know they'll have to sit out the rest of the match, then they are less likely to fess up to having been hit in the head.

Tough on

When the France Replacement 9 went down he was holding his head and Nigel stopped play as it looked like the player had hurt his noggin and was in close proximity to the ply so Nige stopped it. He then clearly signaled to the sideline that he felt the player had inured his head and the medics came on.

It was then apparent that nothing was wrong with his head and he was merely holding it out of frustration at his injury. Nigel then realises this and gives France the opportunity to come clean which isn't taken.

Ireland then complained to Nigel and he quite correctly stated that the Match Dr has given his medical opinion and Nigel isn't a Dr so can't over-rule this. My thoughts are that the same logic should have applied in the first place. Nigel signaled that he thought there was a head injury which was subsequently incorrect. The ref should not have flagged this as a HIA in the first instance!

tigertattie wrote:Tough on

When the France Replacement 9 went down he was holding his head and Nigel stopped play as it looked like the player had hurt his noggin and was in close proximity to the ply so Nige stopped it. He then clearly signaled to the sideline that he felt the player had inured his head and the medics came on.

It was then apparent that nothing was wrong with his head and he was merely holding it out of frustration at his injury. Nigel then realises this and gives France the opportunity to come clean which isn't taken.

Ireland then complained to Nigel and he quite correctly stated that the Match Dr has given his medical opinion and Nigel isn't a Dr so can't over-rule this. My thoughts are that the same logic should have applied in the first place. Nigel signaled that he thought there was a head injury which was subsequently incorrect. The ref should not have flagged this as a HIA in the first instance!

I think that's wrong. Nigel has a duty of care to flag what he thinks is a head injury. If he's wrong he's wrong, but he can't notice something and keep it quiet.

Yes unless something wildly contradictory comes out, I think Owens handled this as well as he could, not least by making it perfectly clear to the whole world what he thought of the HIA call.

Scottrf wrote:

eirebilly wrote:It is a loophole in the procedure and France seemed to have used it. If instructed to, all players who get an injury can say to the independent Dr that they also have hit their head. No independent Dr is going to refuse to grant an HIA in these occurrences.

I cant see France being found guilty of anything but it could lead to a review of the HIA protocol which could mean players who claim HIA may have to sit out the rest of the match.

Then players will be hesitant to report potential head injuries. It's a shame that France would abuse something that's there to protect player welfare but this is the country of Cudmore vomiting in the dressing room after being knocked out and being allowed to return, after head knocks twice the week before.

That is the downside to it all I suppose but things like what happened on Saturday cannot be allowed to continue. That seemed pure calculated manipulating of the protocol. I cannot remember any other team doing this?

Well it's broadly analogous to Bloodgate, with the key difference being that this was a real injury allegedly being deliberately mis-identified to allow the player back on, rather than an entirely fictitious injury.

While I agree with your thoughts re: Saturday, I don't think we can throw the baby out with the bathwater. We're much better off with the HIA procedure than without.

There are too many circumstances regarding this technique with regards to France, this must be investigated.

It is. Hence the topic.

Owens was right to judge it as he did.  He was never going to rule against a medical opinion in such circumstances................. dangerous to a genuinely concussed player and probably the end of his career if he overruled such an opinion.  
It's pointless even to discuss that part, he just was never going to go against the medical opinion.

The HIA issue itself.... well who is to say?   I'm not at liberty to say anything but that I laughed.  Forgive me if indeed either of the players were genuine cases.
But you have a player under HIA supervision, and I take it that such signals are assessed from the very moment a medic team arrives with the player on the field.  They constantly watch the player.  If the suspicion is that it's the head, what reason would there be for a player to point to his head on the way down the tunnel...with cameras picking up the drama as an assistant of some kind really shouts over to him from the right.

It might have been innocent.  It looked as suspicious as hell as if the pointing at the head was deemed essential coverage before the cameras rushed back to the action.

You would hope that the embarrassment of it and the fact that they know that everyone else in the whole world knows they were pulling a fast one, might discourage them from doing it again quite so blatantly.

Owens gave them several opportunities to do the right thing with his questioning on the pitch and made it perfectly clear to Ireland and the watching world what he thought about it, but that his hands were tied.

Thankfully it did not effect the result of the match. You wonder as well if it stopped the French from giving the penalty attempt to the SH who came back on, who was probably the better kicker, as they knew what kind of stink that would have caused!

I presume that there must be some documentation involved in an HIA - from the perspective of the off field assessment. So perhaps that needs to be examined. And if a player who sustains one of these "brains in my knee" injuries passes the HIA assessment - maybe he should be sent back onto the pitch with his cruciate injury? And if he doesn't return despite passing the protocol - well maybe that needs to be questioned. Although I guess if a side is dodgy enough to pull someone off for HIA when it isn't they would cheat on the assessment as well and guarantee a fail.

BigGee wrote:Thankfully it did not effect the result of the match. You wonder as well if it stopped the French from giving the penalty attempt to the SH who came back on, who was probably the better kicker, as they knew what kind of stink that would have caused!

As far a I understand, a HIA replacement cannot be a designated place kicker until the time that it becomes a permanent replacement.

Wasn't some of the issue that the independent match medic was French? If so a medic from an independent nation would seem an obvious way forward.

France should lose points as a fine is pointless.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Wasn't some of the issue that the independent match medic was French? If so a medic from an independent nation would seem an obvious way forward.

A medic who would.... lie/tell an untruth... about a HIA (if he firmly believed it to be an untruth) when it is such a serious issue if genuine, is a disgrace to his profession, whether he's French, Dutch, a Kiwi or from any other nation.
You shouldn't need to keep making new rules upon rules to try to get closer to this thing called 'Independence'. Doctors should be true to their damn oath and vocation - is everything 'buyable' these days? Is nothing sacred?

I think if the medic was a knowing part of any cheating it's a much bigger issue than a rugby game, and we should presume that isn't the case unless we find out otherwise.

eirebilly wrote:It is a loophole in the procedure and France seemed to have used it. If instructed to, all players who get an injury can say to the independent Dr that they also have hit their head. No independent Dr is going to refuse to grant an HIA in these occurrences.

I cant see France being found guilty of anything but it could lead to a review of the HIA protocol which could mean players who claim HIA may have to sit out the rest of the match.

The unfortunate thing is that will bring us back full circle, with players "denying" a bump to the head, as they know they wont get back on.

It shouldn't and cannot be the players call.

I think the protocol, although open for abuse either way, needs to stay and maybe its time an "independent" match doctor was appointed to make the call.

All coaches find a way to "play" the protocol... Bloodgate, France (v Wales) last year re contested scrums in injury time, Wales (v Georgia) in the AI re uncontested scrum again in injury time, to mention a few. If each match had an independent doctor who would run on to assess the medical team at each injury, they could advise the ref, if in their medical opinion there was "gamesmanship" in the injury.

It would be better than scrapping the protocol and risk serious permanent damage.

(Sorry.. just realised I've spurt out what others have already said... I'll go back to sleep.. )

There was an independent doctor.

But no doctor will ignore a player if he tells them he's had a bump to the head.

Wasn't Owens the first person to mention a head knock? Or am I imagining it

Of course, another thing could be to mic up ALL the medics... I say ALL, as then its difficult to blame it on mic failure as the second medic's mic would pick up some of the conversation.

The player wont make a strategic call like that, as they wont know the coach wants to bring back on a player, so if this was a deliberate "playing the rules", the medic would have had to say to the player, somehow, we want you to say you hit your head and not the knee. As for "gesturing" to them, well there's enough cameras to ensure they are being seen.

If that was recorded and evidence is then there of a deliberate cheat according to the rules the 6 Nations committee should penalise by wiping ALL points for that game from them.

No team would do that again....

No9 wrote:Of course, another thing could be to mic up ALL the medics... I say ALL, as then its difficult to blame it on mic failure as the second medic's mic would pick up some of the conversation.

The player wont make a strategic call like that, as they wont know the coach wants to bring back on a player, so if this was a deliberate "playing the rules", the medic would have had to say to the player, somehow, we want you to say you hit your head and not the knee. As for "gesturing" to them, well there's enough cameras to ensure they are being seen.

If that was recorded and evidence is then there of a deliberate cheat according to the rules the 6 Nations committee should penalise by wiping ALL points for that game from them.

No team would do that again....

And the doctor should lose his license for practicing medicine?

As I said we should presume that it's not the case that the doctor was playing the system unless we have evidence.

No9 wrote:Of course, another thing could be to mic up ALL the medics... I say ALL, as then its difficult to blame it on mic failure as the second medic's mic would pick up some of the conversation.

The player wont make a strategic call like that, as they wont know the coach wants to bring back on a player, so if this was a deliberate "playing the rules", the medic would have had to say to the player, somehow, we want you to say you hit your head and not the knee. As for "gesturing" to them, well there's enough cameras to ensure they are being seen.

If that was recorded and evidence is then there of a deliberate cheat according to the rules the 6 Nations committee should penalise by wiping ALL points for that game from them.

No team would do that again....

What you seem to be saying is if they don't gesture at their head there may be cause to worry that they have a head injury

I thought the HIA law was brought in to the game as a matter of Health and Safety of the players. It is possible that a player could get 2 injuries at the same time, injuries to the player/s leg/knee that at the same rime he bangs his head on the floor.

Was it Johnny Sexton who asked Nigel Owens if he could check with the TMO? 

Nigel said he could not check with the TMO. 

Is the rule that the TMO can only be used in foul play, or to say if a try as been scored or not?

Surely their should be some written law/ rule that if the referee ( suspects that  the player may be faking an injury) he should be able to ask the TMO  to check what had happend in the tackle to cause the HIA in the first place.

I don't think we should presume anything but have legitimate opinions on the what-ifs.

A doctor is a doctor - as we've all witnessed in all our countries, they're not always good and decent or pure and lawful. There are bad corruptible eggs in all walks of life.
So as a general point, if we're discussing a potential mistreatment of serious HIA rules for the benefit of a team, then it's only natural that a what-if scenario is developed in relation to all interested bodies... the team, the medics that look after the team, any independent medics....

No9 wrote:Of course, another thing could be to mic up ALL the medics... I say ALL, as then its difficult to blame it on mic failure as the second medic's mic would pick up some of the conversation.

The player wont make a strategic call like that, as they wont know the coach wants to bring back on a player, so if this was a deliberate "playing the rules", the medic would have had to say to the player, somehow, we want you to say you hit your head and not the knee. As for "gesturing" to them, well there's enough cameras to ensure they are being seen.

If that was recorded and evidence is then there of a deliberate cheat according to the rules the 6 Nations committee should penalise by wiping ALL points for that game from them.

No team would do that again....

It is not that simple. Doctors have a duty of confidentiality. The Hippocratic Oath includes the following

About whatever I may see or hear in treatment, or even without treatment, in the life of human beings, I will remain silent, holding such things to be unutterable.

A doctor might consider that their duty as a doctor to protect a player allows them to say a players needs an HIA. That is as far as it goes. A doctor should not agree to wear a mic and have their conversations with their patient and/or a medical colleague overheard.

If this becomes a common occurrence then a move to rolling subs may be useful. If that happened it would have to be alongside a reduction in the number of subs available. If one has teams of 20 (two extra props, one extra hooker, one forward and one back) and players can come on and off as they like then there would be no need to fake anything.

May also limit player size too...

The introduction of the HIA protocol was to facilitate proper assessment of someone who may have sustained a head injury, so that it can take place in a controlled environment rather than on the pitch.
Note the word may.
Abuse of the HIA protocol is not uncommon. The most serious misuse is where someone who has sustained a clear head injury (and here I am referring to a significant head blow not a minor scalp wound or bump) is taken off for a HIA - whereas the reality is they should be taken off full stop. Here the player who has almost certainly sustained a concussive episode is wheeled off for 10 minutes so they aren't staggering quite so badly and then returned to the field of play. (being a bit facetious here)
The misuse here is labelling someone as requiring a HIA when they have had no discernible head injury. And here is the rub. Due to the high impact energy in modern rugby tackles it is quite possible for someone to have received a possible concussive "impact" without their head actually hitting something - akin to a sort of whiplash phenomenon where their head is shaken in the impact and their brain bounces around inside the skull. So if you wanted to be pedantic you could actually say anyone involved in a high energy tackle could be labelled as requiring a HIA - to make sure there was no possibility of a concussive episode.
I'm not arguing this to be correct merely saying that it is virtually impossible to prove someone didn't need a HIA, as you can use this argument in any high energy tackle situation. So it is wide open to the abuse which was almost certainly applied in the case of the French team (whether it was an independent match doctor or not). And from the perspective of the doctor involved - he can justify his decision by this reasoning. Even if he is fully aware that the likelihood of a concussive episode is virtually non-existent, he can say - "high energy impact - needs to be checked out". So he has a cast iron defence if someone says he was pulling a fast one even if he is and is fully cognisant of the fact.
Of course if you accept this premise, then any game of rugby could descend into farce with 2 or more players being dragged off for HIAs after any tackle.

Which is the reason they'll get away with cheating again. But there's a glimmer of hope.

screamingaddabs wrote:If this becomes a common occurrence then a move to rolling subs may be useful.  If that happened it would have to be alongside a reduction in the number of subs available. If one has teams of 20 (two extra props, one extra hooker, one forward and one back) and players can come on and off as they like then there would be no need to fake anything.

May also limit player size too...

No it wouldn't. If you can come on and off constantly, players will be even bigger.

Scottrf wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:If this becomes a common occurrence then a move to rolling subs may be useful.  If that happened it would have to be alongside a reduction in the number of subs available. If one has teams of 20 (two extra props, one extra hooker, one forward and one back) and players can come on and off as they like then there would be no need to fake anything.

May also limit player size too...

No it wouldn't. If you can come on and off constantly, players will be even bigger.

So with 20 players (of which 6 are front rowers) you can come on and off as much as you like, but there wouldn't be 8 new players to add at 60 minutes, there would be 6 back five forwards and 8 backs covering the whole 80 minutes. I'd like there to be fewer subs but the front row cover is a necessity for safety reasons.

If you had rolling sibs with 23 players I'd agree with you. I'd also be open to saying just 19 players (3 sub front row and a.n.other).

Yeah apologies. I didn't read your comment properly.

I still think the front does would be bigger if they could rotate every 10 minutes. At least at the moment they normally have to last 40 at a time.

Scottrf wrote:Yeah apologies. I didn't read your comment properly.

I still think the front does would be bigger if they could rotate every 10 minutes. At least at the moment they normally have to last 40 at a time.

No worries. You're right about the front row but I can't see a way around it due to safety issues. Players like Thacker would also be worth a fortune!

As expected, no action.

"While there was some debate about whether or not it had been appropriate for the match day doctor to call for an HIA in the circumstances, there was no evidence of anyone within the FFR seeking to gain a competitive advantage,"

Scottrf wrote:As expected, no action.

"While there was some debate about whether or not it had been appropriate for the match day doctor to call for an HIA in the circumstances, there was no evidence of anyone within the FFR seeking to gain a competitive advantage,"

To be fair, none of the French medical team needed to play fast and loose, because the match day doctor made his call quickly.

The second a player points to their head the match day Dr will call it. They've gotten away with it again.

The thing is World Rugby can't anticipate the way teams (and this includes everybody) will use the Laws in the way nobody had anticipated.

Gamesmanship abounds and they have to keep re-writing the Laws.

One team tries to keep the opposition out in the cold while they stay in their dressing room, next season all teams have to come out together.

One team spots a loophole in the law regarding rucks, next season they close that loophole.

One team getting humped at the scrum and hanging on for dear life at the end of the game suddenly finds their replacement prop (the other being sinbinned) can't play because of cramps - yet to see what they do here.

They are also a bit cagey around the HIA rules, and rightly so as it's very much a focus at the minute - although it does seem that one team has attracted controversy on two occasions around this area, so they better get re-writing the protocols on this or it'll become a recurrent happenstance.

Bottom line is player safety, but lets not prostitute that sentiment to a tactical advantage.

TrailApe wrote:The thing is World Rugby can't anticipate the way teams (and this includes everybody) will use the Laws in the way nobody had anticipated.

Gamesmanship abounds and they have to keep re-writing the Laws...

A couple of years ago, Austin Healey said that Leicester should use the law exactly that way

The “Leicester Lip” was commentating on the recent Champions Cup semi final game between his old club Leicester and Racing Metro when the Leicester outside half Freddie Burns suffered an ankle injury in a tackle.

Healey then suggested in commentary:

“The sensible thing to do here is – I know it’s not strictly legal but, to maybe claim that he has got a potential head injury and go off for a HIA. Get Williams [the substitute] on, maybe get him off, painkillers, strapped up and see how he is – get him to half time. The problem is if he goes off now you can’t see him again for the rest of the game”.

https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/austin-healey-suggests-faking-head-injuries/

In reply to criticism, he said it only what any professional would think of doing. He hasn't said anything like that again, so there's a chance he realized he'd gone too far.

A couple of years ago, Austin Healey said that Leicester should use the law exactly that way

Yup - they'll all try it if they think they can get away with it.

World Rugby just has to get a bit smarter and not assume that laws - especially safety laws - will get bent so far they cease to protect what they were originally envisaged.

Sort of on the point, but not totally...

A year or so back, ITV had a rubbish sciencey type programme, where they asked silly questions and looked to the other presenter for the answer. Anyway, the point I'm getting at, is on that show they questioned about concussion in contact sports and demonstrated a gum shield that had some electronics in it, which could sense serious blows that could cause concussion. When the gum shield sensed these it lit up red LEDs so it couldn't be questioned. Of course it wasn't the only answer to assessing concussion, and a player would still have to be assessed by a Dr, but surely if this technology is available, it should be trailed and maybe used in rugby. If the tech works in a gum shield, perhaps it can be adapted to the GPS tags all players where these days, so that it can alert a Drs laptop.

Anyone else, see or remember the show and tech I'm referring to. Wonder if that company has managed to progress its product. If they have, then theres a lot of money to be earned out there, I bet with all the lawsuits in NFL, they'd definitely be interested.


Edit...
After typing this.. thought I'd google and found it (or another product the same) straight away.. https://www.fitguard.me/

Surely this is a good thing.