Gloucester vs Sale - Sat 4.30pm

[Peej]

what was the reasoning behind the difference? In my view the du Preez one was worse

[Gloskarlos]

what was the reasoning behind the difference? In my view the du Preez one was worse

This.

[Gloskarlos]

Copied from Shedweb where there’s a full pdf available on the Slater hearing.

Basically Slater admitted the act of foul play. Apologised to the Sale2 by sending him a message. The Sale 2 said contact was made with his head/neck. Sale provided a letter from a Dr saying the 2 had discomfort with his head/neck since. Although both did not dial into the hearing.

Slater argued he did not make contact with Head/neck it was shoulder to shoulder. Entry at 6 week ban. They could have given him 50% dispensation. But he had had a 2 week ban for striking in 2017 so they knocked off 2 weeks.

I have no detail on the Du Preez length of ban.

[Raggs]

what was the reasoning behind the difference? In my view the du Preez one was worse

Mitigating? Du Preez can claim it was a balls up tackle on a rapidly falling opponent, Slater went straight in to a static opponent,with no change in height/position etc.

Slater has a history too I think.

[Gloskarlos]

I suspect he also had 6 weeks, but with a guilty plea and no previous he can get a 50% reduction, hence 3 weeks rather than Slaters‘4

[Gloskarlos]

What is concerning, is that the Sale 2 never went off for an HIA, wasn’t picked up by the ‘myriad of observers’ employed to monitor head injuries, and played on. Subsequently then complaining of head/neck soreness after the game. Chris Harris was taken off for HIA. Inconsistent there.

[chris1850]

Punishments seem fair to me. Both offences were equally bad imv; it is splitting hairs to try to argue one was worse than the other and looking for any significant mitigation that might distinguish them from each other is nitpicking. These sort of challenges need to stamped down upon.

I suspect that the one weeks difference in the bans is for the reason suggested. Slater has previous, DDP doesn't. Therefore the panel has followed the protocols in place. Not sure either club/player/supporters have grounds for complaint

[chris1850]

What is concerning, is that the Sale 2 never went off for an HIA, wasn’t picked up by the ‘myriad of observers’ employed to monitor head injuries, and played on. Subsequently then complaining of head/neck soreness after the game. Chris Harris was taken off for HIA. Inconsistent there.

I agree. I understand independent observers are present at games and they make the call regarding HiAs. When you view the footage of both incidents, I think there is clear enough contact with the head in each case. I do wonder why it then took 3 minutes for the call for Harris to come off? Perhaps it was originally considered an HIA wasn't necessary but then the medical staff considered his subsequent appearance meant one should be done as a precaution. Whereas Van der Meuweperhaps didn't display any obvious signs? Just a thought.

[Gloskarlos]

I don’t think anyone is complaining, not from what I’ve read. Both deserved bans, both got one. I see fairly significant differences between the two incidents, but the ultimate fallout is contact with the head in each case, so from that stance alone I can agree.

I can’t answer why CH was taken off several minutes after the incident, he was at the time, and subsequently on Twitter, quite affronted that he had to be taken off. Not that that should have any impact in whether a HIA should happen or not. In the case of the Sale hooker, I’ve no idea. The fact that he’s got a doctors note suggests to me he should have had an HIA during the game, but what do I know.

[Peej]

Akker is also starting tomorrow night.

[Puja]

What is concerning, is that the Sale 2 never went off for an HIA, wasn’t picked up by the ‘myriad of observers’ employed to monitor head injuries, and played on. Subsequently then complaining of head/neck soreness after the game. Chris Harris was taken off for HIA. Inconsistent there.

I agree. I understand independent observers are present at games and they make the call regarding HiAs. When you view the footage of both incidents, I think there is clear enough contact with the head in each case. I do wonder why it then took 3 minutes for the call for Harris to come off? Perhaps it was originally considered an HIA wasn't necessary but then the medical staff considered his subsequent appearance meant one should be done as a precaution. Whereas Van der Meuweperhaps didn't display any obvious signs? Just a thought.

I think the independent observers ought to be making a lot more calls on dragging players off. The whole point of the HIA is that you can't tell if a player is concussed or not by a physio running onto the pitch and asking them a couple of questions, but you see it time and time again that someone takes a blow to the head, the physio looks at them and they say, "No, I'm feeling fine," and they're allowed to play on. The obvious one was Faletau last weekend who carried on for several minutes before being hauled off for the HIA.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Yep, I've said it before, it's a Head Injury Assessment, not a Concussion Confirmation Assessment

[chris1850]

What is concerning, is that the Sale 2 never went off for an HIA, wasn’t picked up by the ‘myriad of observers’ employed to monitor head injuries, and played on. Subsequently then complaining of head/neck soreness after the game. Chris Harris was taken off for HIA. Inconsistent there.

I agree. I understand independent observers are present at games and they make the call regarding HiAs. When you view the footage of both incidents, I think there is clear enough contact with the head in each case. I do wonder why it then took 3 minutes for the call for Harris to come off? Perhaps it was originally considered an HIA wasn't necessary but then the medical staff considered his subsequent appearance meant one should be done as a precaution. Whereas Van der Meuweperhaps didn't display any obvious signs? Just a thought.

I think the independent observers ought to be making a lot more calls on dragging players off. The whole point of the HIA is that you can't tell if a player is concussed or not by a physio running onto the pitch and asking them a couple of questions, but you see it time and time again that someone takes a blow to the head, the physio looks at them and they say, "No, I'm feeling fine," and they're allowed to play on. The obvious one was Faletau last weekend who carried on for several minutes before being hauled off for the HIA.

Puja

As with many situations, it is a difficult balance to make. Rugby is an extremely physical game and it is inevitable that players will suffer blows to the head during a match. Clearly, some are far more serious than others and not every contact with the head will necessarily merit a HIA. On the other hand, given current concerns over player welfare and the recent awareness of the potential long term effects of head knocks and it could well be argued that ANY blow to the head should require an HIA

Add to the mix the fact that it is a spur if the moment decision that has to be made, the observers are only human with naturally differing views and interpretations, and it is very difficult to expect any great consistency unfortunately.

[Puja]

I agree. I understand independent observers are present at games and they make the call regarding HiAs. When you view the footage of both incidents, I think there is clear enough contact with the head in each case. I do wonder why it then took 3 minutes for the call for Harris to come off? Perhaps it was originally considered an HIA wasn't necessary but then the medical staff considered his subsequent appearance meant one should be done as a precaution. Whereas Van der Meuweperhaps didn't display any obvious signs? Just a thought.

I think the independent observers ought to be making a lot more calls on dragging players off. The whole point of the HIA is that you can't tell if a player is concussed or not by a physio running onto the pitch and asking them a couple of questions, but you see it time and time again that someone takes a blow to the head, the physio looks at them and they say, "No, I'm feeling fine," and they're allowed to play on. The obvious one was Faletau last weekend who carried on for several minutes before being hauled off for the HIA.

Puja

As with many situations, it is a difficult balance to make. Rugby is an extremely physical game and it is inevitable that players will suffer blows to the head during a match. Clearly, some are far more serious than others and not every contact with the head will necessarily merit a HIA. On the other hand, given current concerns over player welfare and the recent awareness of the potential long term effects of head knocks and it could well be argued that ANY blow to the head should require an HIA

Add to the mix the fact that it is a spur if the moment decision that has to be made, the observers are only human with naturally differing views and interpretations, and it is very difficult to expect any great consistency unfortunately.

It could and should be the case that ANY halfway significant blow to the head requires an HIA. That's the whole point of them - it's not possible to tell just by looking whether a head knock is "bad enough", so all of them should be assessed. It shouldn't be a decision or an interpretation - it should just be "that guy got hit in the head; let's check him out."

Puja

[Which Tyler]

It could and should be the case that ANY halfway significant blow to the head requires an HIA. That's the whole point of them - it's not possible to tell just by looking whether a head knock is "bad enough", so all of them should be assessed. It shouldn't be a decision or an interpretation - it should just be "that guy got hit in the head; let's check him out."

This has never been more appropriate

[Big D]

I think the independent observers ought to be making a lot more calls on dragging players off. The whole point of the HIA is that you can't tell if a player is concussed or not by a physio running onto the pitch and asking them a couple of questions, but you see it time and time again that someone takes a blow to the head, the physio looks at them and they say, "No, I'm feeling fine," and they're allowed to play on. The obvious one was Faletau last weekend who carried on for several minutes before being hauled off for the HIA.

Puja

As with many situations, it is a difficult balance to make. Rugby is an extremely physical game and it is inevitable that players will suffer blows to the head during a match. Clearly, some are far more serious than others and not every contact with the head will necessarily merit a HIA. On the other hand, given current concerns over player welfare and the recent awareness of the potential long term effects of head knocks and it could well be argued that ANY blow to the head should require an HIA

Add to the mix the fact that it is a spur if the moment decision that has to be made, the observers are only human with naturally differing views and interpretations, and it is very difficult to expect any great consistency unfortunately.

It could and should be the case that ANY halfway significant blow to the head requires an HIA. That's the whole point of them - it's not possible to tell just by looking whether a head knock is "bad enough", so all of them should be assessed. It shouldn't be a decision or an interpretation - it should just be "that guy got hit in the head; let's check him out."

Puja

The problem I see with that, and it is minor. Is that not all head knocks are created equal. How many times will a forward clash heads with another in a ruck and it not really be noticed? That could be just as concussive as an open field head knock.

I think the best way of approaching it is if the physio needs to go on to see the player for a head knock then it is a HIA that is required*. And if an independent doctor can say the clubs medial staff didn't attend to a player or administer a HIA quick enough then fines should be handed out and ultimately points deductions. There may be independent medical staff at the ground but the onus must be on the team to protect their staff.

*Although as this is professional support that would erode into physios not running on as quickly

[Puja]

As with many situations, it is a difficult balance to make. Rugby is an extremely physical game and it is inevitable that players will suffer blows to the head during a match. Clearly, some are far more serious than others and not every contact with the head will necessarily merit a HIA. On the other hand, given current concerns over player welfare and the recent awareness of the potential long term effects of head knocks and it could well be argued that ANY blow to the head should require an HIA

Add to the mix the fact that it is a spur if the moment decision that has to be made, the observers are only human with naturally differing views and interpretations, and it is very difficult to expect any great consistency unfortunately.

It could and should be the case that ANY halfway significant blow to the head requires an HIA. That's the whole point of them - it's not possible to tell just by looking whether a head knock is "bad enough", so all of them should be assessed. It shouldn't be a decision or an interpretation - it should just be "that guy got hit in the head; let's check him out."

Puja

The problem I see with that, and it is minor. Is that not all head knocks are created equal. How many times will a forward clash heads with another in a ruck and it not really be noticed? That could be just as concussive as an open field head knock.

I think the best way of approaching it is if the physio needs to go on to see the player for a head knock then it is a HIA that is required*. And if an independent doctor can say the clubs medial staff didn't attend to a player or administer a HIA quick enough then fines should be handed out and ultimately points deductions. There may be independent medical staff at the ground but the onus must be on the team to protect their staff.

*Although as this is professional support that would erode into physios not running on as quickly

That is an issue, but one that we can deal with when we've got rid of players clashing heads and then both staying on "because they feel fine".

Puja