Saints get away with it

[Puja]

So, the official findings are out and the conclusion is that North probably was unconscious and, while he passed the HIA and procedures were followed correctly, he should not have gone back on the field.

They have also concluded that Saints are not at fault and do not need to be punished.

What the hell.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/cmrg-m ... endations/
RFU report on the report; includes a link to the report itself; which I'll read when I get round to it.

It sounds to me like they're rather unimpressed with Saints; but can't quite say that they think someone's lying; as the tick-box questionnairre has had its boxes ticked.


The Concussion Management Review Group recommendations are:

1. George North follows the graduated return to play protocol to optimise his recovery.
I assume this was already the case; absolutely nothing to be lost by doing so.

2. The pitch side video reviewer (PVR) should remain in their allocated seat;
How was this not already the case? if a man has 1 job to do, then he should be doing that job!

3. Wireless connectivity should be checked for those allocated seats;
Yes, it should have been obvious, but fair enough, I don't expect humans to think of all eventualities beforehand

4. Consideration be given to the introduction of a ‘support PVR’ to ensure that the video feeds continue to be monitored and additional clips can be downloaded if the PVR is discussing matters with the medical team (e.g. over radio link) or the development of automatically downloaded clips of incidents;
Fair enough, though the PVR with his one job to do ought to be able to multitask to the point of keeping 1 eye on the live feed whilst talking to someone by headset - no need for him to have left his post in the first place to have a face-to-face conversation instead of doing his job.

5. That at the forthcoming mid-season Premiership Club medical meetings, planned for February 2017, the reviewing and training team emphasise and re-enforce the necessity to review footage before starting the HIA assessment and the criteria in respect of permanent removal from the field of play;
It shouldn't need re-emphasising, but it's a new thing; so fair enough (though it reads that this might be a case of "letting them off".

6. The team doctor must review the video footages for permanent removal criteria both before commencing and after completing the HIA assessment in the medical room (or designated HIA area);
I thought this was already the case.

7. Irrespective of whether part of the HIA assessment has or has not been carried out on the pitch, the entire HIA must be completed again once in the medical room by the examining doctor;
Bloody obvious, but if missed, then so be it; let's nail that down formally

8. The maximum permitted time for an HIA process, in the Premiership in the 2016-17 season is 13 minutes. Given the importance of the HIA assessment in respect of player welfare the HIA should not be unduly shortened without clear reason;
Bloody obvious, and I guess the only real way of shortening it is either skipping point 7 above, or by just treating it like a tick-box questionnaire because you're not suspicious of anything - not that I'm claiming that North would have failed an HIA, I just don't think it was conducted properly

9. Hard wire live feeds should be reinstated to the medical/HIA rooms with recording and play back facility which would add resilience to the wireless MyPlayXplay system both in terms of functionality and also definition if, for any reason, there is an issue with the main (Wi-Fi) system.
Fair enough - if WiFi drops out, then a back-up is needed

[fivepointer]

"The Concussion Management Review Group's (CMRG) view is that there was sufficient evidence to conclude not only from the video evidence but also George North's history and risk stratification that he should not have returned to the field of play," said the report.

Weird. They say this but decide not to take any action.

Do Saints employ the same lawyers as Christine Lagarde?

[Mellsblue]

What a farce.

[Which Tyler]

"The Concussion Management Review Group's (CMRG) view is that there was sufficient evidence to conclude not only from the video evidence but also George North's history and risk stratification that he should not have returned to the field of play," said the report.

Weird. They say this but decide not to take any action.

Do Saints employ the same lawyers as Christine Lagarde?

They're claiming not to have seen the evidence that GN should not have played on; and provided an excuse that was plausible enough; and made recommendations to close down that excuse for future occassions.

[Mellsblue]

George North: Rugby authorities are 'experimenting on players' brains' says medical expert
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38397614

Seems we're not the only unhappy ones. Some people even more influential than the RR think tank are not happy. Beattie doesn't waste an opportunity to use some hyperbole.

[fivepointer]

I come back to a point I made on the earlier thread. Given it was George North, who has had a few issues with concussion, why on earth didnt someone just say that irrespective of the HIA outcome this player was definitely not going back out on the field. What on earth were the medics thinking in allowing him to go back on?

Sometimes you have to go beyond protocols and procedures and just exercise common sense and some discretion, particularly with a player who has a history of being knocked out.

[Puja]

I come back to a point I made on the earlier thread. Given it was George North, who has had a few issues with concussion, why on earth didnt someone just say that irrespective of the HIA outcome this player was definitely not going back out on the field. What on earth were the medics thinking in allowing him to go back on?

Sometimes you have to go beyond protocols and procedures and just exercise common sense and some discretion, particularly with a player who has a history of being knocked out.

Yeah, Saints were clearly in the mindset of, "Can we get him back on?" rather than, "Should he go back on?" And the investigation has ratified that mindset as correct by saying that Saints ticked the boxes of the minimum requirements and are therefore blameless. The enquiry should never have been whether Saints followed the minimum necessary, but whether they endangered the player.

I agree with the charity quote on that BBC article - this was a chance to set the standard and change the behaviour, and it's been bottled. Surely if the IRB got involved in the Marler racism enquiry, they ought to poke their noses into this one?

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

A disgrace of a decision. Saints excuse doesn't bear scrutiny. The irb having called Gatland in for an explanation may yet call Mallinder in.

There is a very real risk that someone is going to get killed in a high profile game at this rate.

[ad_tigger]

A disgrace of a decision. Saints excuse doesn't bear scrutiny. The irb having called Gatland in for an explanation may yet call Mallinder in.

There is a very real risk that someone is going to get killed in a high profile game at this rate.

I agree entirely, if I was George North's dad, at this point I think I'd rather he took up wing suit flying than ever stepped on a rugby pitch again.

[twitchy]

I come back to a point I made on the earlier thread. Given it was George North, who has had a few issues with concussion, why on earth didnt someone just say that irrespective of the HIA outcome this player was definitely not going back out on the field. What on earth were the medics thinking in allowing him to go back on?

Sometimes you have to go beyond protocols and procedures and just exercise common sense and some discretion, particularly with a player who has a history of being knocked out.

It really was a complete failure no matter how you look at it.

[twitchy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38403463

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Good to see Hargreaves genuinely angry. Hopefully that sort of attitude might inspire the irb to get involved

[Mellsblue]

Good to see Hargreaves genuinely angry. Hopefully that sort of attitude might inspire the irb to get involved

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/214113

'While recognising that there is always a risk of human error, we will seek further information from the RFU regarding the factors behind the apparent non-compliance with World Rugby protocols and the outcomes reached by the independent review group'

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Good to see Hargreaves genuinely angry. Hopefully that sort of attitude might inspire the irb to get involved

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/214113

'While recognising that there is always a risk of human error, we will seek further information from the RFU regarding the factors behind the apparent non-compliance with World Rugby protocols and the outcomes reached by the independent review group'

Fantastic. Hopefully they'll do more this time than they did when they simply ticked Gatland off.

[Puja]

Good to see Hargreaves genuinely angry. Hopefully that sort of attitude might inspire the irb to get involved

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/214113

'While recognising that there is always a risk of human error, we will seek further information from the RFU regarding the factors behind the apparent non-compliance with World Rugby protocols and the outcomes reached by the independent review group'

Holy crap. That actually sounds strident enough that they sound like they mean business. Well done the IRB - good start, now keep going at it.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

IRB feedback
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/215539
Please note, I've only started skim reading it - and it look like my home-made theory about the HIA just being an excuse to assess GN's neck with the HIA being a tick-box formality was pretty close to the mark

The robust head injury protocols defined within the Tournament Player Welfare Standards were not fully adhered to at the match in question. Prioritisation by the medical staff given to evaluating a potential spinal injury to North, was advanced as the principal reason for the non-compliance of head injury protocols.
The non-application of the protocols resulted in North not being immediately and permanently removed from the field of play as he should have been, without requiring a Head Injury Assessment (HIA).

[Mellsblue]

I wouldn't bother reading much more. 50% of the statement is World Rugby telling us how great they are/mitigating against future lawsuits. The other 50% is stating the bleeding obvious.

[I R Geech]

Is it just the increased focus on it, or are players getting sparked far more often this season? Last season it didn't seem that common, George North aside, but this term it feels like there are several players getting the lights put out every weekend.

[Which Tyler]

I think that everyone is just more aware, and playing it safe.

[Peej]

It'll be interesting to see if, with the new laws, more players get knocked out

[Mellsblue]

Sale are next in the dock:

TJ Ioane: Sale Sharks concussion protocol at Harlequins to be investigated
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38613655

[Which Tyler]

In a race with Munster to be next (I've not seen either yet)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38630488

[Eugene Wrayburn]

In a race with Munster to be next (I've not seen either yet)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38630488

I saw the Munster one. Extremely bad refereeing. Stopped play because he thought the player had been knocked out - and it seemed that was immobile for a bit - but didn't send him for an HIA. Eventually someone called him ashore but unexpectedly he was released back into the wild. I guess having seen the extremely stiff sanctions handed out to Wales and Saints (not), DoRs know exactly where they stand.

[morepork]

This really needs to be sorted out. Look for a spike in dementia in ex professional rugby players in 20 years time. Fucking ridiculous in this day and age of data.