RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote: If the match doctor can simply show the footage he saw that he felt meant an HIA was the right call, then no problem, no need for it to be a lights out scenario, just an impact to the head.

If the review contradicts them, then what? The HIA will already have been called, the replacement will be on and playing. If that wouldn't have been a valid substitution in a none HIA situation is that replacement then hooked? Can the team put another player on who would have been a valid sub? What if in the interim, working under the assumption that it was a legit HIA, they've made another change that means they don't have another valid sub they can use?

Sorry if this seems a bit like I'm asking you to draw up a system on the fly, but anything that's put in place to replace the current system needs to be robust, and be able to resist the urge to be be "negotiated".

16th man wrote:

Raggs wrote: If the match doctor can simply show the footage he saw that he felt meant an HIA was the right call, then no problem, no need for it to be a lights out scenario, just an impact to the head.

If the review contradicts them, then what? The HIA will already have been called, the replacement will be on and playing. If that wouldn't have been a valid substitution in a none HIA situation is that replacement then hooked? Can the team put another player on who would have been a valid sub? What if in the interim, working under the assumption that it was a legit HIA, they've made another change that means they don't have another valid sub they can use?

Sorry if this seems a bit like I'm asking you to draw up a system on the fly, but anything that's put in place to replace the current system needs to be robust, and be able to resist the urge to be be "negotiated".

The result obviously has to stand, but the independent doctor won't be used again in the future, or if he's only independent in as much as he's not involved in the teams, but is still French, then the system can perhaps be modified that he needs to be of an independent nation. I'm not suggested the entire current system is scrapped and replaced, simply that calls that are fraudulent (not merely wrong) need to be reacted to. Perhaps the doc saw an angle that made him believe the head was impacted, perhaps he saw something from the previous phase, perhaps there was a severe whiplash like effect he was worried about, I don't know. But given the circumstances, and that the French have a history of such things, I don't think it's ludicrous that such a powerful position should also have a review system in place (and maybe it already does!).

I don't think there's anything to be done, a player could easily have taken a knock to the head earlier in the game and only now be realising (or admitting) so. Once an HIA is suggested by a player or anyone else it's a done deal it has to happen.

Please bear in mind the
A] the "patient has the right to two cute things" he can knackered a knee AND hit their head
B] the TV producers are the host broadcaster, with no claim for independence.
C] pictures shown on TV and in the stadium are NOT the pictures available to the TMO / medical officer
D] these decisions are happening on real time, how many levels of independent medics do you need until you find it trustworthy? If one isn't independent enough, make that one more independent.
E] once an HIA has been called, it stays called. If one angle shows grounds for an HIA, and an HIA is called, then an HIA happens, even if another angle suggests it wasn't needed. Equally, if the ref calls for an HIA, he can't change his mind because the player has a painful knee.
F] yesterday, the TV angles we were shown showed enough to justify both HIAs, even though overall, I didn't see enough to think there was any LoC. There will also have been other angles, or the same angle after the director had moved on.
G] you don't need head contact to suffer concussion
H] an HIA may be being called for a comlletely separate incident up to 10 minutes earlier
I] assuming that the independent Dr is genuinely independent, then there's already no cause for abuse of the system, even if there is, it's a hell of an improvement on the previous situation of the salary!e abuse AND more dangerous abuse.

"Good to hear that the Six Nations' HIA Review Processor is "reviewing a number of incidents from the France v Ireland match in the senior men’s championship."

Some questionable stuff in Paris yesterday."

Looks like there is someone to review the reviews as such. I'm happy now.

The media are all over it, though I've yet to see any of them be aware that the decision was made by a neutral party.
The only question for me is about just how neutral the Dr is. If he's local-ish, then s/he'll be bias towards the host team; if from a non-involved nation, then there's nothing more that can be done, and the chances are that there were other pictures we didn't see (or that Nige should never have called the 2nd HIA - which again, I've not seen anyone in the media acknowledge).

Oh, and we've known for a while that there are reviews of the HIA procedures, see Saints being investigated and getting off with a bunch of bullshit, or Glos get investigated and found not guilty despite being guilty as sin.

Which Tyler wrote:Please bear in mind the
A] the "patient has the right to two cute things" he can knackered a knee AND hit their head
B] the TV producers are the host broadcaster, with no claim for independence.
C] pictures shown on TV and in the stadium are NOT the pictures available to the TMO / medical officer
D] these decisions are happening on real time, how many levels of independent medics do you need until you find it trustworthy? If one isn't independent enough, make that one more independent.
E] once an HIA has been called, it stays called. If one angle shows grounds for an HIA, and an HIA is called, then an HIA happens, even if another angle suggests it wasn't needed. Equally, if the ref calls for an HIA, he can't change his mind because the player has a painful knee.
F] yesterday, the TV angles we were shown showed enough to justify both HIAs, even though overall, I didn't see enough to think there was any LoC. There will also have been other angles, or the same angle after the director had moved on.
G] you don't need head contact to suffer concussion
H] an HIA may be being called for a comlletely separate incident up to 10 minutes earlier
I] assuming that the independent Dr is genuinely independent, then there's already no cause for abuse of the system, even if there is, it's a hell of an improvement on the previous situation of the salary!e abuse AND more dangerous abuse.

My problem is what happens when a player is injured and no one is able to come on. Yet with an HIA, they can. Not saying it was abused but it could be.

If the player is due to come off anyway...

Playing on with an injury risks aggravating the injury.
Playing on with concussion risks instant death.
These things are not the same.

As I've said... somewhere (might not even be RR), if the question is "should we just allow rolling subs" or even "should we just allow 10 minutes for any injury" then the rugby fan in me hates the idea; the medic in me things it's probably sensible.

Seems to be a rather complicated sounding plot to me. A lot of assumptions need to be made: the doc is french; the doc knows that france need a 9 back on in this case; the doc is biased.

Looked like being overly-cautious rather than conspiratorial in my opinion. I also smiled at irish players being irritated by possible gamesmanship.

Raggs wrote:

"Good to hear that the Six Nations' HIA Review Processor is "reviewing a number of incidents from the France v Ireland match in the senior men’s championship."

Some questionable stuff in Paris yesterday."

Looks like there is someone to review the reviews as such. I'm happy now.

But what can the review uncover?

I suppose like Bloodgate they could ban the players as they did with Tom Williams and hope like with Williams the players involved then admit what happened rather than saying you don't have any proof only suspicion so you can go whistle with your ban

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

"Good to hear that the Six Nations' HIA Review Processor is "reviewing a number of incidents from the France v Ireland match in the senior men’s championship."

Some questionable stuff in Paris yesterday."

Looks like there is someone to review the reviews as such. I'm happy now.

But what can the review uncover?

I suppose like Bloodgate they could ban the players as they did with Tom Williams and hope like with Williams the players involved then admit what happened rather than saying you don't have any proof only suspicion so you can go whistle with your ban

This would be the worst possible approach in my view, as it reinserts the player into the decision about coming off for a review, and time and again, they and the people advising them, have been shown to be completely unable and untrustworthy to be making that choice.

At what point was the player taken out of the decision making process?
At what point was the team doctor taken out of the decision making process?

I'll give you a clue - they haven't been. If the player says "I've a headache" then they get an HIA. If the team Doc says "he sounded a little incoherent" then they get an HIA.

The independent doc is to add an I dependent pair of eyes to the TV screen (and to perform the HIA itself) in an attempt to prevent players not being given an HIA, or passing when they've failed. They absolutely are not there to prevent an HIA from happening, and they have no ability to do so.
Technically (I believe) the ref can deny an HIA. They will never, ever do so, no matter how sceptical they are. Worst case scenario, they deny an HIA for a player, who goes and dies from second impact syndrome 10 minutes later. The ref over-rules the medical expert, and that decision results in death. Is that a risk you'd want to take as a ref?


As for a review, it won't make any difference at all to yesterday, the very best that could come out of it is that the neutral Doc was based, and let's stop that; or possibly, by being neutral, s/he also wasn't a specialist, and was overly cautious.

Which Tyler wrote:At what point was the player taken out of the decision making process?
At what point was the team doctor taken out of the decision making process?

I'll give you a clue - they haven't been. .

So if the independent Dr. sees something on the screen, decides that player needs a HIA, but the player then tells the ref "no, I'm fine", then he's allowed to just crack on? Because if not, then the player has been taken out of the decision making process. And rightly so, because they can't be trusted to make that decision themselves.

No, but the player never had that right anyway, so it hasn't been removed.

Scrumhead wrote:What are your predictions for the results and talking points for round 1?

I’m going with:

Wales 23 - Scotland 15

Halfpenny’s boot to punish the Scottish scrum’s lack of established front rowers and Adams to score a debut try.

France 12 - Ireland 16

France to look surprisingly good with Jalibert stealing the show at 10. Ireland to grind it out with a single converted try and three penalties.

Italy 10 - England 25

England to labour to a turgid victory going in 7 - 10 at the break and eventually pulling clear with a couple more tries and penalties in the second half. Simmonds to bag a try.

I wasn’t too far off on these ... at least on the results if not the exact scorelines.

France weren’t surprisingly good and Scotland were surprisingly bad.

According to the Times.......the Dupont HIA protocol was initiated by a call from Kiwi ass ref, Paul Williams, and because if this the French fourth official, Thomas Charabas, puts the protocol into action. When Dupont tells Owens that it’s his knee and the French team on the sidelines tells Charabas the same, Charabas tried to halt the protocol but he is over ruled by the match doc, Frenchman Gilles Garet. Garet is vice-President of the medical committee of the FFR........

How can he be claimed to be independent?

Yeah if the independent Doc isn't independent, then s/he's a waste of time.

Of course, Charabas should never have tried to halt to protocol, once called only the ref can do that. GNorth thought it was his shoulder and didn't know he'd been unconscious, Dom Ryan thought he was winded and didn't know he'd been unconscious etc etc.

Which Tyler wrote:Yeah if the independent Doc isn't independent, then s/he's a ware of time.

Of course, Charabas should never have tried to halt to protocol, once called only the ref can do that. GNorth thought it was his shoulder and didn't know he'd been unconscious, Dom Ryan thought he was winded and didn't know he'd been unconscious etc etc.

Yep. The conversation around this, and the actions of Charabas, doesn’t take in to account that you can injure your brain and another part of your body in the same incident.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Yeah if the independent Doc isn't independent, then s/he's a ware of time.

Of course, Charabas should never have tried to halt to protocol, once called only the ref can do that. GNorth thought it was his shoulder and didn't know he'd been unconscious, Dom Ryan thought he was winded and didn't know he'd been unconscious etc etc.

Yep. The conversation around this, and the actions of Charabas, doesn’t take in to account that you can injure your brain and another part of your body in the same incident.

The first knee/HIA for the flyhalf was fine for me. His head clearly struck Aki's thigh/hip, so you can justify also needing an HIA. The 2nd one didn't seem to have that reasoning.

I do like the idea suggested by the eggchasers, the HIA stands regardless once called for, the player need to undergo testing, however the Doc also makes a second call, where he decides if the player would have been removed for other injuries regardless, and therefore shouldn't be replaced.

By some of the proposed solutions I've seen, presumably NZ should be docked championship points as a kiwi made the call? Next time they're in a championship with Ireland (the victims here, no doubt) would be the RWC19. I think we can all agree that a 5 point deduction for NZ there would be fair?


As to the Eggchasers solution, which becomes more important to examine? How many times do players try to 'run its off' whether they should or not based on later knowledge. It sounds like a good call, but I think it falls foul of a common assumption that pitch-side diagnosis is more easy and absolute than reality.
You get 10 minutes for an HIA.
You get more-or-less as long as you like to assess a knee, and often see how it feels at the next break in play.
The HIA replacement is only for the 10 minutes, if failed, then the replacement player comes off or becomes a sub.

I’m not worried about solutions, I want people to blame. The obvious conclusion is that the Kiwis and Le Frogs are cheats, which merely backs up what we already knew.

Scrumhead wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:What are your predictions for the results and talking points for round 1?

I’m going with:

Wales 23 - Scotland 15

Halfpenny’s boot to punish the Scottish scrum’s lack of established front rowers and Adams to score a debut try.

France 12 - Ireland 16

France to look surprisingly good with Jalibert stealing the show at 10. Ireland to grind it out with a single converted try and three penalties.

Italy 10 - England 25

England to labour to a turgid victory going in 7 - 10 at the break and eventually pulling clear with a couple more tries and penalties in the second half. Simmonds to bag a try.

I wasn’t too far off on these ... at least on the results if not the exact scorelines.

France weren’t surprisingly good and Scotland were surprisingly bad.

I'd say France were better than expected for a pretty scratch team with a new coach. They did not do anything great in attack but tackled like demons. The foul weather was a great leveller. It did not look too bad on screen but you could see against the occasional dark background that it was bucketing down. Brilliant piece of rugby by Ireland to work patiently through 41 phases of possession leading to the drop goal in those conditions.

I agree that they were better than expected, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say they were ‘surprisingly good’. They were OK. As you say, the conditions weren’t helpful but I didn’t see anything to suggest they have it in them to be significantly better than OK.

They’re probably saving their one good performance for us ...