Re: V Chiefs
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:00 pm
You're absolutely right,.......but you have to tell CGS. I ain't telling him.onlynameleft wrote: Surely it's not up to the concussed player when the concussed player returns to playing?
You're absolutely right,.......but you have to tell CGS. I ain't telling him.onlynameleft wrote: Surely it's not up to the concussed player when the concussed player returns to playing?
seems they must be pretty passive to let him back ononlynameleft wrote:Surely it's not up to the concussed player when the concussed player returns to playing?Banquo wrote:That's great. There is a difference in the pressure Lawes would be putting on himself....once in a lifetime chance etc...but thats why intervention is needed.cashead wrote: He was really keen to get back on the field and very frustrated, but I and the 2 guys that team coach the squad stuck to our guns. Once he got medical clearance, we let him do full physical contact training and had him do waterboy duties for 1 fixture before we selected him to start at lock - against the very team that he got concussed playing against.
We told him over and over again that we'd rather him miss as many games as required in this 1 season than to put his playing future at risk for just 1 fixture.
That's... not recent. Medically speaking loss of consciousness and concussion ARE different things; one of them means that you're not conscious (such as sleep, anaethesia, hypotension etc etc) and one means that you have brain damage.kk67 wrote:It seems strange that in recent years there has been a medical division between losing consciousness and concussion.
This seems particularly strange to me after having personally suffered serious concussion without losing consciousness.
I find it inconceivable that someone could lose consciousness and not be considered to have suffered concussion.
Even if there is no subsequent reason to prevent the player taking part in the next match, keeping them off the field in those circumstances for the duration makes sense. Its not a long period of time to review any tapes (if footage is available) and assess if the player is fully conscious or not.Which Tyler wrote:That's... not recent. Medically speaking loss of consciousness and concussion ARE different things; one of them means that you're not conscious (such as sleep, anaethesia, hypotension etc etc) and one means that you have brain damage.kk67 wrote:It seems strange that in recent years there has been a medical division between losing consciousness and concussion.
This seems particularly strange to me after having personally suffered serious concussion without losing consciousness.
I find it inconceivable that someone could lose consciousness and not be considered to have suffered concussion.
Even a suspicion that there is LoC means that the working diagnosis is concussion until proven otherwise. Once proven otherwise however, then the diagnosis changes.
What I find inconceivable is that despite all of this, increased educaton on concussion, increased spotlight on rugby, and increased pay-outs for concussion in other sports, that rugby seems to be fine with players returning to the pitch despite there being "reasonable ground for suspicion" of LOC; whether we're talking about Lawes last weekend, North before Christmas or Matu'u in April.
The first box to tick on the HIA form is "Have you seen the video footage?" and the next is "is there reasonable suspicion for a loss of consciousness?" and yet there are many examples each season of medics lying on these forms.
The only time a fuss has been made, it was brushed under the carpet and protocols were changed (instead of, you know, making sure people didn't lie on the form).
Some Lions fans would've felt similar.Lizard wrote: And WTF are we doing fielding a Scottish half back?
James Haskell likes this..etc etcMellsblue wrote:Some Lions fans would've felt similar.Lizard wrote: And WTF are we doing fielding a Scottish half back?
I thought/hopped Laidlaw was creating a diversion and had told Nowell to go for it . (see Horne try vs Australia RWC2015)Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Aye, really pleased with the Lions defence over the last few games. Nice to see a bit more in attack too. I did genuinely laugh out loud as Nowell darted over for his first try through a huge gap at the fringe of the ruck that Laidlaw didn't even see. I'm not trying to rag on the wee man, as I think he had his best game of the tour today, but for a cat that sometimes takes a fortnight to play the ball his offensive awareness is brutal.fivepointer wrote:Agreed. Thought the front 5 were utterly dominant and laid foundation for an impressive win. Good to see the ball moving around the backs a bit resulting in some fine tries.Banquo wrote:Enjoyed that. Pack were excellent, nearly all on for the 80- Cole had been getting some stick, but that was a hell of an effort-- that was a pack performance 'for the tour' as it were; some nice touches in the backs too. Nowell was very good, and Daly classy; Williams looked dangerous too.
Kudos.
Lions getting better and looking a very united group.
1st test is going to be very interesting.