England vs France - Back in White

[Puja]

Must have missed that. Has there been a whole discussion already? I figured someone else on here would be much more in the know about the protocols.

I guess I was just struck by it because presumably there is somebody in that room listening to him and wincing, knowing that they are the one responsible for making sure this stuff doesn't happen.

He's not been tested at the time, or seemingly even after the match, and has then spread some highly questionable information as justification for not being checked. It's hard not to think somebody might just find it too inconvenient for him to be stood down for 3 weeks if showing symptoms.

Listening to Dave Denton talk about it recently I think he said he wasn't feeling much at this equivalent stage, but a year later is still suffering symptoms.

Oh no, it was a post by me. Everybody ignored it.

Puja

I didn't. He should have gone for an HIA.

{sniff} You're my only friend!!!!

Puja

[Which Tyler]

It is a tough one, but taking a head knock shouldn't automatically mean a HIA. Farrell took most of the impact (from a head perspective) on his jaw creating a movement that the jaw is designed to accomodate. His head made a horizontal movement, rather than a bell ringing motion. And of course much is dependent on the individual as well as the impact itself. We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution, but where a player has taken an impact and is suffering no ill effects then it is OK to not perform a HIA. The medical staff are rather good here.

Is this a stance taken by said medical professionals or an opinion?

That's a sincere question, I haven't got the facts or knowledge to dispute any of it, but I feel like I've read the current wisdom going against basically everything you've said there. I've not heard the horizontal v bell ringing explanation before. Is the thinking that a horizontal shot to the jaw can't/doesn't rattle the brain in the same way?

In what way would just presuming he's fine be be "erring on the side of caution"?

I would also be very interested in this - as a medical professional - that opinion does NOT match my own.

HIA are - by definition, an assessment of a head injury - a way of finding out whether the player is suffering any ill effects; as we all know that "I feel fine" is less useful than a chocolate teapot.
The jaw is not designed to take any kind of impact.
That his head moved in a horizontal direction is partially relevant; the most dangerous direction is into traction, then side-bending, then rotation - but a hit like that will have cause some flexion, and with it some traction - it's still a dangerous direction.
We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution - that means assessing head injuries when we see a head injury occurring; not brushing it under the carpet and pretending that it's all okay without even an assessment.

[Raggs]

So would we be upset if this game was called off? Not great to have such a long break in some ways, but equally, more rest and recovery time.

Called off at HT when 19 points up would be nice

Was just thinking the same. Bit of game time but not too much.

[Mellsblue]

It is a tough one, but taking a head knock shouldn't automatically mean a HIA. Farrell took most of the impact (from a head perspective) on his jaw creating a movement that the jaw is designed to accomodate. His head made a horizontal movement, rather than a bell ringing motion. And of course much is dependent on the individual as well as the impact itself. We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution, but where a player has taken an impact and is suffering no ill effects then it is OK to not perform a HIA. The medical staff are rather good here.

Is this a stance taken by said medical professionals or an opinion?

That's a sincere question, I haven't got the facts or knowledge to dispute any of it, but I feel like I've read the current wisdom going against basically everything you've said there. I've not heard the horizontal v bell ringing explanation before. Is the thinking that a horizontal shot to the jaw can't/doesn't rattle the brain in the same way?

In what way would just presuming he's fine be be "erring on the side of caution"?

I would also be very interested in this - as a medical professional - that opinion does NOT match my own.

HIA are - by definition, an assessment of a head injury - a way of finding out whether the player is suffering any ill effects; as we all know that "I feel fine" is less useful than a chocolate teapot.
The jaw is not designed to take any kind of impact.
That his head moved in a horizontal direction is partially relevant; the most dangerous direction is into traction, then side-bending, then rotation - but a hit like that will have cause some flexion, and with it some traction - it's still a dangerous direction.
We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution - that means assessing head injuries when we see a head injury occurring; not brushing it under the carpet and pretending that it's all okay without even an assessment.

Yeah. I had always assumed that any violent contact to the head led to a HIA. The HIA being the test for any trauma not merely the proof of any suspicion from an on field diagnosis.

[Digby]

So would we be upset if this game was called off? Not great to have such a long break in some ways, but equally, more rest and recovery time.

Called off at HT when 19 points up would be nice

Was just thinking the same. Bit of game time but not too much.

I've no idea where the squad will be based heading into the quarters and how much travelling is involved to the training facility, but in advance of any actual knowledge there's a big concern around getting some playing time and the squad getting bored in training

[Crocked8]

The player I would rest would be Billy. He looks unfit and cumbersome.

[Mikey Brown]

It is a tough one, but taking a head knock shouldn't automatically mean a HIA. Farrell took most of the impact (from a head perspective) on his jaw creating a movement that the jaw is designed to accomodate. His head made a horizontal movement, rather than a bell ringing motion. And of course much is dependent on the individual as well as the impact itself. We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution, but where a player has taken an impact and is suffering no ill effects then it is OK to not perform a HIA. The medical staff are rather good here.

Is this a stance taken by said medical professionals or an opinion?

That's a sincere question, I haven't got the facts or knowledge to dispute any of it, but I feel like I've read the current wisdom going against basically everything you've said there. I've not heard the horizontal v bell ringing explanation before. Is the thinking that a horizontal shot to the jaw can't/doesn't rattle the brain in the same way?

In what way would just presuming he's fine be be "erring on the side of caution"?

I would also be very interested in this - as a medical professional - that opinion does NOT match my own.

HIA are - by definition, an assessment of a head injury - a way of finding out whether the player is suffering any ill effects; as we all know that "I feel fine" is less useful than a chocolate teapot.
The jaw is not designed to take any kind of impact.
That his head moved in a horizontal direction is partially relevant; the most dangerous direction is into traction, then side-bending, then rotation - but a hit like that will have cause some flexion, and with it some traction - it's still a dangerous direction.
We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution - that means assessing head injuries when we see a head injury occurring; not brushing it under the carpet and pretending that it's all okay without even an assessment.

Aha. Was hoping you'd chime in.

As I said before it was my assumption that given an HIA apparently only takes 10 minutes to do, there would be something similar done as standard for every single player after they play. Why wouldn't you? Similar to a check up with physios etc. surely. Anyone have any idea? Maybe I misunderstood Farrell but sounds as though there was no sort of assessment at all.

The first concussion I got was very clearly from one particular moment/impact, but following that I would get varying symptoms after games where I'd not had any notable contact to my head. I figured there's a cumulative effect of all those impacts that mean basically anyone on the pitch can come away with ill-effects, even without a major collision?

[Epaminondas Pules]

It is a tough one, but taking a head knock shouldn't automatically mean a HIA. Farrell took most of the impact (from a head perspective) on his jaw creating a movement that the jaw is designed to accomodate. His head made a horizontal movement, rather than a bell ringing motion. And of course much is dependent on the individual as well as the impact itself. We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution, but where a player has taken an impact and is suffering no ill effects then it is OK to not perform a HIA. The medical staff are rather good here.

Is this a stance taken by said medical professionals or an opinion?

That's a sincere question, I haven't got the facts or knowledge to dispute any of it, but I feel like I've read the current wisdom going against basically everything you've said there. I've not heard the horizontal v bell ringing explanation before. Is the thinking that a horizontal shot to the jaw can't/doesn't rattle the brain in the same way?

In what way would just presuming he's fine be be "erring on the side of caution"?

I would also be very interested in this - as a medical professional - that opinion does NOT match my own.

HIA are - by definition, an assessment of a head injury - a way of finding out whether the player is suffering any ill effects; as we all know that "I feel fine" is less useful than a chocolate teapot.
The jaw is not designed to take any kind of impact.
That his head moved in a horizontal direction is partially relevant; the most dangerous direction is into traction, then side-bending, then rotation - but a hit like that will have cause some flexion, and with it some traction - it's still a dangerous direction.
We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution - that means assessing head injuries when we see a head injury occurring; not brushing it under the carpet and pretending that it's all okay without even an assessment.

The jaw does naturally allow for some lateral and vertical movement before the head has to follow.

I don't think anyone is brushing it under the carpet. Medical teams have got tremendously better in this regard, which is awesome, especially considering where the sport used to be, but taking a blow does not automatically mean that a HIA should be necessary in my opinion. I don't feel it is as simple as that. Farrell was demonstrably fine immediately following the blow and looking at it again he takes the majority of the impact to the neck.

[jngf]

I've got a good idea for the fast athletic 8 alternative. Continue picking Curry and Billy but swap their shirt numbers. Does that do the job, Jngf?

Given, I’ve some reservations about Curry being big enough to play 6 you can probably infer my answer about a position requiring even more power and size.

My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

I would say the gold standard for no.8 is that optimum balance of physical size and power together with explosive pace and athleticism which was perhaps best exemplified by Dayglo ( up to 2003) there was no doubting his physicality and power as a carrier but at the same time he was explosive off the back of scrums and a prominent lineout target ( one arguably has to go back to Andy Ripley in the 70s to find another England 8 who covered all these bases so well) - recently there has been a trade off of size over athleticism: Billy and to a lesser degree Morgan, Hughes and Easter or vice versa, namely: Clifford, Simmonds and Mercer. I take the point that the hard carrying can be shared with a powerful direct no.6 - and that perhaps describes Lawes - though ultimately you still need an 8 to do the ‘bulldozing’ - and this is the challenge for those players who are athletic but at the expense of physical power.

Though he covered manfully at 8 against Argentina I think it’s too big a stretch in versatility to select Curry to start here. If anything I actually think Underhill has more of the attributes of an 8 based on explosiveness and power as a ball carrier in heavy traffic ( a la Pocock). That notwithstanding, if Billy is sidelined for the rest of the tour imo Eddie should get on the phone to Ben Morgan pronto!

[Mikey Brown]

I am absolutely baffled that the outcome of this seems to be you thinking I want to pick Curry at 8.

It's great wanting a player who is 100/100 on every stat you can think of, but we don't have that. What are you actually suggesting EJ does?

I would have looked at Ben Morgan too and certainly had a specialist 8 backup in mind for the RWC, but who knows how that would have gone. He picked Wilson, which I was fine with as he deserves to be in the side as a 6 anyway, but unfortunately it doesn't seem either he or Billy are at 100%.

EJ won't replace Vunipola unless we know 100% he's out for the duration of the tournament. Wouldn't surprise if in that event he went with Kvesic or Shields and just made do with whoever could pack down at the back.

[jngf]

I am absolutely baffled that the outcome of this seems to be you thinking I want to pick Curry at 8.

It's great wanting a player who is 100/100 on every stat you can think of, but we don't have that. What are you actually suggesting EJ does?

I was not suggesting you personally were in favour of picking Curry at 8, but the England camp are saying it’s between Wilson (if fit) or Curry - the former though imo far from ideal is logical whereas the latter idea at least imo isn’t really. As I say it all boils down to whether or not Billy is fit enough to continue and flogging him through each match to date is beginning to confirm the reservations some of us had about Eddie throwing all his eggs in one basket.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Wilson would be my choice, of those available. To note though, England have been running Curry at eight in training quite a bit, for, I presume, circumstances like we saw last Sat.

I’ll add that’s from a journo friend out there. He did say his control at the base was good. At least that is one thing. Though how it would fare under pressure might be another.

[Which Tyler]

The jaw does naturally allow for some lateral and vertical movement before the head has to follow.

Thanks - I know my TMJ anatomy - yes, it moves in those directions but not in a way that will provide any bracing against an impact.

I don't think anyone is brushing it under the carpet. Medical teams have got tremendously better in this regard, which is awesome, especially considering where the sport used to be, but taking a blow does not automatically mean that a HIA should be necessary in my opinion.

I disagree with your opinion - the whole point of an HIA is to assess head trauma; and significant head trauma should always lead to an HIA IMO.

I don't feel it is as simple as that. Farrell was demonstrably fine immediately following the blow and looking at it again he takes the majority of the impact to the neck.

You obviously have a different dictionary to me. The only way to demonstrate that he was fine after the head trauma is to assess him with an HIA. I also disagree that he looked fine after the blow - he looked terrible, mentally slow, comparatively unaware, reduced fine motor control - I, and a fair few others thought he looked like he was playing whilst concussed.
You don't need ANY head contact to create head trauma.

[Mellsblue]

From personal experience, I’m not sure it’s possible to diagnose whether there has been a brain trauma just by viewing an impact or a quick chat with the player on the field. I’ve taken a blow to the head, and now think I was knocked out momentarily, and continued to play the rest of the match. I then ‘came to’ in the showers with no recollection of the match, I didn’t even know whether we’d won or lost. Despite being flyhalf - calling plays etc - and being captain - halftime team talk, conversing with the ref etc - nobody had a clue that I’d suffered a brain trauma.

[Digby]

Being honest even having an HIA isn't it would seem a great tool for discerning if a player needs to be removed from play, but it's better than nothing. If we knew we'd face a points sanction we'd have been more studious

[Puja]

From personal experience, I’m not sure it’s possible to diagnose whether there has been a brain trauma just by viewing an impact or a quick chat with the player on the field. I’ve taken a blow to the head, and now think I was knocked out momentarily, and continued to play the rest of the match. I then ‘came to’ in the showers with no recollection of the match, I didn’t even know whether we’d won or lost. Despite being flyhalf - calling plays etc - and being captain - halftime team talk, conversing with the ref etc - nobody had a clue that I’d suffered a brain trauma.

And that right there is the point, ladies and gentlemen - it is not possible to diagnose whether someone has a concussion without an HIA. It's a Head Injury Assessment, not a Head Injury Yeah We Already Knew He Was Concussed.

Farrell might have been perfectly fine. The blow was indeed one that had a lower chance of concussion than getting beaned in the forehead. However, without an HIA, no-one knows and "I felt fine to continue" is macho bullshit that should not be modelled by the England captain.

Puja

[Stom]

Given, I’ve some reservations about Curry being big enough to play 6 you can probably infer my answer about a position requiring even more power and size.

My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

I would say the gold standard for no.8 is that optimum balance of physical size and power together with explosive pace and athleticism which was perhaps best exemplified by Dayglo ( up to 2003) there was no doubting his physicality and power as a carrier but at the same time he was explosive off the back of scrums and a prominent lineout target ( one arguably has to go back to Andy Ripley in the 70s to find another England 8 who covered all these bases so well) - recently there has been a trade off of size over athleticism: Billy and to a lesser degree Morgan, Hughes and Easter or vice versa, namely: Clifford, Simmonds and Mercer. I take the point that the hard carrying can be shared with a powerful direct no.6 - and that perhaps describes Lawes - though ultimately you still need an 8 to do the ‘bulldozing’ - and this is the challenge for those players who are athletic but at the expense of physical power.

Though he covered manfully at 8 against Argentina I think it’s too big a stretch in versatility to select Curry to start here. If anything I actually think Underhill has more of the attributes of an 8 based on explosiveness and power as a ball carrier in heavy traffic ( a la Pocock). That notwithstanding, if Billy is sidelined for the rest of the tour imo Eddie should get on the phone to Ben Morgan pronto!

The thing is, Easter fits that description perfectly. He was surprisingly athletic, surprisingly fast over shorter distances, very strong, an excellent lineout operator...just a lazy bastard.

[jngf]

My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

I would say the gold standard for no.8 is that optimum balance of physical size and power together with explosive pace and athleticism which was perhaps best exemplified by Dayglo ( up to 2003) there was no doubting his physicality and power as a carrier but at the same time he was explosive off the back of scrums and a prominent lineout target ( one arguably has to go back to Andy Ripley in the 70s to find another England 8 who covered all these bases so well) - recently there has been a trade off of size over athleticism: Billy and to a lesser degree Morgan, Hughes and Easter or vice versa, namely: Clifford, Simmonds and Mercer. I take the point that the hard carrying can be shared with a powerful direct no.6 - and that perhaps describes Lawes - though ultimately you still need an 8 to do the ‘bulldozing’ - and this is the challenge for those players who are athletic but at the expense of physical power.

Though he covered manfully at 8 against Argentina I think it’s too big a stretch in versatility to select Curry to start here. If anything I actually think Underhill has more of the attributes of an 8 based on explosiveness and power as a ball carrier in heavy traffic ( a la Pocock). That notwithstanding, if Billy is sidelined for the rest of the tour imo Eddie should get on the phone to Ben Morgan pronto!

The thing is, Easter fits that description perfectly. He was surprisingly athletic, surprisingly fast over shorter distances, very strong, an excellent lineout operator...just a lazy bastard.

never looked fast to me - though only watched him at test level and not for quins

[Scrumhead]

Acceleration and speed are two different things. Easter had the former, less of the latter, but Stom is right, with more application and work rate, he really could have been top class.

Your ‘gold standard’ for an 8 is good, but how many of the 8s currently playing at the World Cup tick all those boxes? Sergio Parisse might have done at his peak, but that was some time ago. Duane Vermeulen is up there, but I wouldn’t have described him as a ‘prominent lineout target’.

Arguably the best 8 of the last 6/7yrs has been Kieran Read and I’d argue that his strengths are largely different to those you’ve described. While he’s definitely a top lineout forward, even at his peak, I wouldn’t necessarily have classed him as being particularly powerful or explosive. His best assets are his intelligence and game sense - making the right decisions almost all the time whether that’s picking a great line or choosing when to offload or when to pass or carry.

For me, that’s the main differentiator for a truly top class 8 over those that rely on power and athleticism. Dallaglio had it which allowed him to stay at the top even when he was dropping off physically.

[twitchy]

From personal experience, I’m not sure it’s possible to diagnose whether there has been a brain trauma just by viewing an impact or a quick chat with the player on the field. I’ve taken a blow to the head, and now think I was knocked out momentarily, and continued to play the rest of the match. I then ‘came to’ in the showers with no recollection of the match, I didn’t even know whether we’d won or lost. Despite being flyhalf - calling plays etc - and being captain - halftime team talk, conversing with the ref etc - nobody had a clue that I’d suffered a brain trauma.

And that right there is the point, ladies and gentlemen - it is not possible to diagnose whether someone has a concussion without an HIA. It's a Head Injury Assessment, not a Head Injury Yeah We Already Knew He Was Concussed.

Farrell might have been perfectly fine. The blow was indeed one that had a lower chance of concussion than getting beaned in the forehead. However, without an HIA, no-one knows and "I felt fine to continue" is macho bullshit that should not be modelled by the England captain.

Puja

Exactly.

[Which Tyler]

From personal experience, I’m not sure it’s possible to diagnose whether there has been a brain trauma just by viewing an impact or a quick chat with the player on the field. I’ve taken a blow to the head, and now think I was knocked out momentarily, and continued to play the rest of the match. I then ‘came to’ in the showers with no recollection of the match, I didn’t even know whether we’d won or lost. Despite being flyhalf - calling plays etc - and being captain - halftime team talk, conversing with the ref etc - nobody had a clue that I’d suffered a brain trauma.

And that right there is the point, ladies and gentlemen - it is not possible to diagnose whether someone has a concussion without an HIA. It's a Head Injury Assessment, not a Head Injury Yeah We Already Knew He Was Concussed.

Farrell might have been perfectly fine. The blow was indeed one that had a lower chance of concussion than getting beaned in the forehead. However, without an HIA, no-one knows and "I felt fine to continue" is macho bullshit that should not be modelled by the England captain.

[Scrumhead]

Acceleration and speed are two different things. Easter had the former, less of the latter, but Stom is right, with more application and work rate, he really could have been top class.

Your ‘gold standard’ for an 8 is good, but how many of the 8s currently playing at the World Cup tick all those boxes? Sergio Parisse might have done at his peak, but that was some time ago. Duane Vermeulen is up there, but I wouldn’t have described him as a ‘prominent lineout target’.

Arguably the best 8 of the last 6/7yrs has been Kieran Read and I’d argue that his strengths are largely different to those you’ve described. While he’s definitely a top lineout forward, even at his peak, I wouldn’t necessarily have classed him as being particularly powerful or explosive. His best assets are his intelligence and game sense - making the right decisions almost all the time whether that’s picking a great line or choosing when to offload or when to pass or carry.

For me, that’s the main differentiator for a truly top class 8 over those that rely on power and athleticism. Dallaglio had it which allowed him to stay at the top even when he was dropping off physically.

I should also add that this is what excites me about Alex Dombrandt. He’s a big unit but he also has pace, great feet and more often than not hits space rather than looking for contact and usually makes excellent decisions which is particularly impressive given his inexperience.

[Stom]

Acceleration and speed are two different things. Easter had the former, less of the latter, but Stom is right, with more application and work rate, he really could have been top class.

Your ‘gold standard’ for an 8 is good, but how many of the 8s currently playing at the World Cup tick all those boxes? Sergio Parisse might have done at his peak, but that was some time ago. Duane Vermeulen is up there, but I wouldn’t have described him as a ‘prominent lineout target’.

Arguably the best 8 of the last 6/7yrs has been Kieran Read and I’d argue that his strengths are largely different to those you’ve described. While he’s definitely a top lineout forward, even at his peak, I wouldn’t necessarily have classed him as being particularly powerful or explosive. His best assets are his intelligence and game sense - making the right decisions almost all the time whether that’s picking a great line or choosing when to offload or when to pass or carry.

For me, that’s the main differentiator for a truly top class 8 over those that rely on power and athleticism. Dallaglio had it which allowed him to stay at the top even when he was dropping off physically.

I should also add that this is what excites me about Alex Dombrandt. He’s a big unit but he also has pace, great feet and more often than not hits space rather than looking for contact and usually makes excellent decisions which is particularly impressive given his inexperience.

It's always good when a natural rugby brain gets born into a natural rugby body. Really looking forward to his development.

[francoisfou]

According to Midi Olympique, the French starting XV is probably going to the strongest possible:

15. Médard ; 14. Penaud, 13. Vakatawa, 12. Fickou, 11. Huget ; 10. Ntamack, 9. Dupont ; 7. Ollivon, 8. Alldritt, 6. Lauret ; 5. Vahaamahina, 4. Le Roux ; 3. Slimani, 2. Guirado (cap.), 1. Poirot.

No Picamoles, but that's hardly surprising as he's not the player he once was. I'd have expected Arthur Iturria to have been starting. The side should be confirmed tomorrow.

As for England, the Telegraph thinks that Eddie is making changes due to injuries and illness :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-world ... ss-strike/
Maybe I'm being a touch cynical, but these injuries etc may have good timing to bring about this shuffle.

[Mikey Brown]

Can anyone tell me what that Telegraph article says?