Jump to content

McDermott oblivious to the risk posed by head injuries?

Les Tonks Sidestep

Recommended Posts


MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted

I agree with him that just because you have been hit in the head and hurt it doesn't necessarily mean you have concussion. That's the whole reason why we have these protocols, so that we can determine who has been concussed and who has just simply taken a painful blow. And then to protect the ones that do have concussion. 

Leave it to the doctors who know best, I'm not sure why he feels the need to comment tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Click

Click

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, MZH said:

I agree with him that just because you have been hit in the head and hurt it doesn't necessarily mean you have concussion. That's the whole reason why we have these protocols, so that we can determine who has been concussed and who has just simply taken a painful blow. And then to protect the ones that do have concussion. 

Leave it to the doctors who know best, I'm not sure why he feels the need to comment tbh. 

This.

I don't understand why he is bringing up the Wilkin situation unless he failed the concussion protocols? You don't fail them by just staying down on the field for a few extra seconds, isn't there a whole procedure they go through once they're back in the changing rooms?

I like McDermott, but these are stupid comments to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cake Tiger

Cake Tiger

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Click said:

This.

I don't understand why he is bringing up the Wilkin situation unless he failed the concussion protocols? You don't fail them by just staying down on the field for a few extra seconds, isn't there a whole procedure they go through once they're back in the changing rooms?

I like McDermott, but these are stupid comments to make.

I don't - I don't like him at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GUBRATS

GUBRATS

Posted
Posted

Bottom line is he's terrified he could lose a couple of players in a single game to concusion , which could cause him to be unable to put out a full squad , did he ever complain when he had 40 players available at Leeds ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SSoutherner

SSoutherner

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, barnyia said:

Is it not if you get knocked out it's game over and a week off, or is that in Oz? 

A concussion only results in a KO about 10% of times, the issue is people not getting a KO and trying to play on which not only makes you susceptible to 2nd impact syndrome but also can make you less physically co-ordinated increasing the likelihood of other injuries

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GUBRATS

GUBRATS

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Yes he is. Granted he isn't saying we don't need procedures but he then goes on to say that he thinks the current ones, based on expert medical advice, are wrong and should be far more lax.

He wants the time period shortening to less than a week 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, redjonn said:

He is quoted as saying... Its a procedure we need... so he supports rules and regulation...

he ain't saying not to have a concussion procedure...

It is an issue to come out with a challenge to this when you have a well-documented issue with the size of your squad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispmartha

Chrispmartha

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SSoutherner said:

A concussion only results in a KO about 10% of times, the issue is people not getting a KO and trying to play on which not only makes you susceptible to 2nd impact syndrome but also can make you less physically co-ordinated increasing the likelihood of other injuries

Stevie Ward is a recent example, he got a bad knock in the face and a nasty cut against Hull, he came back on to play but has failed the concussion protocols for the last 2 weeks and is quite rightly unable to play until he passes them, our game is brutal and the players need protection as most of them would play regardless of the protocols if it was their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redjonn

redjonn

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is an issue to come out with a challenge to this when you have a well-documented issue with the size of your squad. 

Don't know the context as to why he should say what he said... was it an interview, question answer or just an out the blue statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lowdesert

Lowdesert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Yes he is. Granted he isn't saying we don't need procedures but he then goes on to say that he thinks the current ones, based on expert medical advice, are wrong and should be far more lax.

He isn’t.  Redjohn has explained clearly enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LR23

LR23

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

He isn’t.  Redjohn has explained clearly enough.

 

Yes, he's saying we need a concussion process; just one that favours his current situation and not necessarily the one we have in place right now that has been put together by qualified medical professionals. We all understand him perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lowdesert

Lowdesert

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Stevie Ward is a recent example, he got a bad knock in the face and a nasty cut against Hull, he came back on to play but has failed the concussion protocols for the last 2 weeks and is quite rightly unable to play until he passes them, our game is brutal and the players need protection as most of them would play regardless of the protocols if it was their choice.

And this is the root of the matter, recognition by the coach, based on expert (Doctors) advice and committing to making the right choice for the player.  We can look at Wards example and could quite easily comment that ‘he shouldn’t have come back on’.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

He isn’t.  Redjohn has explained clearly enough.

 

What is he saying then LD - genuine question, because my understanding is that he is saying not all head injuries are concussion - but who suggests they are? That is why they have the medical tests to identify issues. 

He suggests that these rules have gone too far - it is not a view that appears to be made publicly by anyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lowdesert

Lowdesert

Posted
Posted
Just now, Dave T said:

What is he saying then LD - genuine question, because my understanding is that he is saying not all head injuries are concussion - but who suggests they are? That is why they have the medical tests to identify issues. 

He suggests that these rules have gone too far - it is not a view that appears to be made publicly by anyone else. 

As has been said, we don’t know how this conversation has come about but it’s true that not all heavy hits cause concussion that’s instantly recognisable.  A heavy hit, like the one Chrispy mentions might be classed or even identified by different Doctors tests.

What I think he’s getting at is that guessing is not good enough.  If there isn’t enough evidence, play on.  I think at the level, that would be a fair call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.