Jump to content

HIA and the GF


Recommended Posts

Seeing as a player who fails a HIA in the play off semi has to sit out for 11 days is there a possibility the GF could, in future, be played two weeks after the semis to prevent a player being denied what may be his only opportunity to play in a GF? Thoughts.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, paul hicks said:

just go back to the 7 days stand down

Bearing in mind the current known issues surrounding concussion within the game on what sound scientific basis are you recommending 7 days?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gomersall said:

Seeing as a player who fails a HIA in the play off semi has to sit out for 11 days is there a possibility the GF could, in future, be played two weeks after the semis to prevent a player being denied what may be his only opportunity to play in a GF? Thoughts.

Yes I think that’s a good shout it would be a real shame if players had to miss out especially through foul play. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gomersall said:

Seeing as a player who fails a HIA in the play off semi has to sit out for 11 days is there a possibility the GF could, in future, be played two weeks after the semis to prevent a player being denied what may be his only opportunity to play in a GF? Thoughts.

No. Just got to suck it up, world has rightly move on re injuries

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a 2 week gap would actually be helpful from a crowd point of view too as it would give people that little bit more time to organise travel etc. In fact oddly enough my mate made this exact suggestion to me earlier today 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

On what scientific basis is the 11 days based?

Medical evidence as advised to the RFL I seem to recall but if you know better then please enlighten me & everyone else 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

Medical evidence as advised to the RFL I seem to recall but if you know better then please enlighten me & everyone else 

Maybe we could be provided with the medical evidence….or is it commercial in confidence?.There is no magic number 11. Some doc they pay has been asked for his/her opinion and they said 11. Medical opinion is not medical evidence.

The longer you go without playing the better but the idea there is some magic cut off above which is safe and below which is not is complete bunk. So why 11?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Maybe we could be provided with the medical evidence….or is it commercial in confidence?.There is no magic number 11. Some doc they pay has been asked for his/her opinion and they said 11. Medical opinion is not medical evidence.

The longer you go without playing the better but the idea there is some magic cut off above which is safe and below which is not is complete bunk. So why 11?

Professor Ben Jones, who seems to the RFL's lead contact on this, is easily contactable.

You could ask him.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Maybe we could be provided with the medical evidence….or is it commercial in confidence?.There is no magic number 11. Some doc they pay has been asked for his/her opinion and they said 11. Medical opinion is not medical evidence.

The longer you go without playing the better but the idea there is some magic cut off above which is safe and below which is not is complete bunk. So why 11?

Because, as you admit, the RFL have taken professional medical advice and settled at 11 days that opinion being based in evidence and research. If that advice changes over time as more knowledge is accrued, just like with other medical conditions, and it moves to 14 or 7 I have no problems or issues. However, it’s not your place, or mine, to demand a reduction now to 7 to suit a particular set of circumstances without a very strong supporting case which clearly you don’t have

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I think a 2 week gap would actually be helpful from a crowd point of view too as it would give people that little bit more time to organise travel etc. In fact oddly enough my mate made this exact suggestion to me earlier today 

Tbf you’re talking about a short journey along the M62 or an hour on the train, it’s not difficult for RL fans in this country to organise travel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Tbf you’re talking about a short journey along the M62 or an hour on the train, it’s not difficult for RL fans in this country to organise travel. 

It is still a pain in the proverbial to get coaches booked etc never mind the state of trains in this country. The week in between could be used as a charm offensive with players/coaches doing media stuff, appear on game shows or whatever. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Yes I think that’s a good shout it would be a real shame if players had to miss out especially through foul play. 

What is someone had a broken bone through foul play do we player the GF months later?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

What is someone had a broken bone through foul play do we player the GF months later?

As I pointed out earlier only head injuries have a mandatory stand down period enforced by the governing body. If a player wants to ignore medical advice and return from a broken bone earlier than advised he can. He can’t do that with a head injury. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I think a 2 week gap would actually be helpful from a crowd point of view too as it would give people that little bit more time to organise travel etc. In fact oddly enough my mate made this exact suggestion to me earlier today 

Nice to know you and Gomersall are mates. 

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

What is someone had a broken bone through foul play do we player the GF months later?

No but we don’t effectively ban players with a broken nose either. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

Because, as you admit, the RFL have taken professional medical advice and settled at 11 days that opinion being based in evidence and research. If that advice changes over time as more knowledge is accrued, just like with other medical conditions, and it moves to 14 or 7 I have no problems or issues. However, it’s not your place, or mine, to demand a reduction now to 7 to suit a particular set of circumstances without a very strong supporting case which clearly you don’t have

I havent demanded a reduction to 7, I have asked for the scientific evidence (strong supporting case) for 11. Lets see if there is any.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

I havent demanded a reduction to 7, I have asked for the scientific evidence (strong supporting case) for 11. Lets see if there is any.

As others have posted it’s all out there. Just approach the specialists and they will explain. Plenty of interaction on Twitter and links to good articles on the subject. I’m struggling to understand why you are so sceptical. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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