Gomersall Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jughead Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 No, arranging games around possible injuries is daft. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hicks Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 just go back to the 7 days stand down 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomersall Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 2 hours ago, Jughead said: No, arranging games around possible injuries is daft. But which other injuries have a mandatory 11 day stand down period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jughead Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 31 minutes ago, Gomersall said: But which other injuries have a mandatory 11 day stand down period? And which sport arranges fixtures based on injuries that might not happen? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 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? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 No chance as it extends an already crammed season and eats into the international window. I don't think a 2 week delay is good from a build up point of view either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 1 hour ago, paul hicks said: just go back to the 7 days stand down Against medical advice which I assume they are following. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie tries Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyther_Matt Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 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 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anita Bath Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 2 hours ago, LeeF said: Bearing in mind the current known issues surrounding concussion within the game on what sound scientific basis are you recommending 7 days? On what scientific basis is the 11 days based? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anita Bath Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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. 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 More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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 More sharing options...
Leyther_Matt Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostik Bailey Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomersall Posted September 18 Author Share Posted September 18 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayCee Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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 More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anita Bath Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 57 minutes ago, V02 said: Both - he was already ruled out the minute he was unconscious. I thought that had been corrected and he isn’t ruled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now