Sheffield

[Worzel]

47 minutes ago, Griff said:

Bit more than a moment, as I recall.

Which do you think was more damaging in terms of brain health? A number of punches to the head of an already unconscious player or Matty Marsh, after passing all his tests, irrespective of whether the doctor had signed him off, playing in a game ?

 

This is a red herring, but I'll go there once in good faith to close it off: A players actions in the game are just that, a single players actions at a single point of a single game. In contrast, a coaches actions are leveraged and so operate at a greater scale of consequences: What they do potentially impacts multiple players, over multiple moments in time. They have greater responsibilities than players as a result. That's self-evident. 

Plus again, you're re-litigating a case that has already been held and where we've seen the evidence that disproves what you're saying. Matty Marsh had not passed all of his tests, because the appropriate competent person hadn't conducted all of the tests. We have rules, processes and named roles with specific responsibilities for very good safeguarding reasons. Marsh was not signed off to play. It is not for Aston or anybody else to take it upon themselves to make a decision they are not allowed to make, and play him regardless. End of story.  

[Griff]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Do you know she didn't? Do you know if there was an available time to do the assessment for both parties? Could Marsh not be bothered? Could, as is being suggested by the outcome of the tribunal, the attitude from the head coach be too devil may care to create a space for this? 

Awfully bold statement of you to make; dare I say one eyed? 

Imagine medical processes not being prioritised for the sake of rugby priorities! 

To add, none of this absolves Aston in the slightest.

No - I'm asking why she didn't.  Because it's a question never asked before as far as I can see.

[Griff]

9 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Plus again, you're re-litigating a case that has already been held and where we've seen the evidence that disproves what you're saying. Matty Marsh had not passed all of his tests, because the appropriate competent person hadn't conducted all of the tests.   

That's not the process.  The doctor doesn't have to conduct all the tests.  It can be delegated and usually is.

[JonM]

15 minutes ago, Griff said:

I can speculate myself.

On the day job point, she either has time for her side hustle or she does not.

AFAIK Matty Marsh lives in Hull, and AFAIK she works and lives in Leeds, so it doesn't seem to require any great conspiracy theory to explain why their paths probably didn't randomly cross in Sheffield without a bit of effort from both parties.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, JonM said:

AFAIK Matty Marsh lives in Hull, and AFAIK she works and lives in Leeds, so it doesn't seem to require any great conspiracy theory to explain why their paths probably didn't randomly cross in Sheffield without a bit of effort from both parties.

I suppose the difference is that he wanted to play.  She wasn't so bothered.

[Archie Gordon]

35 minutes ago, Griff said:

You're missing the point.   She could have seen him every day if she wanted.   Nothing stopping her from doing that.  But she'd need to make the effort.

She wanted an appointment with Marsh in the week after the Wigan game. That was/is the appropriate timetable. 

[JonM]

Just now, Griff said:

I suppose the difference is that he wanted to play.  She wasn't so bothered.

Whether or not that is the case is completely Irrelevant though. 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

No - I'm asking why she didn't.  Because it's a question never asked before as far as I can see.

And the relevance to Aston is?

[The Blues Ox]

42 minutes ago, JonM said:

It looks like the most up-to-date information she had was Mick Heys report of Marsh having had to take time off work due to headaches, so perhaps not too surprising that she wasn't inclined to cut corners. 

If true then he was still showing signs of concussion so it is very reasonable to think that he had not cleared all stages of the concussion protocol. 

[Griff]

10 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

She wanted an appointment with Marsh in the week after the Wigan game. That was/is the appropriate timetable. 

In what way?  The Wigan game was already 13 days after the original head contact.  Players can play at day 12.

[Griff]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

If true then he was still showing signs of concussion so it is very reasonable to think that he had not cleared all stages of the concussion protocol. 

That was on days 2 and 3.  The Wigan game was on day 13.

[Griff]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And the relevance to Aston is?

I'm asking questions at the moment.  If I ever get an answer, which seems unlikely, I'll decide then whether it's relevant or not.

[Griff]

16 minutes ago, JonM said:

Whether or not that is the case is completely Irrelevant though. 

Is it?

[Archie Gordon]

Just now, Griff said:

In what way?  The Wigan game was already 13 days after the original head contact.  Players can play at day 12.

Here's a list of reasons:

1. This was not a symptom-free recovery - MM missed work and then left work early when he did return. That in itself builds in a delay.

2. The cognigram and SCOAT happened in the wrong order. Other timings were misreported or unreliable. The doc hadn't satisfied herself that the process had been followed.

3. After the SCOAT, there are 5 days required - and further signoff - before a player is cleared. Were there 5 days between the SCOAT (18 March) and the Wigan game (22 March)?

It seems wholly appropriate to me that the doc wanted to schedule an apppointment with MM for the week of 25 March. I think she was acting as promptly as anyone reasonable  might expect.

[The Blues Ox]

6 minutes ago, Griff said:

That was on days 2 and 3.  The Wigan game was on day 13.

So he was not symptom free on day 2 or 3? Well he can't be cleared for the Wigan game then can he? Seems pretty clear the doctor has done her job.

[Worzel]

27 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's not the process.  The doctor doesn't have to conduct all the tests.  It can be delegated and usually is.

That's correct in some cases, but the tests have to be done in a certain sequence, and crucially before things like training. The detailed minutes make it clear that's very far from what happened, and explain why the medical professional wouldn't sign things off in a delegated fashion. The horse had already bolted. 

I'm sure you know all this. Aston knew the process hadn't been followed, and the required approvals hadn't been obtained. He then chose to play the player regardless. 

There's an appeals process that can look at things like sentencing reasonableness, but to pretend that Aston didn't break the rules (or worse to suggest that maybe the rules don't matter all that much) is patent nonsense. 

[Griff]

14 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

So he was not symptom free on day 2 or 3? Well he can't be cleared for the Wigan game then can he? Seems pretty clear the doctor has done her job.

OK.  If you say so.

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, Griff said:

I'm asking questions at the moment.  If I ever get an answer, which seems unlikely, I'll decide then whether it's relevant or not.

What was the traffic like that day?

[M j M]

21 minutes ago, Griff said:

OK.  If you say so.

So you don't even know the basics of the protocols yet are throwing accusations around?

[JohnM]

On 08/11/2024 at 10:42, JohnM said:

Here is the document you've probably looked at already. In it,there is a link to download the full detailed proceedings  These are well worth a read as they deal with the facts rather than some attempt to start up a sort of cuture-war

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63225/

 

Its all there for everyone to read, no matter what their wider agenda. But I guess everyone has read both the report and the procedings.

Judge Batty’s remarks also include the following passage:

“Head contact has become a serious issue in professional rugby in both codes of the game. Both codes have recognised the need to implement rule changes, safety procedures and medical protocols in order to lessen the incidence of head contact and the impact of it upon those who play. The processes adopted are the result of detailed research and consultation with many medical experts. They are accepted to be the minimum standard to ensure the safety of those who play the game.

“The rules are detailed and specific and most of all are to be rigidly observed. The RFL has a responsibility to ensure that those who play, coach, manage and run the teams in the game and those who provide medical assistance within the game abide by those rules. As stated above they are a minimum standard in respect of player welfare. 

“The GRTP [Graduated Return to Play protocol] is a policy that was deliberately designed to be overseen by a doctor or appropriately qualified healthcare equivalent. Only those deemed qualified are permitted to make a final assessment as to the fitness and therefore availability of a player subject to the process. The consequences of a player returning to contact without the appropriate assessment could increase the risk of long term cognitive or neurological disorders.

“As the RFL rightly describes it in their skeleton the GRTP is a safeguard in the Medical Standards which form an important part of the Operational Rules and it should be strictly adhered to. Player welfare is and should be paramount. Those who fail to comply with the rules must be brought to account.”

All parties were given 14 days to appeal from receipt of the verdict on October 22.

The statement also includes a link to a downloadable(PDF)  record of the proceedings, all 117 paragraphs.  Here are some selective extracts:

In addition Mark Aston is charged with breaching the RFL Coaches code of conduct. The code of conduct provides: When working with players I will: Place the physical and mental well-being, safety and enjoyment of each player above everything, including winning, ensuring every player has an equal opportunity to take part in training and matches, within the rules of the playing competition.

Paragraph 101: Mr Heys conduct towards HC is also a cause for concern. He sought pressure her into changing her professional opinion both in the lead up to the game but also in the days following it. It may be that this was due to the pressure that he was under to rectify his errors and not to incur the wrath of those above him. This places HC in a very difficult position. She was left isolated and having to wrestle with the impact of her doing the right thing and her future within the game, an awful position that no one had the right to put her in. It is in our view an aggravating feature of the case in respect of Mr Heys. No doctor/equivalent should ever be pressured into changing their professional approach. Particularly when it is done in the knowledge that the error is yours and the decision that you are seeking to change could be to the detriment of the player as in this case.

 

Edited November 11, 2024 by JohnM

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

So you don't even know the basics of the protocols yet are throwing accusations around?

It's just a witch hunt, isn't it?

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's just a witch hunt, isn't it?

Embarrassing comment

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's just a witch hunt, isn't it?

Can I say It's just a cult at Sheffield, isn't it?

The sport has a huge issue which threatens its very existence. The RFL has put in place protocols which, barely, mitigate that to at least give it a chance of getting insurance and to defend against future lawsuits. And which more than anything protect the welfare of the player concerned.

Then we have a head coach apparently knowingly and without remorse circumventing those protocols. A coach who, and let's be clear since you and some second rate journalists seem desperate to muddy the waters, picked a player who was not and could not be eligible to play under the protocols.

If you think we're having a witch hunt against people whose actions undermine the rules which are in place to protect the sport's future then yes you're right. 

[Expatknight]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

1 hour ago, Griff said:

 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Expatknight

[Griff]

I'd be grateful if you would edit your post so that your words are not attributed to me.