Sheffield

[RP London]

20 hours ago, Oldham 1 said:

Agree that a heavy suspension should be given for this , also shouldn't the player in question be given a long ban as well ? He will have known himself the danger he was putting himself in and be well aware of the concussion protocols for me the player is as guilty as anyone here

The whole point is about duty of care . Player cannot say they want to play against medical advice. Medical advice must be followed. This is annoying because it really is simple black and white rules around how you come back from failed HIAs.. simple. Ban deserved Eagles now need to just move on, which may not be a bad thing long term. 

[Oldham 1]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

The whole point is about duty of care . Player cannot say they want to play against medical advice. Medical advice must be followed. This is annoying because it really is simple black and white rules around how you come back from failed HIAs.. simple. Ban deserved Eagles now need to just move on, which may not be a bad thing long term. 

But the player Matty Marsh will have been aware he's failed his HIA the weekend before, all players are told the rules regarding this he's as guilty as the other two in my opinion he's knowingly broken rules , that are in place to protect him

[tim2]

17 minutes ago, Oldham 1 said:

But the player Matty Marsh will have been aware he's failed his HIA the weekend before, all players are told the rules regarding this he's as guilty as the other two in my opinion he's knowingly broken rules , that are in place to protect him

It was almost two weeks and he may have thought , or been told, he'd been cleared. I'm sure he would have been asked as part of the investigation.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, tim2 said:

It was almost two weeks and he may have thought , or been told, he'd been cleared. I'm sure he would have been asked as part of the investigation.

And he's not responsible for that.

[JonM]

49 minutes ago, Oldham 1 said:

But the player Matty Marsh will have been aware he's failed his HIA the weekend before, all players are told the rules regarding this he's as guilty as the other two in my opinion he's knowingly broken rules , that are in place to protect him

Nope - people need to read the judgment, where it's all laid out. At no point does the tribunal put any of the blame onto the player. It's not reasonable for a player to be expected to take on the role of a medical professional or to know the ins and outs of the procedures.

He had passed the minimum HIA period. It was two weekends before the Wigan game when he had suffered the initial injury. He'd already missed the game against Toulouse as a result. However, it's not just how many days are elapsed, there are stages that have to be passed through. You have to pass a medical assessment before you're allowed to resume training, and then further assessment before you can play and so on. He resumed contact training without the correct procedure having been followed. It appears from the tribunal findings that Mick Heys attempted to get round that by changing the records, in a not very convincing way. The club doctor picked up on this and insisted that the correct protocol was followed. Basically this was a more serious head injury, which resulted in him taking time off from his day job due to headaches, and from which he needed longer to recover. 

[RP London]

49 minutes ago, Oldham 1 said:

But the player Matty Marsh will have been aware he's failed his HIA the weekend before, all players are told the rules regarding this he's as guilty as the other two in my opinion he's knowingly broken rules , that are in place to protect him

No absolutely not.. this is not on the player at all.. that is why these processes are in place, it's to take the decision away from the player. 

They don't know the ins and outs of the medical advice, for all he knows he's been cleared to play by the Dr etc because those in a position of trust above him, who are there to protect him and who have discussions he is not a part of are picking him to play.

There is no way that any of this is on the player. To even try and put it on him is missing the reason for these rules. Players used to say they were fine and put themselves at risk of further injury so as not to lose their place. Coaches used to risk players because winning was all that counts. Now the coaches know there is a protocol which CANNOT be circumvented so these decision are not the personal opinion of people with no medical background. 

Aston broke those rules.. who's to say MM didn't say to someone (probably considering in a mate before going to MA) "I'm not good" and they said "doc must have cleared you if MA and MH say it's ok". As that is naturally what you would think unless you have been a part of all conversations. 

[RP London]

Just now, JonM said:

Nope - people need to read the judgment, where it's all laid out. At no point does the tribunal put any of the blame onto the player. It's not reasonable for a player to be expected to take on the role of a medical professional or to know the ins and outs of the procedures.

He had passed the minimum HIA period. It was two weekends before the Wigan game when he had suffered the initial injury. He'd already missed the game against Toulouse as a result. However, it's not just how many days are elapsed, there are stages that have to be passed through. You have to pass a medical assessment before you're allowed to resume training, and then further assessment before you can play and so on. He resumed contact training without the correct procedure having been followed. It appears from the tribunal findings that Mick Heys attempted to get round that by changing the records, in a not very convincing way. The club doctor picked up on this and insisted that the correct protocol was followed. Basically this was a more serious head injury, which resulted in him taking time off from his day job due to headaches, and from which he needed longer to recover. 

RFU head case model is very very specific (not seen the RFL one as only know the RFU due to coaching).. if I broke that I'd be in all sorts of trouble . 

[gingerjon]

Players often don't even know the rules of the game. I'd not be banking on them knowing the rules around head injuries and return to playing.

And I'd especially not be banking on them if they were currently needing to recover from a head injury and maybe not thinking as clearly as they ought.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

RFU head case model is very very specific (not seen the RFL one as only know the RFU due to coaching).. if I broke that I'd be in all sorts of trouble . 

Here you go: Medical Standards

Edited October 25, 2024 by Les Tonks Sidestep

[JonM]

Perhaps also worth pointing out that the club doctor had not even seen Matty Marsh by the day of the Wigan match. So it is not the case that she had had the opportunity to verbally tell him that he couldn't/ shouldn't play.

[SUPERSTUD]

If you have ever stood your ground or submitted a grievance within the workplace you will know how potentially hard it can be afterwards. I haven’t but I have represented plenty of others who have. It is not a nice place for any individual to be. How refreshing would it be for MA to now come out and accept that he got it wrong? Don’t bother submitting a potentially futile appeal and last but not least offer a face to face apology to the doctor. 

[Expatknight]

what is just as bizarre is the outpouring of support from the players - the very ones the protocol is there to protect, would they still fel the same had Marsh collapsed on the field or been permanantly disabled? We are seeing and hearing every week about players in all contact sports coming down with conditions that are being attributed to head knocks.  can't they see the issues here ? if you don't stick to the protocols that experts have put in place you will be punished and rightly so, it matters not that Aston has been Mr Sheffield and has devoted 40 odd years to the game, in fact that makes it even worse,  he should have known better and now must accept the consequences. 

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Here you go: Medical Standards

Great thanks, that makes for some interesting reading.. 15 pages on concussion protocol which is pretty conclusive as well.. no real excuses.

[RP London]

2 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

If you have ever stood your ground or submitted a grievance within the workplace you will know how potentially hard it can be afterwards. I haven’t but I have represented plenty of others who have. It is not a nice place for any individual to be. How refreshing would it be for MA to now come out and accept that he got it wrong? Don’t bother submitting a potentially futile appeal and last but not least offer a face to face apology to the doctor. 

and the player, that he put into this potentially life altering/threatening position.. secondary concussions while still concussed can be fatal.

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Expatknight said:

what is just as bizarre is the outpouring of support from the players - the very ones the protocol is there to protect, would they still fel the same had Marsh collapsed on the field or been permanantly disabled? We are seeing and hearing every week about players in all contact sports coming down with conditions that are being attributed to head knocks.  can't they see the issues here ? if you don't stick to the protocols that experts have put in place you will be punished and rightly so, it matters not that Aston has been Mr Sheffield and has devoted 40 odd years to the game, in fact that makes it even worse,  he should have known better and now must accept the consequences. 

totally agree with this. I have a lot of time for what he has done with a club that I support. But his first responsibility as the coach is to the players in his care. I have issues with players form the past (especially the headhunters) for the legal cases, and I can see both where they had a point but also where the defence of "we didnt know the side effects" etc of the governing body's defence would be.. but to have this attitude still today is unforgivable. The health of the player must come first, with the knowledge we have and knowing it is only a game after all to not think about the player first is the mark of the man IMHO

No matter what he has done for Sheffield this is quite a black mark on the man, and sadly on the club too.

[robt]

3 hours ago, Expatknight said:

what is just as bizarre is the outpouring of support from the players - the very ones the protocol is there to protect, would they still fel the same had Marsh collapsed on the field or been permanantly disabled? We are seeing and hearing every week about players in all contact sports coming down with conditions that are being attributed to head knocks.  can't they see the issues here ? if you don't stick to the protocols that experts have put in place you will be punished and rightly so, it matters not that Aston has been Mr Sheffield and has devoted 40 odd years to the game, in fact that makes it even worse,  he should have known better and now must accept the consequences. 

This is whats got me a bit. 

If anything, the RFL will be watching social media outputs of players and clubs regarding this as well, and, anything where the governance of the game is called out by a player, could be bordering on a breach of policy.

I can understand the players backing Aston as a coach, and how he develops players, but, at the same time, its not the RFL thats out to create an issue with the punishment. Light is being shone on head injuries in all sports, and, I'd rather an organisation be as proactive about the issue, as they have been here.

Theres things all sides could learn in the situation, and this will no doubt improve things, but, the ban could quite easily have been longer.

[DEANO]

There are plenty of ex players making claims already without new ones who’ve played when the club knows better. At least back in the day we knew no better

[Blotto]

This new Aussie TV series will hopefully make its way to the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_(TV_series)

[Simon Hall]

Quite telling that most people on this thread agree with the outcome and they aren’t defending Aston at all. Must be a first. 
 

Considering they’ve changed the rules of the sport to suit the concerns around concussion and it’s cost the game literally hundreds of thousands+, I think he’s got off very lightly with just an 18 month ban. 

[Tommygilf]

19 hours ago, RP London said:

totally agree with this. I have a lot of time for what he has done with a club that I support. But his first responsibility as the coach is to the players in his care. I have issues with players form the past (especially the headhunters) for the legal cases, and I can see both where they had a point but also where the defence of "we didnt know the side effects" etc of the governing body's defence would be.. but to have this attitude still today is unforgivable. The health of the player must come first, with the knowledge we have and knowing it is only a game after all to not think about the player first is the mark of the man IMHO

No matter what he has done for Sheffield this is quite a black mark on the man, and sadly on the club too.

I think it's pretty indicative of how the rugby side of the club has worked. Aston has said jump, everyone it appears has said how high. It appears that on that side he was unchallenged. 

Perhaps this has given the club an opportunity to restructure things in a way they might not have had otherwise. No man can be bigger than the club - and such a dependence is not healthy. I suspect the statement put out by the club on socials is necessary because sacking Aston might not be so straightforward - it seems he is not on a limited time contract for example like other coaches, so it might have to be Gross Misconduct. 

I'd have hoped Sheffield had a bit of a heads up on the punishment from the RFL. They need a replacement in ASAP, and with the Bradford job vacant too its potentially a competitive market. Lingard and Henderson seem very good options for the club - I would be surprised if any SL assistants wanted to come at this stage. 

Otherwise things are looking up for the club. New stadium, renewed outlook and improving off field. Things are slowly getting right.

[newbe]

Trouble is in some contracts, if you don't play, you don't get paid. Not sure if this applies, but with teams that are part time it happens.  Not that is an excuse. 

[Bull Mania]

I think there's some learnings for the sport as well. 

Particularly the game management system. Disagreed that it's not expecting the RFL to micromanage clubs. It's not micromanaging, it's governance. I doubt it would take a huge amount of programming in the game system, to bring up an alert if a player failed a HIA and whether they've been signed off. They will have to have this info somewhere and don't think it would take a great deal of work to put it in the system and create stronger governance and reduce the risk around this issue. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I think it's pretty indicative of how the rugby side of the club has worked. Aston has said jump, everyone it appears has said how high. It appears that on that side he was unchallenged. 

Perhaps this has given the club an opportunity to restructure things in a way they might not have had otherwise. No man can be bigger than the club - and such a dependence is not healthy. I suspect the statement put out by the club on socials is necessary because sacking Aston might not be so straightforward - it seems he is not on a limited time contract for example like other coaches, so it might have to be Gross Misconduct. 

I'd have hoped Sheffield had a bit of a heads up on the punishment from the RFL. They need a replacement in ASAP, and with the Bradford job vacant too its potentially a competitive market. Lingard and Henderson seem very good options for the club - I would be surprised if any SL assistants wanted to come at this stage. 

Otherwise things are looking up for the club. New stadium, renewed outlook and improving off field. Things are slowly getting right.

Think you've hit the nail on the head with all of that, totally agree.

Would love either hendo or lingard to be honest.. one get a Bradford the other Sheffield would seem perfect for all concerned 

[coolie]

On 26/10/2024 at 08:44, Simon Hall said:

Quite telling that most people on this thread agree with the outcome and they aren’t defending Aston at all. Must be a first. 
 

Considering they’ve changed the rules of the sport to suit the concerns around concussion and it’s cost the game literally hundreds of thousands+, I think he’s got off very lightly with just an 18 month ban. 

Thought at least a 2 year ban would have been more suitable, Aston has sailed close to the edge a few times.. So eventually his luck would run out one day.

[DEANO]

Realistically an 18 month ban at this time of year converts to a 9 month ban