There have been concerns in league circles for a number of years regarding head knocks or concussions and what it means in the longer term. We have now seen a player sue the Knights and Im sure there will be more to come.
The NRL has tried to mitigate this by reducing the number of interchanges to make the players more tired and therefore reducing the impact of collisions. Also they introduced the HIA (Head Injury Assessment) where a player suspected of concussion comes from the field to be assessed by a doctor. They are replaced on the field by a bench player and that replacement is not counted as 1 of the 8 interchanges allowed per match. If within the 15mins allowed, the player is allowed to return to the field they again replace a player and that replacement is again not counted as 1 of the 8 allowed.
Now this is all good in theory, however I am seeing an increase in forwards suspected of being concussed being replaced on the field and very few backs being replaced. I was surprised during the Eels Titans clash that even after all the injuries and players leaving the field, instead of the expected player fatigue, the commentators said that with 20mins to go the Titans had only completed 4 interchanges. This on top of the Titans half taking a hit and they left him on the field.
What this HIA has done is given the potential to increase the interchanges and therefore the forwards can freshen up and the impacts continue to be a full speed through the whole game. Every HIA that allowed to return to the field increases the interchanges by 2 and therefore 1 successful HIA means the team can be back to the original 10 interchanges of a couple of years ago. 1 getting a 15min rest.
What can the NRL do? Im not sure because as an impact sport they cant eliminate the risk they can only limit the risk. They cant tell who is concussed until they are off the field. So at the moment the clubs are taking advantage of a loophole that cant easily be closed. If your prop is going to be interchanged at the 20min mark then if they get any head knock between the 15 & 20 min marks then there is a strong reason to take them off and get them checked while giving them a 15 minute freshen up.
Where do we go from here? To me this has the potential to end up looking like soccer where players take a dive to get an advantage and the unfortunate thing is that those players who are truly concussed will be tarred with the same brush. Wade Graham getting hit in the head with a footy and going off under the HIA was the worst look of all.
Heres my answer at this stage:
A suspected concussed player is taken from the field (counting as 1 interchange).
Should they be allowed to return, they return to the bench and play goes on as normal ie when they finally go on to replace the next player it is again counted as an interchange.
If they cant return then the original interchange is credited back meaning the team loses a player
but still has an interchange up there sleeve.
Do you think this would close the door somewhat or have I missed something?
Replies
I honestly don't have an issue with the current set up of the HIA protocol. I do agree that all players who are suspected of a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) need to come off. Keep in mind that multiple small hits in one game can lead to a concussion. I couldn't believe both Kane Elgey for the Titans and Brendan Elliott for Newcastle were left on the field. Both teams deserve a massive fine for that. both had clearly suffered a brain injury. Both were unsteady on their feet, seemed dazed and lost consciousness briefly. They are tell-tale signs of a brain injury.
I'm currently working with a group of researchers who are investigating better ways of diagnosing concussion and mTBI. They are trying to develop a sensor that sits inside a mouthguard and will change colour once a player is hit with enough force to indicate a high likelihood of concussion. That's still a few years off.
I think there needs to be an independent doctor on the sideline that uses the King Devick Test alongside the SCAT3. Currently I believe the NRL only uses the SCAT3 which is a series of questions asked of the player. If they answer the questions correctly they're deemed to have passed. Now, that is very subjective, especially given some of the questions can include "On a scale of 1-10 how dizzy are you?" or "On a scale of 1-10 how much neck pain do you have?" If a player wants to return to action he can easily down play how injured he is.
The King Devick Test is a worldwide endorsed and supported reaction time test. To be used correctly, all players at the start of the season should complete it in order to have a baseline. If they are then hit during the game they should then have to undertake the test on the sideline and if they are not near their baseline then they shouldn't be allowed back. This is measured by showing a player a number on a screen and that player having to write the number down as fast as possible. The slower they are the worse the injury is.
If the player has a ready replacement, they use the HIA. As we saw with Dugan, he stayed on because there was no suitable replacement.
It's being rorted to the hilt!
Recently we have seen players use it whose heads weren't even touched?
The issue is it can also extend to the tackler. So anyone at any time can get a break.
and just to be clear Im not naive to think that Parra wouldnt be doing it too.
There is technology available to measure the amount of time it takes for messages to travel from the eye to the processing centre in the brain. It is expensive though and as such researchers are trying to find ways that achieve similar results that are more economical.
Lets be clear, its easy to see those that should be taken off and who arent; like Dugan and Elgey. The NRL should be heavily fining clubs for this.
The harder to control is the forwards coming off for a free rest.
On that note, I'm confused as to why people are saying that titans would have thought it wise to have most of their backline off at one time or another and esp Hurrell, who's been superb for them. Yes, the fact that he came back was surprising. And I'm sure there was a player who came off for them in second half for hia, that was back on in warp speed time as well. Isn't it more likely they are seen to be abiding by nrl directive and esp that it was reported the nrl were scrutinising?br/>
The nrl were half arsed and didn't think this through. They made a scapegoat of us in their usual gung ho fashion with the introduction of this rule and typically have let it all go by the wayside.
clubs are also fearsome of breaking the rules with fines on the table and also their duty of care to the players, and highlighted in Macmanus case.
Just have two players that can only be substituted if hia need arises. For just as much as a team may use to benefit, much more frequent that a team and the game is disadvantaged by having to abide with rule.
Seems totally ridiculous that the nrl would introduce this rule but not cater for it.
Think your idea is great.
So wht Tits only $50K per player while dragons and Knights $100K per person
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next