Aye, that was an interesting few minutes.Mikey Brown wrote:Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.
If Biggar has passed the HIA then why shouldn't he play on?
Moderators: Puja, Misc Forum Mod
Aye, that was an interesting few minutes.Mikey Brown wrote:Also would have meant playing Russell and sinking the Lions forever.
I would hope not.WaspInWales wrote:North to feature in the 2nd test?
It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.Mikey Brown wrote:No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.Mikey Brown wrote:No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
This incident? HIAs in general? This Lion's tour? Lion's tours in general? Or rugby as a whole?morepork wrote:The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
Which Tyler wrote:This incident? HIAs in general? This Lion's tour? Lion's tours in general? Or rugby as a whole?morepork wrote:The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
I'm not saying he should have returned to the pitch, just that it wasn't obviously a bad head injury from the television pictures.morepork wrote:Son of Mathonwy wrote:It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.Mikey Brown wrote:No reason. I didn't see the incident though so for all I know he was completely fucked. I just wondered what impact that had on the decision, assuming he was totally fit to go back on but possibly a bit battered.
Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:I'm not saying he should have returned to the pitch, just that it wasn't obviously a bad head injury from the television pictures.morepork wrote:Son of Mathonwy wrote: It didn't look too bad. He seemed conscious, just not in any hurry to get up after taking what looked like a couple of blows during the tackle. Could well be concussed, but not obvious to the viewer.
Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
Absolutely agree that they should be especially careful with Biggar, having recently had head trauma. Are the rules different in such cases?? (They should be)
You've gone all Top Gun on us.morepork wrote:Son of Mathonwy wrote:I'm not saying he should have returned to the pitch, just that it wasn't obviously a bad head injury from the television pictures.morepork wrote:
Dunno about that. This is a player with a recent history of repeat head trauma. The more I see of Gatland's management of this, the less impressed I am.
Absolutely agree that they should be especially careful with Biggar, having recently had head trauma. Are the rules different in such cases?? (They should be)
Medically.....absolutely yes. Repeat episodes are highway to the danger zone. From the looks of things this doesn't seemed to have translated to regulations for player welfare in the actual game.
Aye we have the protocols because the medics and coaches were conspicuously successful in protecting players and not at all influenced by players wanting to get back onto the pitch. It's not as if we know that repeated head injury - and he definitely had a head injury - can cause problems.Buggaluggs wrote:Not really. A HIA is just that...an assessment made by someone vastly more qualified than you to judge if a head injury warrants time away from the field. That qualified person felt the injury did not.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Yes. Again. Just terrifying.morepork wrote:By the way, was another head injury (Biggar) brought back on after the injury?
He's not called Twatland for nothing!Banquo wrote:indeed, one of the more stupid pieces of management, reaching almost SCW-esque proportionsEpaminondas Pules wrote:What was the point of Garland calling up the reserves and then not using them, instead flogging his midweek team again for a full 80 almost to a man? What a twat! If you call them up then use them!!
100% bollocks you pontificating buffoonEugene Wrayburn wrote:Aye we have the protocols because the medics and coaches were conspicuously successful in protecting players and not at all influenced by players wanting to get back onto the pitch. It's not as if we know that repeated head injury - and he definitely had a head injury - can cause problems.Buggaluggs wrote:Not really. A HIA is just that...an assessment made by someone vastly more qualified than you to judge if a head injury warrants time away from the field. That qualified person felt the injury did not.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Yes. Again. Just terrifying.
Rugby has a serious problem. I'd quite like to see pro rugby continue. Once the world rugby get sued it is touch and go whether pro rugby will be able to continue in a number of countries.
BIAmorepork wrote:Are you quite sure it's bollocks?
seems to be a lot more of it about? or is it just a random cluster?Mellsblue wrote:In contrast NZ have sent Bin Smuth home and told him he won't be considered for the rest of the series......
Fact.morepork wrote: a beautiful wife,
Bin Smuf. Ligind.