RugbyRebels

That's better from Sanjay. Hasn't done much tonight, but that was class.

Oh Seymour. What the fuck? You're better than that.

I think he was waiting for Payne to cut back but that was awful following a great line.

Awful from Seymour. Plenty of options, but instead cropped space and delivered a terrible pass.

Banquo wrote:In another news, chiefs 9 is a dick. And definitely a penalty try.
Why bring Alun Wyn on?

Im assuming that none of the controversial 6 players called into the squad will get on unless they absolutely have to.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:In another news, chiefs 9 is a dick. And definitely a penalty try.
Why bring Alun Wyn on?

Im assuming that none of the controversial 6 players called into the squad will get on unless they absolutely have to.

Which is a shame in a way because Davies and Finn Russell were probably next in line for their respective positions and there wouldnt be too many objections to their inclusion.

Ah, Williams finally back to doing really crap stuff too.

Enjoyed that. Pack were excellent, nearly all on for the 80- Cole had been getting some stick, but that was a hell of an effort-- that was a pack performance 'for the tour' as it were; some nice touches in the backs too. Nowell was very good, and Daly classy; Williams looked dangerous too.
Kudos.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:In another news, chiefs 9 is a dick. And definitely a penalty try.
Why bring Alun Wyn on?

Im assuming that none of the controversial 6 players called into the squad will get on unless they absolutely have to.

I guess, but that forces these guys to play 80--- which they did well in truth.

That was a sound thrashing. The rush defence is troubling NZ sides, as are the Lions predictably good mauling skills. Even though it was a second string Chiefs side, that was a beating of unexpected magnitude from the midweek Lions. It's all on for Saturday.

Banquo wrote:Enjoyed that. Pack were excellent, nearly all on for the 80- Cole had been getting some stick, but that was a hell of an effort-- that was a pack performance 'for the tour' as it were; some nice touches in the backs too. Nowell was very good, and Daly classy; Williams looked dangerous too.
Kudos.

Agreed. Thought the front 5 were utterly dominant and laid foundation for an impressive win. Good to see the ball moving around the backs a bit resulting in some fine tries.
Lions getting better and looking a very united group.
1st test is going to be very interesting.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lawes has gone well, but another HIA? Management need a good look at themselves

He needs to stay off now.

When the class action arises it's hard to see how the game will defend itself

To be fair, Lawes taking a bash to the head means that the site of injury is about three feet from his brain.

cashead wrote:It's really frustrating to see a professional do that after I just had one kid in the team I co-coach sit out for about a month due to a concussion.

whilst I get he is keen to press his case and do well for the team, the medics are much better off erring on the side of caution.

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:Enjoyed that. Pack were excellent, nearly all on for the 80- Cole had been getting some stick, but that was a hell of an effort-- that was a pack performance 'for the tour' as it were; some nice touches in the backs too. Nowell was very good, and Daly classy; Williams looked dangerous too.
Kudos.

Agreed. Thought the front 5 were utterly dominant and laid foundation for an impressive win. Good to see the ball moving around the backs a bit resulting in some fine tries.
Lions getting better and looking a very united group.
1st test is going to be very interesting.

Aye, really pleased with the Lions defence over the last few games. Nice to see a bit more in attack too. I did genuinely laugh out loud as Nowell darted over for his first try through a huge gap at the fringe of the ruck that Laidlaw didn't even see. I'm not trying to rag on the wee man, as I think he had his best game of the tour today, but for a cat that sometimes takes a fortnight to play the ball his offensive awareness is brutal.

cashead wrote:It's really frustrating to see a professional do that after I just had one kid in the team I co-coach sit out for about a month due to a concussion.

As I understood the IRB's strictures 8 years ago, a loss of consciousness was a mandatory 2 weeks off.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:Enjoyed that. Pack were excellent, nearly all on for the 80- Cole had been getting some stick, but that was a hell of an effort-- that was a pack performance 'for the tour' as it were; some nice touches in the backs too. Nowell was very good, and Daly classy; Williams looked dangerous too.
Kudos.

Agreed. Thought the front 5 were utterly dominant and laid foundation for an impressive win. Good to see the ball moving around the backs a bit resulting in some fine tries.
Lions getting better and looking a very united group.
1st test is going to be very interesting.

Aye, really pleased with the Lions defence over the last few games. Nice to see a bit more in attack too. I did genuinely laugh out loud as Nowell darted over for his first try through a huge gap at the fringe of the ruck that Laidlaw didn't even see. I'm not trying to rag on the wee man, as I think he had his best game of the tour today, but for a cat that sometimes takes a fortnight to play the ball his offensive awareness is brutal.

didn't even think of that....but lol!

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

cashead wrote:It's really frustrating to see a professional do that after I just had one kid in the team I co-coach sit out for about a month due to a concussion.

whilst I get he is keen to press his case and do well for the team, the medics are much better off erring on the side of caution.

He was really keen to get back on the field and very frustrated, but I and the 2 guys that team coach the squad stuck to our guns. Once he got medical clearance, we let him do full physical contact training and had him do waterboy duties for 1 fixture before we selected him to start at lock - against the very team that he got concussed playing against.

We told him over and over again that we'd rather him miss as many games as required in this 1 season than to put his playing future at risk for just 1 fixture.

That's great. There is a difference in the pressure Lawes would be putting on himself....once in a lifetime chance etc...but thats why intervention is needed.

Banquo wrote:

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote: whilst I get he is keen to press his case and do well for the team, the medics are much better off erring on the side of caution.

He was really keen to get back on the field and very frustrated, but I and the 2 guys that team coach the squad stuck to our guns. Once he got medical clearance, we let him do full physical contact training and had him do waterboy duties for 1 fixture before we selected him to start at lock - against the very team that he got concussed playing against.

We told him over and over again that we'd rather him miss as many games as required in this 1 season than to put his playing future at risk for just 1 fixture.

That's great. There is a difference in the pressure Lawes would be putting on himself....once in a lifetime chance etc...but thats why intervention is needed.

Surely it's not up to the concussed player when the concussed player returns to playing?

It seems strange that in recent years there has been a medical division between losing consciousness and concussion.
This seems particularly strange to me after having personally suffered serious concussion without losing consciousness.

I find it inconceivable that someone could lose consciousness and not be considered to have suffered concussion.

onlynameleft wrote: Surely it's not up to the concussed player when the concussed player returns to playing?

You're absolutely right,.......but you have to tell CGS. I ain't telling him.

onlynameleft wrote:

Banquo wrote:

cashead wrote: He was really keen to get back on the field and very frustrated, but I and the 2 guys that team coach the squad stuck to our guns. Once he got medical clearance, we let him do full physical contact training and had him do waterboy duties for 1 fixture before we selected him to start at lock - against the very team that he got concussed playing against.

We told him over and over again that we'd rather him miss as many games as required in this 1 season than to put his playing future at risk for just 1 fixture.

That's great. There is a difference in the pressure Lawes would be putting on himself....once in a lifetime chance etc...but thats why intervention is needed.

Surely it's not up to the concussed player when the concussed player returns to playing?

seems they must be pretty passive to let him back on

That was hugely disappointing match to attend. I didn't expect the Chiefs to win but I did expect them to compete.

Obviously missing All Blacks/Maori/u20s players was hugely limiting but even 3rd string side should get most of their line outs right. The scrum was terrible, too so we got much less set piece ball then we should have.

When we had the ball, we very rarely got past 3rd phase without coughing it up. The Lions defence was very good but that is no excuse for dropped passes and failures to present the ball properly when tackled.

And WTF are we doing fielding a Scottish half back?

One highlight was the determination and skill shown by Hika Elliott when he got on. He seems to still have the desire to be an All Black.

On the Lions' side, it was good to see them eventually make the most of the opportunities given. The end to end try was perhaps the best looking thing they've done on tour. As usual, the supporters were good fun.

Very disappointing overall, especially as I was previously 2 from 2 for Lions matches attended in Hamilton.

kk67 wrote:It seems strange that in recent years there has been a medical division between losing consciousness and concussion.
This seems particularly strange to me after having personally suffered serious concussion without losing consciousness.

I find it inconceivable that someone could lose consciousness and not be considered to have suffered concussion.

That's... not recent. Medically speaking loss of consciousness and concussion ARE different things; one of them means that you're not conscious (such as sleep, anaethesia, hypotension etc etc) and one means that you have brain damage.

Even a suspicion that there is LoC means that the working diagnosis is concussion until proven otherwise. Once proven otherwise however, then the diagnosis changes.
What I find inconceivable is that despite all of this, increased educaton on concussion, increased spotlight on rugby, and increased pay-outs for concussion in other sports, that rugby seems to be fine with players returning to the pitch despite there being "reasonable ground for suspicion" of LOC; whether we're talking about Lawes last weekend, North before Christmas or Matu'u in April.
The first box to tick on the HIA form is "Have you seen the video footage?" and the next is "is there reasonable suspicion for a loss of consciousness?" and yet there are many examples each season of medics lying on these forms.

The only time a fuss has been made, it was brushed under the carpet and protocols were changed (instead of, you know, making sure people didn't lie on the form).

Which Tyler wrote:

kk67 wrote:It seems strange that in recent years there has been a medical division between losing consciousness and concussion.
This seems particularly strange to me after having personally suffered serious concussion without losing consciousness.

I find it inconceivable that someone could lose consciousness and not be considered to have suffered concussion.

That's... not recent. Medically speaking loss of consciousness and concussion ARE different things; one of them means that you're not conscious (such as sleep, anaethesia, hypotension etc etc) and one means that you have brain damage.

Even a suspicion that there is LoC means that the working diagnosis is concussion until proven otherwise. Once proven otherwise however, then the diagnosis changes.
What I find inconceivable is that despite all of this, increased educaton on concussion, increased spotlight on rugby, and increased pay-outs for concussion in other sports, that rugby seems to be fine with players returning to the pitch despite there being "reasonable ground for suspicion" of LOC; whether we're talking about Lawes last weekend, North before Christmas or Matu'u in April.
The first box to tick on the HIA form is "Have you seen the video footage?" and the next is "is there reasonable suspicion for a loss of consciousness?" and yet there are many examples each season of medics lying on these forms.

The only time a fuss has been made, it was brushed under the carpet and protocols were changed (instead of, you know, making sure people didn't lie on the form).

Even if there is no subsequent reason to prevent the player taking part in the next match, keeping them off the field in those circumstances for the duration makes sense. Its not a long period of time to review any tapes (if footage is available) and assess if the player is fully conscious or not.

Lizard wrote: And WTF are we doing fielding a Scottish half back?

Some Lions fans would've felt similar.