1. Has he been confirmed to have concussion then Olyy? I haven't read that.
2. He was lying still with his eyes shut. That doesn't mean he was 100% knocked out. Being knocked out doesn't 100% mean you have a concussion either.
3. He passed the HIA tests. Now either they're not good enough for purpose, and he was concussed and still passed, or he wasn't concussed. A number of people have come out and said that the tests are far more rigourous these days, and hard to get around if you are concussed.
4. David Flatman said that in one ruck when he was playing, he got a blow and was worried about his neck, said he laid perfectly still and had a similar thing where people thought he was out cold, but he wasn't. George had a lot of attention paid to his neck, and could well have been lying there waiting for the medics. If they arrived and he immediately told them he had neck pain, why wouldn't they simply assume he deliberately laid perfectly still? If anything, the claim that they were getting him checked out for HIA could have been the bull**** here, so they could check his neck and get him back out without having to permanently remove him.
5. Should they have viewed the footage? Absolutely, and it's seemingly a bull**** excuse and my guess would be they did see it, but are trying to claim they hadn't as a PR exercise now that the press and prem rugby have effectively forced them into having North checked out further.
6. I don't know if he was knocked out, and I don't know if he was concussed. What amazes me is that some many people can apparently tell by watching their TV, and are willing to believe that over the HIA results.
1. As far as I'm aware, concussion has not been confirmed.
2. Correct - however, being KOd IS a sign of concussion, and being KOd means that yo are considered to be concussed until proven otherwise. Being KOd is a much more reliable sign of concussion than any pitch-side tests yet developed. By WR regulations a player MUST be removed from the pitch if there is a suspicion of concussion - AKA if there is a suspicion of being KOd. You don't need any medical trainig whatsoever to see that there is suspicion that George had ben KOd (and most medical people who've commented, including myself, who have seen the footage, believe that GN had been KOd). With that suspicion, a player has to go through the return to play protocols, which tames 5 days, not 5 minutes, and is regardless of the results of a pitch-side HIA.
3. He may or may not have passed the HIA; but he didn't have time to undergo the full test, which takes a minimum of about 10 minutes (typically longer), he was back on the pitch in about 7 IIRC. He certainly failed the part of the HIA that includes looking at the footage of the incident and seeing if there is a suspicion that he was KOd. HIA tests aren't really good enough; and are being improved year-on-year; this doesn't mean they should be ditched, it means they should be improved. Passing an HIA does not overule evidence of a KO.
4. Yep, and that's what I suspect happened, they used an HIA to check his neck, didn't complete an HIA, didn't look at the video with a though towards HIA. This does not excuse them for missing a suspicion that he'd been KOd; medical negligence just doesn't work that way. We are responsible for assessing the evidence before us, ignoring evidence because it's not what we're worried about is not a god enough excuse.
5. My guess is that they didn't look at the footage at all, and are digging themselves a bigger hole by claiming that the footage wasn't available - bringing the rest of the club's management into things, rather than being a purely medical disciplinary issue.
6. I don't know for sure either - but it is absolutely clear that there is grounds for suspicion, and that grounds for suspicion is all that is needed. I am perfectly willing to believe the evidence of my eyes over an HIA test (that probably wasn't performed), because the evidence of my eyes is all that's required. In truth, the evidence of my eyes means that an HIA test diesn't even need to be performed, GN should have been removed from the field of play, and has to undergo Return To Play Protocols because of the evidence of my eyes, whatever an HIA says about things.
The medical negligence issue is one for the GMC, not the RFU. However, the not-following of rugby's concussions protocols is an issue for the RFU; and management are responsible for the actions of their employees. Lying (potentially) about the evidence that was available (rather than saying "we were worried about his neck, so were examining him for neck injuries, not an HIA") is absolutely a case for the RFU to investigate (against the club, not just the medics). Bringing the game into disrepute is absolutely a case for the RFU to investigate, and for the club as a whole to defend.
Living Sarifice - I don't care how many times your club has done it right - it's doing it wrong that's at issue here. No-one cares how many times I catch a red-flag at work, it's the one I miss that'll see me struck off.
ETA: I think Bath may have opened themselves up to similar at the weekend, taking Faletau off for an HIA after an injury to his eye. Difference with that case is that there's nothing pointing to Faletau being KOd; but I hope they still checked the videos for evidence that he might have been anyway.
