- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 3,575
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Maybe could be an area to focus on if unions are serious about concussion - doctor's encouraged to speak out, policies to protect whistleblowers etc.
I don't understand. Why would any team even want a player who has failed a HIA on the field?
Was Clermont's bench that bad?
Well I guess the lock sub went on for Jamie, then the other lock (Sebby was it?) went off and very few teams will have a 2nd lock sub. Granted I'd have thought shifting a back rower to lock would be better than a lock who gets knocked unconscious whenever he goes into contact. Still, could they have requested uncontested scrums or is that only for the front row? It would hinder you in lineouts I suppose...
Something similar happened with Smith as well. In a high profile Lions test match with millions watching. Unbelievable this can happen to be honest.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/sideline-concussion-test-a-disgrace-20130710-2pqhg.html
A study on the long-term effects of concussions in former Scotland rugby players has found they displayed "only some mild memory effects".
Fifty-two ex-internationals with an average of 14 concussions each were examined by the University of Glasgow.
Multiple sports concussions have been linked to the neurodegenerative disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
It has been found in the brain tissue of deceased former NFL athletes, boxers and rugby players.
The former players were examined alongside 29 control subjects.
"Overall there is not a suggestion of widespread decline in daily function in ex-rugby internationalists who had a high number of repeat concussions," said Tom McMillan, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology.
"Although some differences in memory were found, these were mild overall and their cause uncertain.
"Despite a high number of repeat concussions in the retired rugby players, effects on mental health, social or work function were not evident some 20 years after they had stopped playing."
...
Well I guess the lock sub went on for Jamie, then the other lock (Sebby was it?) went off and very few teams will have a 2nd lock sub. Granted I'd have thought shifting a back rower to lock would be better than a lock who gets knocked unconscious whenever he goes into contact. Still, could they have requested uncontested scrums or is that only for the front row? It would hinder you in lineouts I suppose...
My absolute best game of recent years was probably while concussed.
But its absolutely true that players who fail a head knock should be a free replacement.
Interesting to see some of the reaction (on twitter, fwiw) to that study.
Lots of anger that it suggests that for some people there isn't any life changing effect from 10+ concussions.
We need to be open and reasonable about whatever studies suggest - whether that's that concussion is satan, or it's actually nothing to worry about for most people given the correct procedures are followed.
Shades of the attitudes shown by parliament's reaction to their own studies on cannabis - "but drugs are bad, mmkay?"
Is that not open to manipulation though?
Player gets injured, clear it's gonna be a good few weeks, claim head knock to get another player back on.
Is there an independent assessor making the decisions on HIAs?
My absolute best game of recent years was probably while concussed.
i think it's funny how a lot of people who never had a serious concussion think that 10 concussions are no problem... after five you are greatly altering your brain for the rest of your life
That's not the finding of this study - it suggests some people can sustain multiple concussions and have only "mild" symptoms, long-term.
Unless you can find fault with the study itself then you have to take it into consideration. To do otherwise is entirely unscientific.
Which is exactly the point I was making in my last post.
do you honestly think that having "mild" symptoms for the rest of your life isn't going greatly alter your life?