Sam Burgess - Concussion Article

[goodNumber10]

Was undecided as to whether I should put this in here or in the Aviva Froum now Burgess is off to Bath... and in light of all the concussion issues union has had altely.

Interesting Article by Peter Fitzsimons on Concussion in the Grand Final:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ries-too-little-too-late-20141009-113i97.html

 

[ratsapprentice]

I watched it live.

I didn't see any obvious signs of concussion - the dude stood straight back up, didn't look confused and was sure footed.
He immediately told a medic he ****ed up his cheek.

After the game during the immediate post match interviews he was extremely lucid.

With the amount of adrenaline running through him (enough to numb losing a tooth and fracturing a cheekbone and eyesocket) I'm not surprised he can't remember much.

Peter Fitzgibbon isn't exactly neutral in all this either.
League and Union bitterness in Australian journalism is rampant.

 

[goodNumber10]

I watched it live.

I didn't see any obvious signs of concussion - the dude stood straight back up, didn't look confused and was sure footed.
He immediately told a medic he ****ed up his cheek.

After the game during the immediate post match interviews he was extremely lucid.

With the amount of adrenaline running through him (enough to numb losing a tooth and fracturing a cheekbone and eyesocket) I'm not surprised he can't remember much.

Peter Fitzgibbon isn't exactly neutral in all this either.
League and Union bitterness in Australian journalism is rampant.

Fitzsimmons?

He played Union for Australia and seems to cover league, seems like a reasonably well balanced opinion imho.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Mate the ozzie press is more cuthroat than ours from what I've seen.

As I say, it's an irresponsible article because he's diagnosing a guy with concussion based on what he said in an interview the day after (?) the game.
I'd bet most of the team can't remember most of the game. Anyone who's ever taken part in an event that is important to them will know that it's hard to remember anything about it, let alone details.

You could diagnose the bride and groom of a wedding or a mother during childbirth with concussion based on this.

 

[goodNumber10]

Mate the ozzie press is more cuthroat than ours from what I've seen.

As I say, it's an irresponsible article because he's diagnosing a guy with concussion based on what he said in an interview the day after (?) the game.
I'd bet most of the team can't remember most of the game. Anyone who's ever taken part in an event that is important to them will know that it's hard to remember anything about it, let alone details.

You could diagnose the bride and groom of a wedding with concussion based on this.

yeah i know the Aussie press are difficult, but I think we're seeing different points in the article here. The NRL are investigating it the article is provoked and his comments are off the back of that.

I not sure I agree it's irresponsible to bring up concussion in sport, even if it is an amateur diagnosis - something which he mocks early in the article, and I think anything that provokes discussion of concussion causes and effects is a good thing.

 

[Peat]

If you start talking about the effects of concussion in sport, and the points you are bringing up are wrong and easily refuted, you're causing damage by making the argument look ill-founded. It is a huge issue and must be talked about responsibly.

Bringing up a relatively minor point and making big swinging assertions about it before anything is proven is not, imo, responsible.

I'm happy the NRL are investigating this. I'm not so happy with the tone of the article. Let's wait and see on this one...

 

[goodNumber10]

If you start talking about the effects of concussion in sport, and the points you are bringing up are wrong and easily refuted, you're causing damage by making the argument look ill-founded. It is a huge issue and must be talked about responsibly.

Bringing up a relatively minor point and making big swinging assertions about it before anything is proven is not, imo, responsible.

I don't think he's done that at all, he's made some observational comments granted but the fundamental point being discussed has been provoked by the NRL investigation.

 

[ratsapprentice]

He's categorically stated that Burgess had concussion based on the fact that he couldn't remember much about the game.

He's clearly biased. It's utter conjecture.

 

[goodNumber10]

fair enough mate, that's not how i'm reading it

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's exactly what he's done though.

And, of course, not just his cheekbone. After an impact like that, how could he possibly not have been concussed as well, a fact that he acknowledged in an interview with 2KY yesterday when he said that when it came to the grand final, "I don't remember too much of it."

That's his analysis and what he's basing his conclusion on.

"how could he not be concussed" That's astoundingly wishy-washy logic. - very simply, not every knock to the head is concussive.
Most concussions are cause by the head "whipping" which induces a great deal of acceleration - that did not happen.

And his interpretation of "I don't remember too much of it" as an acknowledgement of concussion is laughable, frankly.

That's literally the only evidence of concussion that he's cited.

 

[goodNumber10]

"how could he not be concussed" That's astoundingly wishy-washy logic. - very simply, not every knock to the head is concussive.

I don't think he is saying that every head knock causes it but there was significant damage to Burgess - of course that doesn't mean he had concussion but Burgess comments coupled with the extent of the damage and the fact the NRL have launched an investigation does lend some credence to his observation.

To be perfectly honest I'd have more issue with his assessment on George than Sam.

Most concussions are cause by the head "whipping" which induces a great deal of acceleration - that did not happen.

Most, but not all - impact and deceleration also have a large influence on the outcome of a collision.

And his interpretation of "I don't remember too much of it" as an acknowledgement of concussion is laughable, frankly.

That's literally the only evidence of concussion that he's cited.

I honestly don't think that's what he's doing at all. I think he's using that quote as the impetus to discuss the fact the NRL concussion protocols need to be improved. The fact Burgess was Lucid after the fact doesn't mean he wasn't concussed, and it effects people in very different ways - it's not a condition that is only diagnosible by looking at someone.

Regardless, i think any discussion on concussion and it's effects is worth having - i don't agree that it's just sensationalist drivel, we were all appalled when the Fritz incident happened, this was maybe not a gory but there was significant damage done to Burgess and it's not inconceivable he maybe shouldn't have been out there with such a serious injury.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I strongly disagree mate.

The logic used in that article is on a similar level to some of Ewis' arguments.

 

[goodNumber10]

lol!

 

[Peat]

Regardless, i think any discussion on concussion and it's effects is worth having - i don't agree that it's just sensationalist drivel, we were all appalled when the Fritz incident happened, this was maybe not a gory but there was significant damage done to Burgess and it's not inconceivable he maybe shouldn't have been out there with such a serious injury.

If I wrote an article tomorrow stating that rugby players are especially prone to concussion due continually having to look behind them and that the game either needs to ban the backwards pass or send off everyone making any contact with the head ever in any circumstances, which starts with banning the scrum, would you think that is a discussion on concussion that's worth having?

Or maybe one arguing that since one schoolboy died from very poor concussion care, it should be illegal to play rugby until the skull has completely matured, which means nobody under the age of 30 should be allowed to play?

 

[Saints1]

You're all forgetting that Sam Burgess is from Yorkshire - he probably barely remembers his own name. In my opinion (and as someone who got concussion in a game once and played on as I was only diagnosed afterwards) it is not possible that Burgess had concussion as I don't think he could have carried on had he done so.

 

[goodNumber10]

If I wrote an article tomorrow stating that rugby players are especially prone to concussion due continually having to look behind them and that the game either needs to ban the backwards pass or send off everyone making any contact with the head ever in any circumstances, which starts with banning the scrum, would you think that is a discussion on concussion that's worth having?

Or maybe one arguing that since one schoolboy died from very poor concussion care, it should be illegal to play rugby until the skull has completely matured, which means nobody under the age of 30 should be allowed to play?

No mate i'd think you were being deliberately obtuse to try and get a rise out of someone.

Why do you keep skipping over the fact the NRL have launched an investigation into it? Maybe he is jumping to conclusions, maybe he's not, the article is provoked by a very serious issue that is being investigated by the governing body.

Collision-Related Trauma is a well known fact in contact sports i don't think a discussion around it i spointless, and i don't think he's is making wild accusations he's a journo drawing some observational based conclusions, that's vasty different to the tripe you just dished up there

I'll also take this moment to point out that a lot of people have picked this up: Cleary, Kinsella (who is a forum favourite) and others... it seems to have had it's desired effect of provoking awareness and discussion.

You're all forgetting that Sam Burgess is from Yorkshire - he probably barely remembers his own name.

lol!

In my opinion (and as someone who got concussion in a game once and played on as I was only diagnosed afterwards) it is not possible that Burgess had concussion as I don't think he could have carried on had he done so.

I've had several concussions some from playing rugby and some from your average young lad up to mischief accidents... only once was it so debilitating i was out of action for a few days. on both occasions I finished my game went and got checked and was told i was suffering from concussion and shouldn't have played on.

 

[Peat]

But I thought you said all discussions on the subject of concussion were worth having - so you'd change that to "as long as they are not obviously packed full of lies, half-truths and misleading statements?"

 

[Saints1]

I've had several concussions some from playing rugby and some from your average young lad up to mischief accidents... only once was it so debilitating i was out of action for a few days. on both occasions I finished my game went and got checked and was told i was suffering from concussion and shouldn't have played on.

But have any of those games been played at the intensity of the NRL Grand Final? Sam Burgess is a tough hombre, but I don't think he could play in a grand final with concussion.

I get where you're coming from and on a personal viewpoint I can't say that the University of Central Lancashire RL versus Liverpool John Moores RL is a game I shouldn't be getting through due to it's intensity - but I was nowhere near okay to play on.


That was ten years ago though - and I have learned to not run at the two Great Britain (at the time) student rugby league props ever since!

 

[goodNumber10]

But I thought you said all discussions on the subject of concussion were worth having - so you'd change that to "as long as they are not obviously packed full of lies, half-truths and misleading statements?"

It's a ridiculous comparison and one your making for no other reason than to get a rise...

If the points you made above were part of an ongoing discussions within the game then of course it'd be different... but your comparing some wildly mad piece of troll bait against a discussion that's got thousands of medical hours and millions of dollars being thrown into it.

The points in fitzsimmons article are no different to the points we've read in any other article about smith, about Fritz, about Goode and avrious boxers etc... No one is calling for sports to be banned or anything else, the point he is making, and well enough in my opinion, is that a guy suffered a very serious injury and played on because the NRL protocol (in his opinion) wasn't sufficient. He's not offering solutions, he's making an observational comment about a very serious subject that is being reviewed.

The NRL seem to agree, again you keep ignoring this, and are investigating how Burgess was allowed to play on.

But have any of those games been played at the intensity of the NRL Grand Final? Sam Burgess is a tough hombre, but I don't think he could play in a grand final with concussion.

Seemed like it at the time, but alas no

I don't know, concussion effects people differently and adrenaline will hide a lot of damage and get people through different situations - but i'm no expert.

That was ten years ago though - and I have learned to not run at the two Great Britain (at the time) student rugby league props ever since!

heheheh! I was a flay half i never went into contact my entire career.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If someone accuses the NRL of endangering a player they are obviously going to do something - it's a necessary PR reaction.

The journalists that are RT'ing it without criticism are being equally irresponsible IMO.