[Law] Head injury or not

[Paule23]

There has been some press coverage of France' decision to take off Uini Antonio and replace him with Rabat Slimani in those heady extra 20 minutes on Saturday. Slimani had already been substituted (tactical) when Uini seemed to be struggling a little bit. Barnes asked Antonio if he has fit, he replied yes, but had a bit of a sore back. On comes the French doctor who says Antonio needs a head injury assessment.

Not much the referee here can do, a doctor has said the player needs an assessment so the player goes off, but is it sharp practice by the French who knew scrums would be important and wanted to bring back a powerful scrummager? Rob Howley is certainly not amused.

 

[crossref]

Barnes was brilliant, ensuring that he extracted a crystal clear declaration by the doctor

 

[Camquin]

I am on record that I think the game would be improved by adopting interchanges as used in RFU National 1 and below.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...RFURegulation13Appendix22016-2017_English.pdf

But I would reduce the bench in Internationals and Premeirship to 6 which would be a maximum of 10 interchanges.
National league has a 5 man bench, so that means one prop on the bench and therefore one of the three props has to be able to play both sides.
With 6 you can have two props, a hooker, another forward and two backs. Which is sufficient for 99% of games.

I believe it is 4 subs at level 4 and 3 below that.

 

[Balones]

I am on record that I think the game would be improved by adopting interchanges as used in RFU National 1 and below.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...RFURegulation13Appendix22016-2017_English.pdf

But I would reduce the bench in Internationals and Premeirship to 6 which would be a maximum of 10 interchanges.
National league has a 5 man bench, so that means one prop on the bench and therefore one of the three props has to be able to play both sides.
With 6 you can have two props, a hooker, another forward and two backs. Which is sufficient for 99% of games.

I believe it is 4 subs at level 4 and 3 below that.

You have to be careful not to confuse National Leagues with ref levels. NL1 = L3 NL2 = L4 NL3 = L5. Five subs at L's 3+4. (for Refs)

 

[didds]

Barnes was brilliant, ensuring that he extracted a crystal clear declaration by the doctor

Yup. That nuance was clear to me too CR.

Didds

 

[Pegleg]

WB did all he could re the "HIA". The idiot says that he should havre ignore the doctor are simply that; idiots.

However, As would happen at my level he should be reporting it to the tournament organisers. It's over to them to deal with any cheating.

 

[Taff]

.... Barnes asked Antonio if he has fit, he replied yes, but had a bit of a sore back. On comes the French doctor who says Antonio needs a head injury assessment.

And here's the problem right there.

In my opinion, doctors at international level should never be French or Welsh (or whichever country is playing that day) - they should be neutral. In fact after "Bloodgate" I thought all doctors were neutral, with no vested interests.

 

[Pegleg]

Teams will always have their own medical team. To expect them not to is naive. Ultimately if a team says it;s player is injured it would take a very brave (foolish!?) referee to overrule.

 

[crossref]

And here's the problem right there.

In my opinion, doctors at international level should never be French or Welsh (or whichever country is playing that day) - they should be neutral. In fact after "Bloodgate" I thought all doctors were neutral, with no vested interests.

doctors have ongoing relationships with patients.

except in an emergency, it's not appropriate for doctors to meet a stranger and provide immediate treatment

 

[Taff]

Teams will always have their own medical team. To expect them not to is naive. Ultimately if a team says it;s player is injured it would take a very brave (foolish!?) referee to overrule.

Except I'm not suggesting a Referee overrule a qualified doctor. What I'm suggesting (and imagined was already happening) was that Referees got advice from a neutral doctor rather than a doctor with a vested interest.

doctors have ongoing relationships with patients. except in an emergency, it's not appropriate for doctors to meet a stranger and provide immediate treatment

Good, because nobody asked them to give "immediate treatment" just an independent immediate diagnosis.

If team doctors can conjure up imaginary injuries just to get round the laws, it stinks and makes a joke of the system. And I'm not sore because we lost; there was nothing in it for us apart from national pride. If it cost us a few world ranking points, so what?

Barnes was brilliant, ensuring that he extracted a crystal clear declaration by the doctor

I hope somebody checks what made the doctor give such a crystal clear declaration and that there are repurcussions if he turned out to have made it up. To me, the sight of the prop walking down the tunnel to the changing rooms alone says a lot. If he needed a HIA so urgently, wouldn't somebody stay with him?

 

[oliver]

I feel this is the best place to ask.

I always thought, as per 3.14, you could bring a prop back on to replace an injured prop. Can someone explain why an injury to Antonio wouldn't allow him to be replaced by Slimani?

Just seems really convoluted for the french doctor to claim a head injury and then go on and France claim he was examined by a neurologist who confirmed a concussion when they could've just said he's injured.

If 3.14 (first point) doesn't apply, can someone please explain why?

 

[Paule23]

I feel this is the best place to ask.

I always thought, as per 3.14, you could bring a prop back on to replace an injured prop. Can someone explain why an injury to Antonio wouldn't allow him to be replaced by Slimani?

Just seems really convoluted for the french doctor to claim a head injury and then go on and France claim he was examined by a neurologist who confirmed a concussion when they could've just said he's injured.

If 3.14 (first point) doesn't apply, can someone please explain why?

ive just had a good nose around 3.14 and I can't see anything that would prevent this. That's what I initially thought at the time, but happy to hear from others if this is wrong.

 

[ChuckieB]

ive just had a good nose around 3.14 and I can't see anything that would prevent this. That's what I initially thought at the time, but happy to hear from others if this is wrong.

Wasn't it about two things including whether Slimani was eligible to have come back on? If substituted, he could come on, but if injured and permanently replaced, then not eligible and there would have been a move to uncontested scrum which wouldn't have quite suited France so well. WB endeavoured to check that as well!

And of course he couldn't go back on unless the TH was injured, even he couldn't make up his own mind! So the easiest thing for the French to do was take it out of his hands so they called HIA as their ploy to ensure he could be taken off and be eligible for a replacement at that time. And the Doc then cops the criticism!

 

[Taff]

... Just seems really convoluted for the french doctor to claim a head injury and then go on and France claim he was examined by a neurologist who confirmed a concussion when they could've just said he's injured.

Did Wayne Barnes suspect something and try boxing the doctor into a corner?

The doctor couldn't very well say the prop was injured, when the prop had just told Wayne Barnes himself that he wasn't.

 

[Julien Cazenave]

in my limited experience a player will always often say i am ok even if he is not...

 

[DocY]

Did Wayne Barnes suspect something and try boxing the doctor into a corner?

The doctor couldn't very well say the prop was injured, when the prop had just told Wayne Barnes himself that he wasn't.

I suspect he suspected something, but it didn't look like boxing him into the corner to me - IIRC he straight up asked if it was an HIA when the doctor came on.

What I'd have preferred to see (wanting Wales to win and not wanting to see this sort of thing in the game) was a series of more probing questions from Barnes "What are you doing on the pitch?" "Why do you want to see him? He just told me he's fine" "When did he get this bang on the head?" "Fine. Now f*** off and let us get on with the game!". The last bit is just wishful thinking.

 

[crossref]

What I'd have preferred to see (wanting Wales to win and not wanting to see this sort of thing in the game) was a series of more probing questions from Barnes "What are you doing on the pitch?" "Why do you want to see him? He just told me he's fine" "When did he get this bang on the head?" "Fine. Now f*** off and let us get on with the game!". The last bit is just wishful thinking.

I think all that's best left for blazers after the game. right there on the pitch if a doctor is telling you the player has to go off the pitch, then he's going off the pitch. I think WB was great.

(aside - medics don't need ref's permission to come on the pitch, its routine for them to come on to treat injurues)

 

[DocY]

I think all that's best left for blazers after the game. right there on the pitch if a doctor is telling you the player has to go off the pitch, then he's going off the pitch. I think WB was great.

(aside - medics don't need ref's permission to come on the pitch, its routine for them to come on to treat injurues)

Absolutely - not meaning to criticise WB's handling. I'm sure I'd have been a lot more flustered. Just something I'd have liked to see, however unlikely. I'd have also liked to see six Welsh tries!

 

[Camquin]

I hate law 3, it has grown like topsy and needs to be trimmed.
I also do not like the way we are putting doctors under pressure to comply with the teams wishes.
Once was too often. Twice in high profile games in 8 years is too often. And I suspect there have been more.

There is a simple solution - it has been used for several seasons.
Occam's razor suggests it is the correct way forward.

 

[ChuckieB]

I hate law 3, it has grown like topsy and needs to be trimmed.
I also do not like the way we are putting doctors under pressure to comply with the teams wishes.
Once was too often. Twice in high profile games in 8 years is too often. And I suspect there have been more.

There is a simple solution - it has been used for several seasons.
Occam's razor suggests it is the correct way forward.

Harder fro the doc when it is the other way round and the Doc wants them off (player welfare) and the team wants them on.

A la Eden Hazard/Jose Mourinho, Wendyball incident.