Six Nations referees
- Thread starter FKlopper
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,372
- Post Likes
- 1,472
I'm afraid that's a somewhat rosy view of the Drs OB.
There's a track record of Drs giving steroid shots and painkillers to players to allow them to get through the game.
Do I think a Dr can be influenced to err on the side of letting the player continuing? You bet.
There's a track record of Drs giving steroid shots and painkillers to players to allow them to get through the game.
Do I think a Dr can be influenced to err on the side of letting the player continuing? You bet.
Mat 04
Referees in Wales
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 906
- Post Likes
- 0
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
For me:
- Shocked that Bryce Lawrence has any, let alone two.
- Glad that Craig Joubert has two, he is an excellent referee.
- Happy Walsh has one to prove himself before the RWC - He has always been one of my favourites.
- Surprised Poite has two, he is infinitely better than Berdos in my opinion though.
- I can't believe Owens only has one, they must have already decided he will have the RWC final. :bday:
- David Pearson deserves another one after the pile of shit he had to ref in AI.
- George Clancy has shown me nothing to be impressed with, I also prefer Fitzy
- Alan Lewis is unlucky not to get one. Kappy should be dropped and Mark Lawrence in his place.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Yep, its right.
No to be too dramatic, but the referee's arse is on the line if he allows a player to carry on when he considers them too injured to continue, and then that player drops dead from a brain haemorrhage.
Err on the side of caution when it comes to head injuries.
4eyesbetter
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,320
- Post Likes
- 86
People will do extremely dumb things if they love a sport and they can be convinced that it's part of what the sport's about (and let's face it, we've all heard and probably been inspired by some story or other about Fred Bloggs ripping his knee/ankle/spleen to shreds in the midst of a vital match, gutting it out for the good of the team, and being in the right position at the critical moment to win the match). Doctors are definitely included in that; they're human beings too.
SANZAR, Lyndon Bray said explicitly on the radio once, that the best referees were going to be refereeing the S14 finals, and those 3 were Dickinson, Lawrence and Joubert ranked number 1. Furthermore, when the appointments were announced he said they were based on merit.
I seriously don't understand how Walsh is going. It should be on merit, and he has exhibited none of that this year. He's had a terrible season. He was only put on the IRB panel by Paddy O'Brien because they are great mates, and he wants him at the RWC. It's a farce in my opinion, that Walsh is on the IRB Panel. Considering he wasn't even on the top panel of referees for the S14.
So we are all to presume that doctors are cynical cheats and the referee knows best. All except me apparently.
Just because the referee has the power to overrule a doctor, it does not mean that he is still responsible if he doesn't and the doctor is wrong. In negligence, the standard of medical care you expect from a referee is very different from that expected of a doctor. It is much lower.
Just because the referee has the power to overrule a doctor, it does not mean that he is still responsible if he doesn't and the doctor is wrong. In negligence, the standard of medical care you expect from a referee is very different from that expected of a doctor. It is much lower.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,372
- Post Likes
- 1,472
Sorry OB:
if he was slurring, as GC seems to have heard, then I very much doubt (in my not very medical experience) if he should have been allowed on the pitch.
Are you saying that if the referee hears slurred speech, then he he should let the player stay on the field?
I'm not suggesting that all doctors are cynical. But I'd suggest that it's taking naivete to a less than credible point to believe that Drs may make decisions that are not in the player's best interests. This article is a little old, but still holds, I think:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-01-31-football-medicine.htm
if he was slurring, as GC seems to have heard, then I very much doubt (in my not very medical experience) if he should have been allowed on the pitch.
Are you saying that if the referee hears slurred speech, then he he should let the player stay on the field?
I'm not suggesting that all doctors are cynical. But I'd suggest that it's taking naivete to a less than credible point to believe that Drs may make decisions that are not in the player's best interests. This article is a little old, but still holds, I think:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-01-31-football-medicine.htm
If a player in junior rugby or community rugby had slurred speech after a head knock, I am sure that I would not allow him to continue regardless of what a club doctor says. Apart from the injury he has already sustained, the next ruck or tackle could be a very dangerous place for him if he does not have all his faculties.
Do they construct the brains of elite players in a different factory? I didn't think so:chin:
Do they construct the brains of elite players in a different factory? I didn't think so:chin:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
You WILL of course, be able to substantiate such an outrageous allegation of corruption against POB , with some solid factual evidence!
No?
I thought not!!
Zip it then chief!!
PS: Have you been smoking the same batch of weed that Bob Dwyer does, or, are you in fact, Bob Dwyer incognito?
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
What it all boils down to OB (as someone's signature says in this forum; can't remember who)....
"The referee is the only person on the field who is not trying to cheat"
And I include in that, coaches, managers, team doctors physios and all the other hangers-on.
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
As proved by another case whereby a referee was held accountable because he allowed a prop to play when the referee knew he wasnt STE, its the same the referee 'knows' the player has a head injury and in GC own words, he is not right.
If anything happened because of precedence the ref could be liable as he has failed in his duty of care to the players in not ensuring their safety.
Oh and if sports doctors didnt tow the line and do what the 'management' team wanted they would find themselves having a very short contract.
Bloodgate has shown that team doctors can only go so far because they are accountable to the GMC, not just the club.
I think the referee should argue his case to the doctor, and make it clear if he disagrees. Having to the power to over-rule does not prevent him from passing the primary responsibility to the doctor.
You are all IMHO far too happy to assume the doctor is going to be wrong and the referee right. We have an unusual situation, and should not push it too far as a general principle
I think the referee should argue his case to the doctor, and make it clear if he disagrees. Having to the power to over-rule does not prevent him from passing the primary responsibility to the doctor.
You are all IMHO far too happy to assume the doctor is going to be wrong and the referee right. We have an unusual situation, and should not push it too far as a general principle
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
I will not comment on the GMCs findings with regards to the so called Doctor from bloodgate. IMO she deliberately harmed an individual (cut them) for financial gain. Simple in my mind. It did show how someones judgement can be influenced in the game
I would have said this probably a week ago, but reading a few legal cases highlighted on here. I would say he does have the primary responsibility for safety and cannot pass this on.
LAW
3.9 THE REFEREE’S POWER TO STOP AN INJURED PLAYER FROM
CONTINUING
If the referee decides – with or without the advice of a doctor or other medically qualified person – that a player is so injured that the player should stop playing, the referee may order that player to leave the playing area. The referee may also order an injured player to leave the field in order to be medically examined.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/2369484/Paddy-O-Brien-backs-Steve-Walsh-comeback
It's in their in black and white.
I'd really appreciate if you didn't carry on like that Ian. Quite frankly you're just embarrassing yourself, and no forum members want to see you do it anymore. Grow up, really quite mature Ian.
Far too simplistic a judgement in my mind.
What you quote gives him the power to decide, but does not give him the obligation to do so. In just the same way he can overrule the TMO - but I have never heard him do so (though I do remember Steve Walsh sort of arguing with him once).
What we are considering here is legal liablity. I have dredged from my memory the case of Phillips v William Whiteley Ltd. A woman had her ears pierced by a jeweller, and subsequently an abscess developed which she had to have surgically drained. She sued for negligence. The court decided that the standard of care expected from a jeweller was not that of a surgeon, and that what the jeweller had done was certainly up to the standard to be expected of him. She lost.
It is clear to me that the law does not insist that the referee has ultimate responsibility.
Those two quotations do not say the same thing.
You are apparently claiming that O'Brien has the power to put a referee on the IRB panel regardless of what anybody else thinks, and that he has abused this power. To substantiate that claim you would need evidence that O'Brien had over-ruled contrary opinions eg from Match Observers.
Does anybody know what the process is for putting referees on the IRB Panel?
Is there not a committee involved?
Mat 04
Referees in Wales
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 906
- Post Likes
- 0
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Because his TMO on the day was a blubbering fool who could barely speak English and refused to accept that he could not comment on offences outside of in-goal. :noyc:
The alternative view is that he was trying to explain the situation as he saw it and felt his comments would help. Walsh did not exactly handle it diplomatically.
It did indeed show up the problems of using someone who could not speak fluent English. It would have slowed things down, but if you are going to use such a TMO it surely makes sense to use an interpreter as well.