He has the right, but is it right to overrule somebody who is best placed to judge. It is not the touchstone for no nonsense decisions.
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.
Err, if SD is rated No. 2 In SANZAR, how come he didn't get any appointments for the last Tri-Nations?
He was only put on the IRB panel by Paddy O'Brien because they are great mates.
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.
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.
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
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?
O'Brien, who bases himself between Southland and IRB headquarters in Dublin, has been something of a mentor to Walsh in terms of professional refereeing and also personal friend.
Far too simplistic a judgement in my mind.IMO she deliberately harmed an individual (cut them) for financial gain. Simple 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).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.
He was only put on the IRB panel by Paddy O'Brien because they are great mates, and he wants him at the RWC.
Those two quotations do not say the same thing.O'Brien, who bases himself between Southland and IRB headquarters in Dublin, has been something of a mentor to Walsh in terms of professional refereeing and also personal friend.
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).
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: