Durham Giant wrote:Good decision by Wakey but a real concern that a talented player has got potential concussion injuries like this. Was the one the week before due to foul play.
There should be a zero tolerance to head shots and the game has to change quickly . Need to go back to tackling around the legs not the hit them high and wrap the ball up type of tackles.
One of the few things where we are behind RU in my opinion.
Was it though or did they they take the decision on the advice of the ruling body.
Joined: Oct 26 2006 Posts: 13794 Location: No bowl, stick, STICK!
Durham Giant wrote:Good decision by Wakey but a real concern that a talented player has got potential concussion injuries like this. Was the one the week before due to foul play.
There should be a zero tolerance to head shots and the game has to change quickly . Need to go back to tackling around the legs not the hit them high and wrap the ball up type of tackles.
One of the few things where we are behind RU in my opinion.
First one was a head shot albeit accidentally, second he fell awkwardly in the attempt of scoring a try. Nothing to do with rigours of the game, a pre-caution after two concussions practically with a week.
Joined: Oct 26 2005 Posts: 3211 Location: Bradford
Durham Giant wrote:Good decision by Wakey but a real concern that a talented player has got potential concussion injuries like this. Was the one the week before due to foul play.
There should be a zero tolerance to head shots and the game has to change quickly . Need to go back to tackling around the legs not the hit them high and wrap the ball up type of tackles.
One of the few things where we are behind RU in my opinion.
Don't know if concussion needs it's own thread, but you are correct we are behind RU at present. Logically though, what RU are doing will drive what we have to do as well. And the link between the 2 sports is insurance. The insurers will be saying to RU, well you are taking measures to reduce risk going forwards, penalising head contact harshly, looking at changing the way the game works to minimise head to head tackles etc. Due the the significant liability though, we will have to increase premiums by 50% Now, RL, you're not doing these things that RU is doing. But we're a different sport say the RFL. Insurers, well, not from where we're sitting - rugby ball, high tackles, punching. Liability is less than RU going forwards, but you're not publically doing all the preventative things that RU is doing so 200% premium increase for RL. Have a nice day.
Due to the relative difference in financial footprints of the 2 codes and the small pool of specialist sports insurers, this will be one area where we will have to follow RU lead I think. And the lever will be money, as always.
homme vaste wrote:No, the decision to give Tom a break has come from within the club after consulting with medical specialist on the situation.
Hope this is a good enough explanation for you.
Certainly is and thanks for that, I just wondered if they had been advised by the RFL or super league, no harm done, at least somebody is looking after the players welfare.
Joined: Oct 26 2005 Posts: 3211 Location: Bradford
happyjack wrote:Certainly is and thanks for that, I just wondered if they had been advised by the RFL or super league, no harm done, at least somebody is looking after the players welfare.
Here's what all clubs and club Doctors are following. A whole section - section E is for concussion.
happyjack wrote:Certainly is and thanks for that, I just wondered if they had been advised by the RFL or super league, no harm done, at least somebody is looking after the players welfare.
Highlander wrote:Don't know if concussion needs it's own thread, but you are correct we are behind RU at present. Logically though, what RU are doing will drive what we have to do as well. And the link between the 2 sports is insurance. The insurers will be saying to RU, well you are taking measures to reduce risk going forwards, penalising head contact harshly, looking at changing the way the game works to minimise head to head tackles etc. Due the the significant liability though, we will have to increase premiums by 50% Now, RL, you're not doing these things that RU is doing. But we're a different sport say the RFL. Insurers, well, not from where we're sitting - rugby ball, high tackles, punching. Liability is less than RU going forwards, but you're not publically doing all the preventative things that RU is doing so 200% premium increase for RL. Have a nice day.
Due to the relative difference in financial footprints of the 2 codes and the small pool of specialist sports insurers, this will be one area where we will have to follow RU lead I think. And the lever will be money, as always.
Interesting post. However is it the case that that at this point in time Insurers are actually paying out on claims from Rugby and Football players, Very sensitive subject I know. Often the medical problems players have are suspected as being down to their sport, but not proven 100%?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
