Hattons Solicitors Banner
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Head Test/Concussion Rule

  1. #1
    In The South Stand reliable sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,958
    Rep Power
    15

    Default Head Test/Concussion Rule

    On the Warrington thread I made a comment about Chris ‘Head Test’ Hill going off every match for a head test when it appears there’s nothing wrong with him, he’s just done his minutes. Even on replays after he’s gone off and the commentators try to see what’s happened I’ve not noticed anything that could indicate a head injury.

    Looks like it’s been picked up by other clubs and the RFL too.
    I’ve no doubt the club being talked about bending the rule every week is Warrington and majority of the time it’s Chris ‘head test’ Hill.

    Sure it happened in the CC final too, not sure if both Hill and Cooper went off with ‘head tests’.

    https://www.totalrl.com/rfl-investig...ion-protocols/

  2. #2
    In The South Stand retro74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St Helens, Lancashire
    Age
    44
    Posts
    4,256
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    They had at least two head test / free substitutions in the first half at Wembley

    A rule that was put in place to protect the players and it's being exploited to gain an advantage - hardly in the spirit of fair play is it?

  3. #3
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    344
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    So first the Hicks publicity stunt debacle, then the fine for breaching the 19 man squad rule and now abuse of the Head Test/Concussion Rule. As Holbrook said pre Wembley.....'Price will do anything to win'

  4. #4
    Starting A Programme Collection Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    707
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    The thing is it's very difficult to prove as anytime it's questioned it will be a "player welfare" issue. Even if the RFL decide to pick up on a certain player it will just be manipulated again and shared around the team.

  5. #5
    In The South Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    2,749
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retro74 View Post
    They had at least two head test / free substitutions in the first half at Wembley

    A rule that was put in place to protect the players and it's being exploited to gain an advantage - hardly in the spirit of fair play is it?
    The rules are easily bypassed with little or no repurcussions. We should be doing the same
    Dave Woods: the guy who makes Eddie Hemmings look like a decent commentator

  6. #6
    In The South Stand reliable sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,958
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    The thing is it's very difficult to prove as anytime it's questioned it will be a "player welfare" issue. Even if the RFL decide to pick up on a certain player it will just be manipulated again and shared around the team.
    If it proves so difficult to rule on it for me the rule shouldn’t exist. Scrap the ‘free sub’.

  7. #7
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    4,009
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Fridge View Post
    The rules are easily bypassed with little or no repurcussions. We should be doing the same
    The problem here is that Saints' game plan is fast, attacking rugby. Lots of changes of direction played at a high tempo. Though Saints could do the same its unlikely to benefit us as much. The reality is Warrington exploited a loophole and in some instances not only did they get the 'free' replacement but used it to slow the game down. As AD said, its going to be really hard to police the 'spirit of fair play.'

  8. #8
    Starting A Programme Collection Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    707
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reliable sauce View Post
    If it proves so difficult to rule on it for me the rule shouldn’t exist. Scrap the ‘free sub’.
    I agree in principle but you know as soon as it because a H&S issue the world goes mad. I blame Tony Blair.

  9. #9
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    51
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    The problem here is that Saints' game plan is fast, attacking rugby. Lots of changes of direction played at a high tempo. Though Saints could do the same its unlikely to benefit us as much. The reality is Warrington exploited a loophole and in some instances not only did they get the 'free' replacement but used it to slow the game down. As AD said, its going to be really hard to police the 'spirit of fair play.'
    What a load of old rubbish.
    You need to learn how to catch the ball first, and you missed out all the fast forward passes.
    Concussion checks are a result of high shots, not loopholes

  10. #10
    In The South Stand reliable sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,958
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superblue View Post
    What a load of old rubbish.
    You need to learn how to catch the ball first, and you missed out all the fast forward passes.
    Concussion checks are a result of high shots, not loopholes
    If you can read, read the post again.
    It’s not about the challenge cup performance in which we didn’t perform to our far superior ability.

    The exact point is that the ‘concussion checks’ haven’t been as a result of high shots, more tiredness and the need for an extra free sub.

  11. #11
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    9,489
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reliable sauce View Post
    If you can read, read the post again.
    It’s not about the challenge cup performance in which we didn’t perform to our far superior ability.

    The exact point is that the ‘concussion checks’ haven’t been as a result of high shots, more tiredness and the need for an extra free sub.
    Your last sentence got me thinking, Sauce. As head knocks and injuries overall seem to be more frequent in the modern game is it time they looked at increasing the amount of subs to 5 on the bench instead of 4. Teams tend to generally have 4 forwards on the bench mostly for prop rotation. A fifth sub would give teams the luxury of sticking a back on the bench to help blood youngsters, cover for injuries to any backs, bring more tactics to the game etc.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  12. #12
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    739
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Why are you biting Lads leave him be.

    On the pushing the rules to the limit issue, it is time to push back. Take the ball from the man with cramp and play it ourselves, same if they cramp during drop outs take the ball from the kicker, make the ref give them a penalty, it highlights a problem that can put a doubt in the refs mind.
    The concussion test has a way of coming back to haunt players, maybe a stray boot or elbow that does cause concussion will go unnoticed and unpunished if the boy who cried wolf did so too many times. The world is made round to go around.

  13. #13
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    739
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishy3005 View Post
    Your last sentence got me thinking, Sauce. As head knocks and injuries overall seem to be more frequent in the modern game is it time they looked at increasing the amount of subs to 5 on the bench instead of 4. Teams tend to generally have 4 forwards on the bench mostly for prop rotation. A fifth sub would give teams the luxury of sticking a back on the bench to help blood youngsters, cover for injuries to any backs, bring more tactics to the game etc.
    No more subs fishy. The subs rule was brought in so a team did not have a pack of fast twitch explosive muscle south sea island boys, with the same number available on their bench, think 8 Vila Matautia`s. The skill of being a fit 80 min second rower goes out of the window along with their teeth. Joynty said if they did not get Vila off the moment he was gone he would do untold damage to his own teamates in tackles as he was mistiming a shot on the opposition due to being exhausted. When he was gone was 10 minutes when young and fit & 5 minutes as he got older, in Barry Ward`s case 5 minutes all the time he was here. Johnty`s words in his autobio.

  14. #14
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, NZ
    Posts
    379
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Easily solved. Go off for the head test. If the player is fit to return then no free substitution and the substitution tally is decremented. If not deemed fit to return then free sub rule applies. At the end of the day the team would be down to 16 fit men (or women) so a free sub at that point is warranted.

  15. #15
    In The South Stand Saint_Claire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Golborne
    Posts
    4,229
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_down_under View Post
    Easily solved. Go off for the head test. If the player is fit to return then no free substitution and the substitution tally is decremented. If not deemed fit to return then free sub rule applies. At the end of the day the team would be down to 16 fit men (or women) so a free sub at that point is warranted.
    That's far too sensible a proposition for the RFL to implement; it's the obvious solution to the problem though.

  16. #16
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,026
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_down_under View Post
    Easily solved. Go off for the head test. If the player is fit to return then no free substitution and the substitution tally is decremented. If not deemed fit to return then free sub rule applies. At the end of the day the team would be down to 16 fit men (or women) so a free sub at that point is warranted.
    Beyond the wit of the RFL to have thought that through

  17. #17
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,084
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_down_under View Post
    Easily solved. Go off for the head test. If the player is fit to return then no free substitution and the substitution tally is decremented. If not deemed fit to return then free sub rule applies. At the end of the day the team would be down to 16 fit men (or women) so a free sub at that point is warranted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_Claire View Post
    That's far too sensible a proposition for the RFL to implement; it's the obvious solution to the problem though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    Beyond the wit of the RFL to have thought that through

    The purpose of the assessment is the health and welfare of players and encouraging the team doctor to take a cautious approach. Making them use a substitution may discourage them from using it in genuine cases, which isn't the purpose, and if this leads to long term issues, players may make a claim against the RFL, we would be saying how stupid they were to allow such a thing then.

    But yes I like the idea, of we can overcome the issue above

  18. #18
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    739
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_down_under View Post
    Easily solved. Go off for the head test. If the player is fit to return then no free substitution and the substitution tally is decremented. If not deemed fit to return then free sub rule applies. At the end of the day the team would be down to 16 fit men (or women) so a free sub at that point is warranted.
    Will that not be unfair, if say you catch a stray boot from your team mate and it is deemed necessary for HIA assessment that you pass, your team is down a substitute. Also a player may deem himself okay on the field, remember the HIA is only done by an independent, the club physio/doctor leave him on and an incident occurs later that brings the game into more dispute, negative lights that has H&S executives involved. As RS and AD have posted it seems almost impossible to police.

  19. #19
    Learning All The Songs RJM25R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Royton, Oldham
    Posts
    1,051
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superblue View Post
    What a load of old rubbish.
    You need to learn how to catch the ball first, and you missed out all the fast forward passes.
    Concussion checks are a result of high shots, not loopholes

    Simple Jack strikes again!
    Get busy living, or get busy dying.

  20. #20
    Noooobie Restauranteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Why not make them cumulative? If a player is withdrawn a particular number of times in a set number of matches or time period, whichever comes first, they must be withdrawn immediately and stood down for the next match.

  21. #21
    Noooobie Restauranteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Sorry! My reply should have been here. Why not make it cumulative? If a player has a certain number of head tests within a set time frame or number of matches, they must be withdrawn immediately and stood down for the next match. This would show due diligence and prevent cheating the system.

  22. #22
    Learning All The Songs Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,362
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallaght Tiger View Post
    Will that not be unfair, if say you catch a stray boot from your team mate and it is deemed necessary for HIA assessment that you pass, your team is down a substitute. Also a player may deem himself okay on the field, remember the HIA is only done by an independent, the club physio/doctor leave him on and an incident occurs later that brings the game into more dispute, negative lights that has H&S executives involved. As RS and AD have posted it seems almost impossible to police.
    If the HIA is carried out by an independent doctor, why not have that person also decide whether an HIA is necessary in the first instance? Regarding the issue of requiring the use of a substitution because of friendly fire, an injury justifying an HIA is no different from any other injury caused through accidental contact with a teammate.

  23. #23
    In The West Stand Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,649
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_down_under View Post
    Easily solved. Go off for the head test. If the player is fit to return then no free substitution and the substitution tally is decremented. If not deemed fit to return then free sub rule applies. At the end of the day the team would be down to 16 fit men (or women) so a free sub at that point is warranted.
    I think this is a good idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    The purpose of the assessment is the health and welfare of players and encouraging the team doctor to take a cautious approach. Making them use a substitution may discourage them from using it in genuine cases, which isn't the purpose, and if this leads to long term issues, players may make a claim against the RFL, we would be saying how stupid they were to allow such a thing then.

    But yes I like the idea, of we can overcome the issue above
    You would expect a doctor to put his hippocratic oath before the requests of a coach. If something was missed then surely the doctor would be just as culpable as the RL or club.

  24. #24
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    156
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Let's stop beating about the bush.

    The current rule is sensible and in the interests of player safety and welfare.

    The RFL are having to review it because other clubs ( not necessarily or only Saints this time) are complaining about one club (wonder who?) are abusing it.

    Simply need to look at the recordings of the games and either act retrospectively or make clear that any future incidents will not be tolerated.

  25. #25
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Pembrokeshire
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superblue View Post
    What a load of old rubbish.
    You need to learn how to catch the ball first, and you missed out all the fast forward passes.
    Concussion checks are a result of high shots, not loopholes
    This cranially-challenged individual adds nothing to any discussion he's got himself involved in; he's simply here to 'take the p*ss' in his own pathetic, little way for as long as his little team appears to have the rub over us. Why continue to entertain his ramblings?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •