George North RFU report

[mol2]

The point of a head injury is(or should be) to check over a player who has taken a knock to make sure that they are not concussed, not to give them 10 minutes to come round.

Some hospitals observe anyone who has been rendered unconscious overnight. That's probably over the top but allowing anyone who has been clearly rendered unconscious to return to the field of play has to be stopped.

[Rykard]

The point of a head injury is(or should be) to check over a player who has taken a knock to make sure that they are not concussed, not to give them 10 minutes to come round.

Some hospitals observe anyone who has been rendered unconscious overnight. That's probably over the top but allowing anyone who has been clearly rendered unconscious to return to the field of play has to be stopped.

according to the current directives this is what should have happened.

What I find hard to believe is that NONE of the coaching or medical staff saw any of the replays on the big screens!!!!

[fleabane]

The question remains to be answered:

Why, having seen the replays which were continually shown, was North not taken off the field after his return?

[SPIKE@srufc]

Possibly the finest example of sweeping something under the carpet ever. Pointless review.
Player obviously knocked out but neither medical staff or club did anything wrong in putting him back on the pitch. Who are they kidding?
If I was a professional player I'd think very carefully about looking at that club for a contract if this is the example of duty of care they provide.
If this was any grassroots club he'd have been off the pitch immediately and if not the RFU would have stamped on the club very hard.
This is a rubbish example to provide. Total disconnect with the game at grassroots.

[Grimlish]

Mallinder & his team WILL have seen the replays on the big screen and should have been asking question:- 'Have you seen the replays which appear to show him unconscious?', 'Why do you consider him fit given that I/we have seen the replays?'. Even if the medics messed up, and I take David Flatman's and Ben Kay's point on not wanting to discourage honest reporting of such incidents, Mallinder must have known something was wrong with the decision-making. Points strongly to a corrosive culture at Saints. That is the aspect which most concerns me, not for their sake, but for the sake of the game.

And if I were a player at Saints I'd be asking a question or two of the Board about how they intend to protect me in the future.

[Cagey Tiger]

Irrespective of everything else, one interesting point from Ugo Monye on Rugby Tonight, backed up in a way by Luke Wallace. If, as just about everybody thinks, George was unconscious, the HIA failed to identify this. To me, therefore, the assessment needs reviewing and "tightening up". I'd rather have players being stopped coming back when they weren't unconscious than letting players back on the pitch after being knocked out.

[biffer]

The obvious distinction for the panel to have made is to not blame an individual but to blame the club, i.e. a phrasing such as "there were failings of process which led to an individual being returned to the pitch when he should not have been" allows you to fine Saints without picking out an individual at fault. I'm staggered and genuinely disappointed for the game as a whole that no punishment was handed down.

[Tigerbeat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38397614

If he was an amateur, he would have been told to retire!!

[Lutontiger]

Re some damage after a head injury appearing later: my friend walked into a door jamb one evening - she wasn't knocked out but it was clearly quite a knock. The next morning she was clearly showing signs of disorientation, concussion etc and was admitted to hospital. Rugby and other at-risk sports need folk familiar with head injuries to be at the forefront of the assessment and decision-making.

[strawclearer]

And if I were a player at Saints I'd be asking a question or two of the Board about how they intend to protect me in the future.

Which begs the question - why didn't the players on the pitch that day raise their concerns at the time over North's state? Did no-one spot that their mate was unconscious? Did any of them express an opinion? Were they listened to or were they ignored - or over-ruled?

This is all most unsatisfactory and ill serves the game at grassroots level. Shame on all concerned.

[wormus]

And if I were a player at Saints I'd be asking a question or two of the Board about how they intend to protect me in the future.

Which begs the question - why didn't the players on the pitch that day raise their concerns at the time over North's state? Did no-one spot that their mate was unconscious? Did any of them express an opinion? Were they listened to or were they ignored - or over-ruled?

No sorry Strawclearer the Saints players led by Bully Burrell were too busy punching Thompstone, Youngs and Owen Williams to notice North out cold.
What a shame Doctor O'Driscoll was not on the panel. For once we cannot blame Rob Andrew for this cover up. It is a disgrace that no action was taken but North is not now playing v Sale.

[fleabane]

Cudmore and Hargreaves have their say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... y-accused/

[GS]

What I find hard to believe is that NONE of the coaching or medical staff saw any of the replays on the big screens!!!!

The question remains to be answered: Why, having seen the replays which were continually shown, was North not taken off the field after his return?

You only have to read this forum for a few days to see that people only see what they want to see and disregard the rest. Could be song in there somewhere...

[fleabane]

I don't understand your post GS.

These are observations and questions that the RFU report do not address. Why did nobody from Saints react to the replays? It's a fair question, nothing to do with what people on the forum want to see!

The report fails to address too many issues, the widely reported suspicion being that the RFU were wary of legal action by Northampton. However, by doing so it fails to lead in the very real problem of concussion and brain injury. In failing to directly address Saints apparent inaction they fail in protecting players. Maybe it found nothing to criticise, in which case it should have raised the question, and then said so.

The report is anything but forensic in its approach. Hence the legitimate questions on this forum.

[jgriffin]

I don't understand your post GS.

These are observations and questions that the RFU report do not address. Why did nobody from Saints react to the replays? It's a fair question, nothing to do with what people on the forum want to see!

The report fails to address too many issues, the widely reported suspicion being that the RFU were wary of legal action by Northampton. However, by doing so it fails to lead in the very real problem of concussion and brain injury. In failing to directly address Saints apparent inaction they fail in protecting players. Maybe it found nothing to criticise, in which case it should have raised the question, and then said so.

The report is anything but forensic in its approach. Hence the legitimate questions on this forum.

And the central fact remains - this report repeats what many on this forum (and elsewhere) say - he was clearly unconscious for at least 5 seconds and the HIA was carried out incorrectly, at best. What's 'seeing what you want to see' about that?