Jamie Cudmore is suing Clermont

[Every Time Ref]

Maybe could be an area to focus on if unions are serious about concussion - doctor's encouraged to speak out, policies to protect whistleblowers etc.

 

[j'nuh]

I don't understand. Why would any team even want a player who has failed a HIA on the field?

Was Clermont's bench that bad?

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I don't understand. Why would any team even want a player who has failed a HIA on the field?

Was Clermont's bench that bad?

Well I guess the lock sub went on for Jamie, then the other lock (Sebby was it?) went off and very few teams will have a 2nd lock sub. Granted I'd have thought shifting a back rower to lock would be better than a lock who gets knocked unconscious whenever he goes into contact. Still, could they have requested uncontested scrums or is that only for the front row? It would hinder you in lineouts I suppose...

 

[smartcooky]

Well I guess the lock sub went on for Jamie, then the other lock (Sebby was it?) went off and very few teams will have a 2nd lock sub. Granted I'd have thought shifting a back rower to lock would be better than a lock who gets knocked unconscious whenever he goes into contact. Still, could they have requested uncontested scrums or is that only for the front row? It would hinder you in lineouts I suppose...

Only front row and ground conditions

 

[Larksea]

the TV review is also good, HIA cant be relied on completely if player welfare is a genuine concern then if a player gets a serious knock they should just simply be taken off without question. Recovering to the point they can pass HIA in a few minutes wont help them if they get hit again.

I wish I remember the game but a few years ago Hooper got seriously KO's in a game, initially couldn't stand, stumbled and fell over the sideline. Looked completely out of it yet somehow managed to pass the test(I seriously doubt he passed the test) and get back on. he had a fricken amazing game and if I remember correctly helped win the game but it was still a big mistake putting him back out. A 2nd serious knock could have put him out for months and even resulted in permanent damage.

But its absolutely true that players who fail a head knock should be a free replacement.

 

[welshglory]

Something similar happened with Smith as well. In a high profile Lions test match with millions watching. Unbelievable this can happen to be honest.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/sideline-concussion-test-a-disgrace-20130710-2pqhg.html

 

[smartcooky]

Something similar happened with Smith as well. In a high profile Lions test match with millions watching. Unbelievable this can happen to be honest.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/sideline-concussion-test-a-disgrace-20130710-2pqhg.html

Yes its unbelievable and a disgrace, but to be fair, this was the early days of the concussion issues, and the PSCA in use at that time has since been replaced with the much more comprehensive and more accurate HIA.



This is one of the prime examples of where an HIA should not even come into it. George Smith was knocked out cold (which means automatically that he is concussed) and when he woke up, he was wobbly on this legs (a key indicator of concussion when there has been a head-knock). Under the current rules, the medical staff seeing this on the monitor would remove him from the field for the rest of the match regardless of the outcome of his HIA

ETA: On the evidence of what I saw on that video, Richard Hibbard should have been sent for a PSCA as well.

 

[Which Tyler]

As this is the current thread on concussion:

Good news here, but absolutely no reason for complacency - it's still a fairly small study, and I'd need to see the source before comming on methodology etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37581000

A study on the long-term effects of concussions in former Scotland rugby players has found they displayed "only some mild memory effects".

Fifty-two ex-internationals with an average of 14 concussions each were examined by the University of Glasgow.

Multiple sports concussions have been linked to the neurodegenerative disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

It has been found in the brain tissue of deceased former NFL athletes, boxers and rugby players.

The former players were examined alongside 29 control subjects.

"Overall there is not a suggestion of widespread decline in daily function in ex-rugby internationalists who had a high number of repeat concussions," said Tom McMillan, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology.

"Although some differences in memory were found, these were mild overall and their cause uncertain.

"Despite a high number of repeat concussions in the retired rugby players, effects on mental health, social or work function were not evident some 20 years after they had stopped playing."

...

 

[ratsapprentice]

From what I've seen, that's probably right.

That some people seem to be more prone to the serious effects of concussions than others.

 

[Raggs]

He's not suing them at this time. Nice interview on the rugby dungeon podcast.

 

[Peat]

Well I guess the lock sub went on for Jamie, then the other lock (Sebby was it?) went off and very few teams will have a 2nd lock sub. Granted I'd have thought shifting a back rower to lock would be better than a lock who gets knocked unconscious whenever he goes into contact. Still, could they have requested uncontested scrums or is that only for the front row? It would hinder you in lineouts I suppose...

My absolute best game of recent years was probably while concussed.

 

[Every Time Ref]

My absolute best game of recent years was probably while concussed.

Setting a bad example for the kids there Peat! Shame on you

 

[ALJ]

But its absolutely true that players who fail a head knock should be a free replacement.

Is that not open to manipulation though?
Player gets injured, clear it's gonna be a good few weeks, claim head knock to get another player back on.

Is there an independent assessor making the decisions on HIAs?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Interesting to see some of the reaction (on twitter, fwiw) to that study.

Lots of anger that it suggests that for some people there isn't any life changing effect from 10+ concussions.

We need to be open and reasonable about whatever studies suggest - whether that's that concussion is satan, or it's actually nothing to worry about for most people given the correct procedures are followed.
Shades of the attitudes shown by parliament's reaction to their own studies on cannabis - "but drugs are bad, mmkay?"

 

[Which Tyler]

Unfortunately, the general public,and press; have an appalling record when it comes to analysing medical research.

Another on the methodology (2nd hand, I an only get the abstract)

"Male controls were recruited from friends or relatives of the RIRP, from community groups or from school teachers. Inclusion criteria were: male, similar to RIRP in age and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012 (SIMD)18 quintile, fluent in English, capable of giving consent to take part and capable of assessment. SIMD ranks deprivation across Scotland and is derived from postcodes, each rank comprising a small section of the population. Exclusion criteria were: female, TBI (including concussion) on more than one occasion with loss of consciousness (LOC) and/or associated symptoms of confusion or disorientation, nausea, dizziness, poor balance, blurred vision or severe headache,19 or any previous moderate or severe TBI (LOC>30 min or more or post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) for >1 day) or a diagnosis of chronic and debilitating neurological or psychiatric disorder. "


That's a very narrow cohort who exhibit minimal long-term effects.

 

[die_mole]

Interesting to see some of the reaction (on twitter, fwiw) to that study.

Lots of anger that it suggests that for some people there isn't any life changing effect from 10+ concussions.

We need to be open and reasonable about whatever studies suggest - whether that's that concussion is satan, or it's actually nothing to worry about for most people given the correct procedures are followed.
Shades of the attitudes shown by parliament's reaction to their own studies on cannabis - "but drugs are bad, mmkay?"

i think an act of good faith by both clubs and players would be to set up a fund that could pay for buy-outs (and small pension possibly) of players contracts once they have had so many concussions to take the financial burden off of both club and player

i think it's funny how a lot of people who never had a serious concussion think that 10 concussions are no problem... after five you are greatly altering your brain for the rest of your life

- - - Updated - - -

Is that not open to manipulation though?
Player gets injured, clear it's gonna be a good few weeks, claim head knock to get another player back on.

Is there an independent assessor making the decisions on HIAs?

a team getting a substitution they don't deserve is better than a team forcing a player with a concussion back onto the pitch

- - - Updated - - -

My absolute best game of recent years was probably while concussed.

i actually kind of agree with this... i think i jackaled four balls in like 10 minutes after my last really bad concussion
problem is my brain couldn't coordinate breathing so i could only play for 10 minutes

 

[ratsapprentice]

i think it's funny how a lot of people who never had a serious concussion think that 10 concussions are no problem... after five you are greatly altering your brain for the rest of your life

That's not the finding of this study - it suggests some people can sustain multiple concussions and have only "mild" symptoms, long-term.

Unless you can find fault with the study itself then you have to take it into consideration. To do otherwise is entirely unscientific.

Which is exactly the point I was making in my last post.

 

[die_mole]

That's not the finding of this study - it suggests some people can sustain multiple concussions and have only "mild" symptoms, long-term.

Unless you can find fault with the study itself then you have to take it into consideration. To do otherwise is entirely unscientific.

Which is exactly the point I was making in my last post.

do you honestly think that having "mild" symptoms for the rest of your life isn't going greatly alter your life?

 

[Every Time Ref]

What constitutes "mild", presumably the study defines that?

 

[ratsapprentice]

do you honestly think that having "mild" symptoms for the rest of your life isn't going greatly alter your life?

I would assume that's what the term "mild" specifically implies.