Sam Burgess - Concussion Article

[goodNumber10]

If someone accuses the NRL of endangering a player they are obviously going to do something - it's a necessary PR reaction.

who's done that then?

The journalists that are RT'ing it without criticism are being equally irresponsible IMO.

I really disagree with you here mate. I don't think the article is irresponsible, i don't think there is anything said in that that leads you to believe there is anything nefarious about Fitzsimmons article, or his intentions, nor that he jumping to wildly outlandish conclusions by saying Burgess was likely concussed.

 

[nickdnz]

I can't help but feel the article is pretty rubbish in terms of meeting journalistic standards. For me it belongs as a blog or opinion piece, as that's exactly what it is. There was little attempt to be neutral. It was speculative at best. Sadly SMH isn't exactly a beacon of quality.

 

[Peat]

Uhm... no?

I am trying to see whether you're sticking with a logical position by using hypothetical scenarios you took earlier in the thread.

This is because

a) I believe your position is ridiculous, so I'm curious to know whether you actually mean it
b) If you genuinely believe that every article on concussion is a good thing regardless of content, then there's not a lot of point in explaining point by point how disingenuous it is, how it is giving false info about concussion and how it is making unsubstantiated allegations of covering up concussion at NRL clubs, is there?


To be honest, this thread is a very good example of why journalists talking about it the subject in the wrong way is a bad thing. Because we're talking about the journalist and not concussion.

Not whether we should be following NRL's line of threatening to deduct points for sending concussed players back on. Not whether it's right or practical to threaten club officials with being struck off the medicine register. Not a whole lot of conversation on whether Burgess even was concussed, which, as yet, is unknown. It's a very different reaction than it would have been if he had adopted a more sober and fact-based tone.

Remember, this is playing badly in front of some fairly calm guys half the world away with no emotional attachments. How is a macho middle-aged Aussie RL fan who's used to the idea that concussions are something you laugh at going to react when he starts reading it and picking it apart? Do you think he's going to see the error of his ways? Or get angry and defensive? Is that useful? Is there a point to riling up Australian rugby league fans on the subject?

"After an impact like that, how could he possibly not have been concussed as well" - this is a lie and it is giving out false information about what causes concussion. Hits like that don't definitely cause concussion. We currently don't know whether Burgess was concussed or not.

"a fact that he acknowledged in an interview with 2KY yesterday when he said that when it came to the grand final, "I don't remember too much of it." - This is speculation at best and a lie at worst; we have no way of knowing, at this date, whether Burgess was actually concussed and admitting to it.

We don't need lies about an issue as serious as this.

But, since it's pretty clear you disagree with there being lies and bias in this, no doubt beating this to death.

p.s.

SOUTH Sydney coach Michael Maguire has emphatically denied man-of-the-moment Sam Burgess played concussed throughout the NRL grand final.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...085662033?nk=f28d6f0144bcf7f10d550fcca0d21255

 

[goodNumber10]

Uhm... no?

I am trying to see whether you're sticking with a logical position by using hypothetical scenarios you took earlier in the thread.

This is because

a) I believe your position is ridiculous, so I'm curious to know whether you actually mean it
b) If you genuinely believe that every article on concussion is a good thing regardless of content, then there's not a lot of point in explaining point by point how disingenuous it is, how it is giving false info about concussion and how it is making unsubstantiated allegations of covering up concussion at NRL clubs, is there?


To be honest, this thread is a very good example of why journalists talking about it the subject in the wrong way is a bad thing. Because we're talking about the journalist and not concussion.

Not whether we should be following NRL's line of threatening to deduct points for sending concussed players back on. Not whether it's right or practical to threaten club officials with being struck off the medicine register. Not a whole lot of conversation on whether Burgess even was concussed, which, as yet, is unknown. It's a very different reaction than it would have been if he had adopted a more sober and fact-based tone.

Remember, this is playing badly in front of some fairly calm guys half the world away with no emotional attachments. How is a macho middle-aged Aussie RL fan who's used to the idea that concussions are something you laugh at going to react when he starts reading it and picking it apart? Do you think he's going to see the error of his ways? Or get angry and defensive? Is that useful? Is there a point to riling up Australian rugby league fans on the subject?

"After an impact like that, how could he possibly not have been concussed as well" - this is a lie and it is giving out false information about what causes concussion. Hits like that don't definitely cause concussion. We currently don't know whether Burgess was concussed or not.

"a fact that he acknowledged in an interview with 2KY yesterday when he said that when it came to the grand final, "I don't remember too much of it." - This is speculation at best and a lie at worst; we have no way of knowing, at this date, whether Burgess was actually concussed and admitting to it.

We don't need lies about an issue as serious as this.

But, since it's pretty clear you disagree with there being lies and bias in this, no doubt beating this to death.

p.s.



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...085662033?nk=f28d6f0144bcf7f10d550fcca0d21255

You are taking out of your backside.

Hits like that absolutely do cause concussion and there is a separate point as to did it? and we don't know. But a fractured eye and cheek is a serious trauma to the skull and it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw and not an unreasonable observation to make in public....

Even if he wasn't concussed there have to be some serious concerns over a guy with such a serious injury playing a full game like that.

Regardless, they are opinions not lies, it is an opinion piece. That you don't agree with which is fine no one is asking you to, but you are wrong if you think they are lies with some nefarious motive behind them.

I'm not really sure why your being so obtuse about it? We could have been discussing the concussion protocol or the incident but we're not because you have decided to focus on something that is completely irrelevant due to some misguided belief you know what your talking about.

I don't recall him saying they were covering anything up in the article, merely questioning is the NRL doing enough?

 

[Saints1]

Interesting caveat - Lance Hohaia was not allowed back onto the field on Saturday after the disgraceful, cowardly assault he suffered on order of the medical staff.

 

[ratsapprentice]

He was clearly ****ed up though - dude was white as a sheet, even for a Kiwi he looked off-colour!

 

[goodNumber10]

"Sam Burgess update. Complicated surgery. 4 plates. Insisted the nurses called him Clive. Hahaha the sparkly eyed man. What a champion," - Russel Crowe tweeted.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/10/sam-burgess-wasnt-concussed-maguire/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/10596911/Sam-Burgess-head-injuries-to-be-investigated

 

[Saints1]

He was clearly ****ed up though - dude was white as a sheet, even for a Kiwi he looked off-colour!

I could only see it on the big screen but he didn't look well, no.