Wallabies v All Blacks @ Suncorp - 18/10/14

[Scrubber2050]

Given what we know now about the long term effects of multiple concussions, players should be stood down IMO until cleared by an in depth and comprehensive neurological examination. (as opposed to the sideline/dressing room concussion test)

Yeah but at what point. That is the question that needs an answer.

Plenty of players get a knock that doesn't affect them. But if you are talking about a bloke getting knocked out during a game, then i agree with your proposition.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yeah but at what point. That is the question that needs an answer.

Plenty of players get a knock that doesn't affect them. But if you are talking about a bloke getting knocked out during a game, then i agree with your proposition.

A bump on the head and concussion are 2 different things. It's something that needs to be properly diagnosed. I'm just a layman, so I'll let Dr Barry O'Driscoll speak:

O’Driscoll still vehemently insists — as he has always done — that the policy should be zero tolerance. Nothing else. That if a player is recognised as showing concussion symptoms he is taken off and that’s it.
No second chance because a five-minute or the soon-to-be 10-minute check is, in his belief, simply not sufficient when dealing with the grey matter of a brain injury.
‘There needs to be zero tolerance on this, not varying degrees if you show signs you are concussed. Pure and simple,’ he insisted. ‘Doing a five-minute or a 10-minute assessment, it becomes completely arbitrary. The IRB have confused and trivialised concussion.
‘The experts still don’t know exactly the full significance of concussion but every bit of research that is coming out is really bad news.
‘There can be no messing about with the brain.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/concussion/article-2642211/Brian-ODriscolls-doctor-uncle-blasts-IRB-concussion-rules-Florian-Fritz-injury.html#ixzz3FWfkS7hJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Quick Hands]

Or this..
In the United States 49 of 50 states have passed what is known as the Lystedt law, which makes concussion education mandatory for school parents, players and coaches; only Mississippi is yet to do so. The law is named after Zack Lystedt, a schoolboy left disabled after suffering a concussion while playing American football in 2006. The Lystedt law has three components. The first is that every year school athletes and parents read and sign a concussion information sheet. The second is that, if an athlete is suspected of having concussion, during practice or play, he is removed at once from play. The third is that the athlete cannot return until he has been cleared by a licensed healthcare provider who is knowledgeable about the management of concussion.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/14/rugby-union-concussion-medical-experts

 

[USARugger]

A bump on the head and concussion are 2 different things. It's something that needs to be properly diagnosed. I'm just a layman, so I'll let Dr Barry O'Driscoll speak:

O’Driscoll still vehemently insists — as he has always done — that the policy should be zero tolerance. Nothing else. That if a player is recognised as showing concussion symptoms he is taken off and that’s it.
No second chance because a five-minute or the soon-to-be 10-minute check is, in his belief, simply not sufficient when dealing with the grey matter of a brain injury.
‘There needs to be zero tolerance on this, not varying degrees if you show signs you are concussed. Pure and simple,’ he insisted. ‘Doing a five-minute or a 10-minute assessment, it becomes completely arbitrary. The IRB have confused and trivialised concussion.
‘The experts still don’t know exactly the full significance of concussion but every bit of research that is coming out is really bad news.
‘There can be no messing about with the brain.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/concussion/article-2642211/Brian-ODriscolls-doctor-uncle-blasts-IRB-concussion-rules-Florian-Fritz-injury.html#ixzz3FWfkS7hJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[KOB1987]

All good commonsense..the issue is always going to be to get the coach and 5/8 of the local U17s to adhere to any strict rules as such when the latter gets a head knock and they are 18-17 down in the decider..a referee can always order them off I guess though..

 

[boyo]

You don't have to be knocked-out to suffer from a concussion.

 

[boyo]

All smaller stature but all brave defensively.
Is there a pattern here?
Do we need bigger No 12's who can take some more punishment from the 110kg backrowers that are getting in their channel for both attack and defense?
Has Bob's suggestion of Kuridrani to 12 got some merit?

Mitch Inman?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Mitch Inman?

Ok Daz

 

[Pfitzy]

Dan Palmer.

 

[Froggy]

A lot of talk here about changes at 9, 10 & 12. While I don't doubt these positions need looking at (I'd keep them as is but have both QC (Quade Cooper) and Genia on the bench) the real issue is the forwards.

I think you'd find that the back line we've got would work pretty effectively if we could at least gain parity up front, which we've failed to do over most of the RC. Take a look at the success of the Tahs this year. Yes, it was ball in hand and lots of tries, but it was built on the back of a pack that got up and smashed the opposition. Led by the likes of Potgieter, Douglas, TPN, Hooper and Palu they constantly knocked the opposition over behind the gain line and attacked the breakdown with a real ferocity, with the result being a majority of territory and posession. Then you can let the pretty boys do the fancy stuff.

We just aren't getting that at test level. While our props are working well, they don't exactly strike fear into anyone's hearts, our locks are really offering nothing (Carter a lot of hard work but little impact) with Higgers and Hooper both playing fairly loose. Horwill must start (I don't care which one he replaces) as must Palu if fit, but we really must find some way to assemble a much more aggressive pack if we want to be at the business end of the WC.

 

[Pfitzy]

You don't need fear. You need accuracy

 

[Quick Hands]

You don't have to be knocked-out to suffer from a concussion.

Correct, but it's one of the popular misconceptions alas.

 

[Froggy]

I don't mean actual fear, it's more an ascendancy. You've played the game, you know when you start to get that dominance over another pack. Your knocking them backwards, they start to get a sort of confused look, which only lifts you more. It happens at all levels of the game, once you get it over another pack you feel invincible.
How long do you reckon it's been since the wallabies pack felt that.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^1984?

 

[BDA]

In terms of making the forward pack more aggressive - the addition of Moore and TPN help a bit - with all due respect to the likes of Hansen and Fainga'a, those guys are a cut above the rest. In terms of the props Scott Sio is a very physical player, he's also been sidelined with injuries. In terms of Lock I think Skelton is the one we want in the starting side come 2015. He's obviously still developing but other 12 months and he should be there.

The starting pack of Slipper/TPN/Kepu actually got the upper-hand against the Argies on the GC, and as soon as TPN went off the scrum went backwards. It really highlights how much we rely on TPN/Moore at hooker.

 

[Brumbieman]

Ok, can we quit with the bitching and demanding that players who are about 5 games into test careers be sacked because they're 'shit' and replace them with other players who aren't better than the incumbent at a LOWER level of rugby?

You don't just shit can people after a poor test, because there would be no one left.

The Wallaby issues are not personnel. It's HOW they're playing with each other. The team culture and level of co-ordination among the players that is the problem.

I don't think it's a coincidence that after Beale gets in the shit again, we lose. Reading about how AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Hooper spoke with Link to prevent Beale from being sent home is worrying.

You might like a bloke, but if he fucked up and caused such a mess that a core team manager left the tour, he's not contributing to a positive culture and it is toxic for team harmony.

We lost on Saturday because no one was working together. They were not interested, were not communicating with each other, and as a result after posting a couple of quick easy tries, we switched off mentally and just started chucking it to Izzy or Kuridrani hoping they'd do something.

It doesn't happen to NZ, because dickheads are flicked, or recognised before they get anywhere near the team and a blackmarked. They don't tolerate dickheads because they are not condusive to team harmony and stir up divisions.

Who knows what was said or why, but the fact is that two players were told to change t-shirts. One of them shrugged, and did it, the other caused a fuss.

When you're trying to assemble a team, those idiots who complain about changing a t-shirt are the ones you don't want, regardless of X-factor.

Link's task is not to just use and discard players, it is to build a successful sporting culture, one that will have players driving standards, and strong leadership and above all, leadership that is not divided.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Brumbieman,
Are you referring to the probable dropping of Carter with Horwill and Simmons probably starting? He just isn't playing to the level required. You would think a player, reasonably new to the group, with an "old" experienced lock breathing down his neck would be having blinders. If he doesn't then his problem and he suffers the fate.

To me it doesn't seem like the leadership was divided at all. Both AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Hooper didn't want to send the bloke home. They MUST of had a valid reason.

 

[chasmac]

The Wallaby issues are not personnel. It's HOW they're playing with each other. The team culture and level of co-ordination among the players that is the problem. .[/quote]

I think the gameplan has some holes in it, To'omua is playing under coaches orders and is starting to look pedestrian. He is not a poor player.
Similarly, Fardy was looking poor but has come good. This is due to a tweak in how he has been asked to play the game.

 

[BDA]

To me it doesn't seem like the leadership was divided at all. Both AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Hooper didn't want to send the bloke home. They MUST of had a valid reason.

I wonder if that's partly a Waratahs thing - whether the tahs players are more worried that a trip home would probably also spell the end of Beale's time at the tahs? just mere speculation on my part. I wonder if the players from the other franchises are offering the same support.

At this stage I really think leadership has something to do with it. We have some experienced guys on the side lines. Moore was a big loss for us in hindsight. He really epidermises what Link is trying to achieve with this team. With all due respect to Hooper, I don't think he's the right man for the job.

 

[Braveheart81]

You might like a bloke, but if he fucked up and caused such a mess that a core team manager left the tour, he's not contributing to a positive culture and it is toxic for team harmony.

It doesn't happen to NZ, because dickheads are flicked, or recognised before they get anywhere near the team and a blackmarked. They don't tolerate dickheads because they are not condusive to team harmony and stir up divisions.

Who knows what was said or why, but the fact is that two players were told to change t-shirts. One of them shrugged, and did it, the other caused a fuss.

When you're trying to assemble a team, those idiots who complain about changing a t-shirt are the ones you don't want, regardless of X-factor.

The issue clearly has nothing to do with a shirt.

If the rumours are true, the first paragraph I quoted could clearly apply to the coach.

If so there seems to be a very clear reason why senior players supported Beale in this situation.