James McManus to sue Knights

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Nathan Brown calls for 18th man available for concussions.


"Newcastle coach Nathan Brown has renewed his calls for an 18th man to be available in NRL games to cover concussions.

The Knights lost Sione Mata'utia and Brendan Elliot to concussions in the second half of their 24-18 loss to South Sydney on Saturday, leaving them with just two players on the bench.

Aggravating the situation was winger Nathan Ross struggling with an ankle injury and Brown said he was forced to stay on the field due to the lack of cover.

Such a problem would be eradicated if a reserve were available for concussed players, Brown said.

"We're supposed to be protecting the players but we're leaving blokes who are out there hurt, out of position," he said.

"How's that make sense? The game has got to address this."

The Knights are embroiled battle over their management of former winger James McManus's concussions late in his career.

McManus retired on medical grounds in 2016 following his final on-field concussion the year before, and his case was mentioned in the NSW Supreme Court on Friday.

Newcastle have denied any wrongdoing in the matter.

Brown, who was not at the club at the time, said NRL teams were on board with the concussion protocol and doctors were extra-cautious and eager to rule players out.

However, he worried about the effect that might have on the likes of Ross, who he was concerned would further aggravate his ankle worry on Saturday night.

"All these players that are playing when they're under duress are at risk," he said.

"We know why (the concussion rule) has been addressed - which is great, we're all on side.

"But we're not addressing the rule that needs addressing."

Meanwhile, winger Elliot was lucky to remain on the field following a first-half high shot from Rabbitohs centre Hymel Hunt.

He passed an on-field check before being removed following a separate incident in the second half.

But Brown questioned how it would have been fair for him to lose a player with a failed test, while Hunt, who was on report, stayed on the field.

"There's no common sense at all," Brown said.

Brown said he had no issue with captain Trent Hodkinson being sin-binned late in the match after he accused referee David Munro of costing the Knights the contest."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/18/brown-renews-calls-18th-man-nrl

Forget the 18th man "in the case of something something", just extend the bench....

IIRC The 4-man bench was brought in when the game had unlimited interchanges. Now that we are down to 8, we could have benches of 6 or 8 and most games wouldnt be effected.

But when 3 players go off with concussion, the coach isnt immediately f*cked and forced to bring one back on.....

 

[davi]

Forget the 18th man "in the case of something something", just extend the bench....

IIRC The 4-man bench was brought in when the game had unlimited interchanges. Now that we are down to 8, we could have benches of 6 or 8 and most games wouldnt be effected.

But when 3 players go off with concussion, the coach isnt immediately f*cked and forced to bring one back on.....

I would be open to having a fifth player on the bench, but thats it. Remember one of the reasons the unlimited interchange was scrapped was they felt it took the endurance side of the game away. By having 6 to 8 on the benches you would lose the skill level in terms of endurance for a 80 minute game.

 

[Danish]

Lets be honest here. We all know that even if you extended to an 8 man bench coaches would just wind up loading it with giant props to play a quarter of the game each...... and then still complain that they have to play a man down if a back gets injured.

Just have NRL appointed doctors at every game making the call on who comes off for concussion testing and be done with it. Brown's decision to force an injured player to stay on the field is pretty standard practice by many coaches and shows the actual care factor teams have for player welfare when push comes to shove.

Teams will just have to deal with it if they are unlucky enough to suffer multiple concussions in a game the same way teams have dealt with multiple other injuries in games in the past.

To level things up a bit, I also think it should be standard practice that if a player is forced from the field due to foul play, and then goes on to fail his HIA, the offending player is automatically ejected from the game as well. If the ref did not deem it a send off offence at the time of the incident, the player can be replaced (with the loss of an interchange), but both teams will at least be playing with 16 men.

 

[JamesRustle]

I would be open to having a fifth player on the bench, but thats it. Remember one of the reasons the unlimited interchange was scrapped was they felt it took the endurance side of the game away. By having 6 to 8 on the benches you would lose the skill level in terms of endurance for a 80 minute game.

How about having a 6-8 man bench but only being able to use 4 of them on rotations during the game. Gives the coach some additional flexibility to better cover injuries and game situations e.g. have six forwards, a jalf and a utility on the bench, if a starting half goes down you utilise your reserve half, so long as at that stage, he can still be one if the 4 reserves you can use in that game. Doesn't resolve the concussion/serious injury replacement issue but improves the bench.

If you are going to implement a replacement player/s (where do you stop - could be two concussions and a busted acl in a game) you really need an independent nrl assessor to rule at each game. Cannot be manipulated by clubs.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Lets be honest here. We all know that even if you extended to an 8 man bench coaches would just wind up loading it with giant props to play a quarter of the game each...... and then still complain that they have to play a man down if a back gets injured.

Just have NRL appointed doctors at every game making the call on who comes off for concussion testing and be done with it. Brown's decision to force an injured player to stay on the field is pretty standard practice by many coaches and shows the actual care factor teams have for player welfare when push comes to shove.

Teams will just have to deal with it if they are unlucky enough to suffer multiple concussions in a game the same way teams have dealt with multiple other injuries in games in the past.

To level things up a bit, I also think it should be standard practice that if a player is forced from the field due to foul play, and then goes on to fail his HIA, the offending player is automatically ejected from the game as well. If the ref did not deem it a send off offence at the time of the incident, the player can be replaced (with the loss of an interchange), but both teams will at least be playing with 16 men.

Could be fixed if you made a rule that in the 5 players on the bench, you must include one back and one forward

 

[mave]

Could be fixed if you made a rule that in the 5 players on the bench, you must include one back and one forward

Hard to define between back and foward though.
You just know that coaches will rort it.

Yeah guys, Tony Williams is the back picked on the bench this week.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Could be fixed if you made a rule that in the 5 players on the bench, you must include one back and one forward

"Aaron Woods is out back for this week. We have always thought he had great potential as a winger"

Nekminut "out forwards are tired and wingers seem fine. Oh well, maybe Woodsy will make it onto the wing next week, to prop he goes..."

Positions are so vague these days, we might as well give players their own number and just pick squads for each game. This "one back" thing would be IMPOSSIBLE to police

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I would be open to having a fifth player on the bench, but thats it. Remember one of the reasons the unlimited interchange was scrapped was they felt it took the endurance side of the game away. By having 6 to 8 on the benches you would lose the skill level in terms of endurance for a 80 minute game.

Could limit the number of interchanges further...

We could even bring back the perminant interchange (once a guy is off, he stays off) but with the bigger benches to allow for injuries

 

[mxlegend99]

I dont see any harm in an 18th man being on standby for injury.

Just set a rule that the player your 18th man replaces is ineligible to play the following week. So you cant fake injury or concussion for an advantage.

 

[BestHookerFarrah]

Could be fixed if you made a rule that in the 5 players on the bench, you must include one back and one forward

Are you some kind of moron, mate?

 

[davi]

[QUOTE="

If you are going to implement a replacement player/s (where do you stop - could be two concussions and a busted acl in a game) you really need an independent nrl assessor to rule at each game. Cannot be manipulated by clubs.[/QUOTE]

The criticism about the independent doctors is that the club doctors will be able to make a better diagnosis because they will have a better understanding of the players medical history.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Are you some kind of moron, mate?

Not my fault you dont know the difference between a 90kg winger and a 115kg prop m9

 

[Knight76]

The criticism about the independent doctors is that the club doctors will be able to make a better diagnosis because they will have a better understanding of the players medical history.

Nah, they don't need to know medical history to check a player for concussion. Thats no criticism at all.

 

[davi]

Nah, they don't need to know medical history to check a player for concussion. Thats no criticism at all.

Independent doctors wouldn't be doing just concussion though.........

 

[Knight76]

Independent doctors wouldn't be doing just concussion though.........

Who says?

Anyway, you don't need independent docs, just independent trainers, much cheaper and their job can be solely to look after concussions.

 

[davi]

In a similar case another player is also taking legal action against Parramatta. My only question is why is Brett Horsnell only taking action against Parramatta? He played for more then one club, so wouldn't it be very hard to prove it was just Parramatta only that contributed to his ill health, unlike James McManus who played for the one club the Knights for his entire career.

Brett Horsnell brings legal case against NRL over concussion symptoms
AAP
May 3, 2017 8:36am
RETIRED NRL forward Brett Horsnell is taking legal action against former club Parramatta reportedly over post-playing career mental health problems.

Horsnell argues concussions suffered during his 154-game NRL career has contributed to his ill health, according to reports.

It’s understood he was diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2004, as well as previously undergoing back surgery.

Last year, he spoke of having suicidal thoughts in his retirement.

His case comes as Newcastle is sued by ex-player James McManus in the Supreme Court over the club’s treatment of head knocks throughout his career. Horsnell played for the Eels, South Queensland Crushers and the Gold Coast Giants and Seagulls between 1989 and 1998.

His matter against Parramatta is set down for a directions hearing in the Supreme Court in Sydney for May 22.

The NRL has been contacted for comment."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/ce6224d00338fa39fed03da105bcf51d

 

[undertaker]

In a similar case another player is also taking legal action against Parramatta. My only question is why is Brett Horsnell only taking action against Parramatta? He played for more then one club, so wouldn't it be very hard to prove it was just Parramatta only that contributed to his ill health, unlike James McManus who played for the one club the Knights for his entire career.

Brett Horsnell brings legal case against NRL over concussion symptoms
AAP
May 3, 2017 8:36am
RETIRED NRL forward Brett Horsnell is taking legal action against former club Parramatta reportedly over post-playing career mental health problems.

Horsnell argues concussions suffered during his 154-game NRL career has contributed to his ill health, according to reports.

It’s understood he was diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2004, as well as previously undergoing back surgery.

Last year, he spoke of having suicidal thoughts in his retirement.

His case comes as Newcastle is sued by ex-player James McManus in the Supreme Court over the club’s treatment of head knocks throughout his career. Horsnell played for the Eels, South Queensland Crushers and the Gold Coast Giants and Seagulls between 1989 and 1998.

His matter against Parramatta is set down for a directions hearing in the Supreme Court in Sydney for May 22.

The NRL has been contacted for comment."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/ce6224d00338fa39fed03da105bcf51d

Started a thread on this article:

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/t...l-in-landmark-legal-case-against-club.463487/

Nevertheless, I 100% agree with you when you said "My only question is why is Brett Horsnell only taking action against Parramatta?"

 

[Perth Red]

we should have attack, defence and special teams and interchange as play dictates. or we could keep it RL and stick with what works. Not being able to return due to a head injury is no different to not being able to return due to a knee injury. We were just stupid enough to let players play on in the past.

Ah the good old days when being a sub was an insult and being replaced was an even bigger insult!

If they were going to do this then go the whole hog of what is best for a player, 5 man bench if a player comes off with concussion he is off for game and sits out the next two games to let his brain injury heal. Would stop them rorting it.

 

[thorson1987]

In a similar case another player is also taking legal action against Parramatta. My only question is why is Brett Horsnell only taking action against Parramatta? He played for more then one club, so wouldn't it be very hard to prove it was just Parramatta only that contributed to his ill health, unlike James McManus who played for the one club the Knights for his entire career.

Brett Horsnell brings legal case against NRL over concussion symptoms
AAP
May 3, 2017 8:36am
RETIRED NRL forward Brett Horsnell is taking legal action against former club Parramatta reportedly over post-playing career mental health problems.

Horsnell argues concussions suffered during his 154-game NRL career has contributed to his ill health, according to reports.

It’s understood he was diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2004, as well as previously undergoing back surgery.

Last year, he spoke of having suicidal thoughts in his retirement.

His case comes as Newcastle is sued by ex-player James McManus in the Supreme Court over the club’s treatment of head knocks throughout his career. Horsnell played for the Eels, South Queensland Crushers and the Gold Coast Giants and Seagulls between 1989 and 1998.

His matter against Parramatta is set down for a directions hearing in the Supreme Court in Sydney for May 22.

The NRL has been contacted for comment."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/ce6224d00338fa39fed03da105bcf51d

That would be because the other clubs are no longer around.