18th man as replacements for players suffering concussion

[Sir Biffo]

Just another stoppage.

Maybe channel 9 can have a Campells Soup Concussion Cam strapped to the back of the doctor who runs out. Or Freddy can interview the concussed person and there is a live vote as to who makes more sense.

Seriously, if they do this, the next thing is 19th man for people who have injuries. Then 20th man for people who are tired. Then 21st man for people who want to watch the cooking segment on Better Homes and Gardens.

Just keep it at 4 interchanges, injuries are part of sports, and concussion is an injury that occurs in a collision sport.

 

[Western_Eel]

They should be allowed an unlimited bench but can only have 10 interchanges

 

[Parra]

We need a 20th man. Just in case. You can't be too careful.

 

[umina panther]

Parra couldn't win with 30

 

[Raider_69]

It seems just a matter of time until independent medical professionals are in charge of head related injuries and only with their say so is it legal to return to the field

Once that's in place, i think an 18th man should be named in every team, and can be activated into the game should someone be ruled out of the game via concussion due to foul play. If it's not due to foul play, then thems the breaks, you play with 16 men and make what you can

 

[Parra]

Parra couldn't win with 30

31?

 

[carlosthedwarf]

It should be an under 20's player to be 18th man. This reduces the chances of taking advantage of the rule as they will be fatigued and obviously not worthy of top 17.

Exactly what I was thinking, would be a good rule.

 

[POPEYE]

Will be rorted.
Less interchange not more is required to improve the game as a spectacle. However that approach is against the medical advice.
Let's not provide any more reasons to lessen the effect of attrition.

Exactly

 

[macnaz]

If a player is replaced by the 18th man he is to be stood down for the next game... or else yes it will be rorted

 

[dice]

It seems just a matter of time until independent medical professionals are in charge of head related injuries and only with their say so is it legal to return to the field

Once that's in place, i think an 18th man should be named in every team, and can be activated into the game should someone be ruled out of the game via concussion due to foul play. If it's not due to foul play, then thems the breaks, you play with 16 men and make what you can

Independent medical staff won't be able to stop teams faking it. There is no way they would take on the liability of getting it wrong.

At best I reckon they will give every team a one-off replacement and reduce the number of interchanges.

 

[RHCP]

I'd agree with the concept on the condition that a) the replacement has played at least half a 20's or reggies game and b) the player replaced by the 18th man is under no circumstances allowed to play the following week, which would be standard practice if it is a legitimate concussion anyway, so rorting is disadvantageous

 

[Raider_69]

I've got a cracking idea... how about we cross the bridge of teams "rorting" the system if and when we come to it

if you put independent doctors on the sidelines to assess concussions, and add an 18th man that can be activated if the concussion is the result of foul play i think we solve a lot problems

to rort that system the guy getting concussed has to be not an important enough player that the team might need in this game, be on the end of foul play involved a serious head knock, then fool the medical professional into discluding him... that's a fair amount of hurdles to climb before a club can exploit or rort the system

And sure, if you want to make it even more safe, if your ruled out of the game due to a concussion, its a minimum 2 week stint on the sidelines before you are even allowed to take the cognition tests to clear you to play again. If you are that concerned about the advantage a team might get with one set of fresh legs (that might have to be activated in the 1st minute, so plays a full game anyways, or even the 75th minute and barely has time to get into the game! :lol: ), then make it one of the 20's players who have already played.

As for people saying "Why not a 19th, 20th man etc", that's just exaggerated bullshit. When teams start being 2 or 3 men short due to foul play concussions on a regular basis, then we'll talk about 19th and 20th men. Until then why bother scrapping very good, fair and logical safety precautions just appease your exaggerated rubbish?

As of right now, most games you dont get a concussion, and when there is one, not all of them are due to foul play. When teams start rorting this system, then we can talk about what to do about it. Player safety needs to be the priority here, not continuing the put blokes long term health at risk because people are afraid of change.

 

[CC_Roosters]

If a player is replaced by the 18th man he is to be stood down for the next game... or else yes it will be rorted

Good point it couldn't work any other way.

If not stood down then can only play with clearance from NRL sanctioned or independant doctor

 

[Raider_69]

Just FYI:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...-agree-to-765m-settlement-in-concussions-suit

765M the NFL's case got settled for, and frankly they got out it extremely cheaply. You recon the NRL can afford to absorb the cost so such a case?

 

[Primerus]

I've got a cracking idea... how about we cross the bridge of teams "rorting" the system if and when we come to it

if you put independent doctors on the sidelines to assess concussions, and add an 18th man that can be activated if the concussion is the result of foul play i think we solve a lot problems

to rort that system the guy getting concussed has to be not an important enough player that the team might need in this game, be on the end of foul play involved a serious head knock, then fool the medical professional into discluding him... that's a fair amount of hurdles to climb before a club can exploit or rort the system

And sure, if you want to make it even more safe, if your ruled out of the game due to a concussion, its a minimum 2 week stint on the sidelines before you are even allowed to take the cognition tests to clear you to play again. If you are that concerned about the advantage a team might get with one set of fresh legs (that might have to be activated in the 1st minute, so plays a full game anyways, or even the 75th minute and barely has time to get into the game! :lol: ), then make it one of the 20's players who have already played.

As for people saying "Why not a 19th, 20th man etc", that's just exaggerated bullshit. When teams start being 2 or 3 men short due to foul play concussions on a regular basis, then we'll talk about 19th and 20th men. Until then why bother scrapping very good, fair and logical safety precautions just appease your exaggerated rubbish?

As of right now, most games you dont get a concussion, and when there is one, not all of them are due to foul play. When teams start rorting this system, then we can talk about what to do about it. Player safety needs to be the priority here, not continuing the put blokes long term health at risk because people are afraid of change.

Agreed.

On a side note - What about the case of Glen Stewart from the GF. He appeared to suffer a concussion from the very first hit-up. In future, would something like that warrant a mandatory removal from the field for an assessment?

 

[Raider_69]

If he's deemed to have a concussion or concussion symptoms, absolutely he'd be removed, and since it's not a result of foul play, unfortunately Manly play with 16 men, as they would if he'd have done his knee.

 

[dice]

I've got a cracking idea... how about we cross the bridge of teams "rorting" the system if and when we come to it

.

Still won't work. Independent medical officials will always err on the side of caution. Imagine the uproar of Glenn Stewart being taking off after the first tackle in the grand final.

 

[bottle]

Independent Doc holds up one finger, says 'how many?'.
Player says 'three'.
What's Doc Indy gonna say, 'bullshit, you're faking, stay on son'?

Two weeks out and under 20's players aside (all worthwhile ideas btw), no doctor is going to force a guy to stay on the field who is determined to fake a concussion, whatever their reason may be.

 

[Raider_69]

Still won't work. Independent medical officials will always err on the side of caution.

I fail to see the problem with this.

Imagine the uproar of Glenn Stewart being taking off after the first tackle in the grand final.

Once the rule is in place and everyone has gotten over it, it will be treated with the same uproar as if Glenn Stewart broke his leg in the first tackle of the NRL grand final. Nothing by bad luck.

How about the uproar we're going to have when in 15 years time Glenn Stewart is named as one of MANY plaintiffs suing the NRL for hundreds of millions of dollars for not taking the correct precautions with regards to head trauma.

And frankly if Glenn Stewart was genuinely concussed in minute 1, he should have been taken off and not allowed back on. He's got 10 years of football and 50 years there after. EVERYONE, players, clubs, officials, doctors, should be erring on the side of caution with our players safety, particularly when it comes to concussions

the studies are there for all to see regarding what multi concussions can lead to for athletes later down the line, and if you havent seen it, do yourself a favour and google it.
Spoiler alert - it's pretty awful stuff.

 

[dice]

As a boxing fan I am well aware of the risks of multi-concussion. I have seen it a few times in boxing but have never seen it over 30 years of watching league. The players and coaching staff know the risks.

If lawyers and self-protecting medical staff start controlling NRL it will turn into either NFL or touch football. f**k them all.