18th man as replacements for players suffering concussion

[Raider_69]

The players and coaching staff know the risks.

Hot tip. The NFL players knew the risks too, didnt stop them collecting a 750M+ for their case. If a class action ever gets going it's simply not going to hold up in court for the NRL to say the players knew the risk when they did not act appropriately to protect their employees against long term brain injury.

If the NRL dont take this head injury thing seriously, it could very well end up bankrupting the sport in future.

 

[Lucas-Con]

An 18th man to should be there to replace one of the bench in case of injury or concussion why should 1 team play understrengthed and the other keep their whole team because of a most likely illigal shot.

And Referees should start binning Nate Myles for leading with that massive head again.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

It's a great idea, but like anything introduced some prick will find a way to rort it.

Players who have done an injury that would normally leave the team with 16 men to finish the game will claim concussion instead..

Eg. Someone who does their knee will suddenly be 'concussed' as well from when they hit the ground...

Yep.

I see no difference between a team loosing a player to another injury.

Nature of the beast unfortunately so no this idea is legless.

 

[Card Shark]

Yep.

I see no difference between a team loosing a player to another injury.

Nature of the beast unfortunately so no this idea is legless.

Agree with all this but the league has to be seen to be doing something about this, like they did with punching & shoulder charges.

Use of a lower grade player only & a week off for effected players will reduce the rorting but will pu the ball back in the club's hands to look after their players.

Don't see having independent doctors at games as an answer either - give that money to junior clubs. . That'll cost a fortune over a season.

 

[Pierced Soul]

EVERYONE, players, clubs, officials, doctors, should be erring on the side of caution with our players safety, particularly when it comes to concussions

the reality is that clubs and players have a win at all costs attitude. plenty of players know their knees, shoulders,etc are f**ked but they'll keep playing for seasons afterwards with the idea they'll worry about consequences down the track. i daresay clubs will take the risk of getting sued down the track if there's a chance for glory now

remember all the rorting when the blood bin first started?

I'm all for the ideas of having 2 players from the 20's (back and forward) sitting on the bench to be used only for concussion. in the old days wasnt it blokes from reserves who sat on the bench?

 

[POPEYE]

Whether or not Stewart was concussed or winded is conjecture but Manly wouldn't have pulled him either way, too important to their chances. There should be a simple test devised that can be initiated by a trainer in the presence of the referee, simple enough to test the player but conclusive enough to absolve responsibility should a charge be made against officials.

In this day of technology surely a method can be agreed upon which in essence is the accepted mediator. Possibly an apparatus that measures the effect of light on a pupil or as simple as walking the player to a line marking and asking him to walk ten paces straight. If players want to play the game they must sign a waver agreeing that any conclusions by an agreed method are legally and morally binding.

Any games missed after the fact should be entirely up to a licenced doctor just as had a broken jaw that couldn't be diagnosed during the game been found debilitating afterwards. Players know the risks, they should live with the consequences providing there are definite guidelines

Relacing a concussed player should be by a player that has already played at least 60 minutes the same day

 

[Captain Apollo]

Whilst the suggestion has merit, there are implementation issues.

Firstly, do people not remember the head bin, which was introduced in 1987? It became so laughable that you had players feigning a head knock so they could get a free spell for 10 minutes. The 1987 Grand Final is one big game where it was alleged that Manly pushed it to the "nth degree" in its use on what was a stinking hot day at the SCG. That is what lead eventually to the introduction of interchanbge in the first place.

As to hiring independent doctors for each game, um you want to spend a lot of money to do that? Doctors are not cheap. The better way would be to have the club doctor from both teams make the evaluation - that would lessen the chances of rorting.

 

[LineBall]

Perhaps get rid of interchange altogether, when you come off, you're off. Have a 6 man bench. Makes the game much more tactical as to who you put on the bench and when to use them. Also brings back the fatigue factor into the game.

 

[POPEYE]

Perhaps get rid of interchange altogether, when you come off, you're off. Have a 6 man bench. Makes the game much more tactical as to who you put on the bench and when to use them. Also brings back the fatigue factor into the game.

That's another 'exactly' from me . . . a four man bench is good enough, let the backs have a say in who wins the game

 

[firechild]

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?

Glenn Stewart initially appeared to have a rib injury which turned out to be being winded. Not sure what game you were watching but there was never any suggestion he was concussed.

 

[firechild]

As to hiring independent doctors for each game, um you want to spend a lot of money to do that? Doctors are not cheap. The better way would be to have the club doctor from both teams make the evaluation - that would lessen the chances of rorting.

Terrible idea. You want a person being paid by the opposition to make a call on whether one of your star players is fit to carry on during a grand final?

 

[Primerus]

Glenn Stewart initially appeared to have a rib injury which turned out to be being winded. Not sure what game you were watching but there was never any suggestion he was concussed.

He appeared disorientated for a few seconds from what I saw. Could be wrong though as I am going off memory and haven't viewed the game again.

 

[dice]

Stewart was definitely disorientated. Without there being a head clash it appeared to be breathing related rather than being concussed. But once again, would an independent doctor have made that assumption and let Stewart play on or would the doctor have covered their own ass?

 

[dice]

Hot tip. The NFL players knew the risks too, didnt stop them collecting a 750M+ for their case. If a class action ever gets going it's simply not going to hold up in court for the NRL to say the players knew the risk when they did not act appropriately to protect their employees against long term brain injury.

If the NRL dont take this head injury thing seriously, it could very well end up bankrupting the sport in future.

Willy Carne has permanent brain damage from playing league. He could potentially sue the pants off the NRL. That is despite never suffering multiple concussions in a single game. No matter how you want to skin it the risks are always there. Make the game too soft and the money NRL will lose in revenue will exceed the potential risk of lawsuit.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Terrible idea. You want a person being paid by the opposition to make a call on whether one of your star players is fit to carry on during a grand final?

What, and this happens when players get injured during the team warm up and a last minute replacement occurs? Yeah I see the opposing clubs rorting that all the time when the other clubs Doctor has a look at 'em :sarcasm:

 

[Raider_69]

Its not about multiple concussions in a game, it's about the consistent head knocks over the course of their careers.
No one is advocating making the game "too soft" (seriously, what is that even? this is the toughest game on the planet? Is it too soft because we dont allow thugs to drop forearms on blokes jaws like they did in the 60's? Goodness me)... too soft, thats more of the exaggerated bullshit

the options being put forward here arent making the game or the contact any softer than it is right now, as it was 40 years ago. It's putting provisions in so that we protect our athletes from potentially crippling brain injury in their quest to entertain us.

Independent medical professionals to assess concussions doesnt make the game softer, it doesnt make it easier, it doesnt make the hits hurt less, or be delivered with any less aggression.

Enforcing by rule the idea that should a player suffer a severe enough head injury that he exhibits signs of concussion, is removed from the field and is not allowed to play again until such time as he clears the relevant testing isnt going to change a damn thing other than potentially allowing the bloke to live to be old enough to pick his friggin grand children up.

having an 18th man to replace said player if the concussion is the result of foul play has literally NO down side, its effect on the game is minimal. The likelihood of all the ducks lining up to have this happen are slim, it would impact games and a premiership campaign immeasurably less than than the current system where i can knock a bloke senseless, put him out of the game and all i get is a put on report to miss games futher down the line, current opposition gets no benefit for my foul play.

May i ask Dice, how old are you? Id be surprised if your under 50.

This prehistoric, neanderthal idea that coming off and sitting the rest of the game out due to a concussion is somehow making the game soft is astonishingly dumb. You know playing after being knocked literally senseless doenst make you tough, it makes you an idiot who is putting his long term health at risk for a game.

One might wonder if there is serious head trauma involved in people who are advocating that the game is going soft unless we allow players to play through serious head trauma. Goodness me. Have i gone back in time, it's 2013, not 1913

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

BUMP

Found this looking for another Thread..

Interesting reading of some of these comments back over 7 years ago.... funny how it's panned out since. But...

My question is - what has happened to this rule introduced by Peter Trump (Vlandys)....??

Wasn't this meant to be "an emerging player"??? (which i didnt agree with). See earlier post from @DeeJ who foretold this in 2013.....

Only two weeks ago the Dragons had Daniel Alvaro as 18th Man - so how did that happen?

Has the rule changer changed his own rules already?

Keen to hear any clarification here.