Eels in the media

[emjaycee]

Maybe the NRL should look at why 15 other clubs are allowed to spend 24 rounds of football wilfully attacking the heads of our players without incurring penalties.

#powerhouse #conspiracy #leaveourheadsalone

 

[Gary Gutful]

The suggestion that our club doctor is dishonest with his/her medical assessments is a bit rich. Over cautious I will buy. Haul the Drs in and make sure they are all on the same page.

However to simply say that the Eels are using it the most - therefore we must be abusing it - is an unfair position to take.

If they want to appoint independent Drs at each match, then so be it. In the meantime the NRL should STFU.

I don't think that is what they are saying. I believe the journo is the one making those suggestions. My reading is that he was also the one that contacted Parra on Thursday, not the NRL.

The NRL are just letting people know that they will be scrutinising it further. If Parra don't believe they are bending the rules then the NRL won't be able to uncover any issues.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Maybe the NRL should look at why 15 other clubs are allowed to spend 24 rounds of football wilfully attacking the heads of our players without incurring penalties.

#powerhouse #conspiracy #leaveourheadsalone

 

[Twizzle]

Maybe the NRL should look at why 15 other clubs are allowed to spend 24 rounds of football wilfully attacking the heads of our players without incurring penalties.

#powerhouse #conspiracy #leaveourheadsalone

One of my pet hates atm is the way league allows the second man in to try and rip the ball carrier's head off, I think we are the only football code that allows any head contact.

 

[strider]

I mentioned our "usage" of the HIA when mannah came off in the manly game thread

Sorry, but we totally rort it .... i would like to see stats on how many times individual players are tested

 

[Gronk]

I mentioned our "usage" of the HIA when mannah came off in the manly game thread

Sorry, but we totally rort it .... i would like to see stats on how many times individual players are tested

IIRC Tim came off early and we lost impact. How did that benefit the team?

 

[hybrideel]

Maybe its due to the running style of the player. I reckon Tim would could for a large percentage of our HIAs and maybe the way he run into the defence plays a part in that. If you take him out of the equation as an outlier the stats are probably very similar to other clubs

 

[Gary Gutful]

I mentioned our "usage" of the HIA when mannah came off in the manly game thread

Sorry, but we totally rort it .... i would like to see stats on how many times individual players are tested

I tend to agree.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Yep. BA's defence is laughable.

 

[carson]

Why don't they just have an independent doctor at each game to perform the SCAT test? They would know pretty quickly if they are continually testing guys that don't need it.

 

[Gronk]

Why don't they just have an independent doctor at each game to perform the SCAT test? They would know pretty quickly if they are continually testing guys that don't need it.

Yep what I said. Removes all conjecture.

PKent said that the NRL don't want to foot the bill of 16 Drs at the grounds for 30+ games a year.

 

[Forty20]

Personally I have absolutely zero compunctions with us pushing the line on the HIA protocol. If the NRL refuse to appoint an independent body/doctor and continue to allow for a considerable grey area in the matter then push the lines. Being the best in the NRL (and really any sport) and toeing thin lines often go hand-in-hand. Melbourne and their incessant bullshit (grapple, chicken-wing, frog splash from the top rope etc) in the ruck is the first thought that comes to mind here. The Dogs rode a very contentious interpretation of the amorphous obstruction rules to a grand final in 2012. If the rules are there to be exploited the NRL can only blame itself. Push the lines but expect there to be understandable gripes and outrage from external parties.

With that said, even taking away the competitive advantage of HIA abuse, I am completely happy for our team to err on the side of caution when it comes to concussion assessments. I have seen what it has done to some blokes in the NFL and ensuring that our players have genuine quality of life in their advanced years is a very serious matter.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Personally I have absolutely zero compunctions with us pushing the line on the HIA protocol. If the NRL refuse to appoint an independent body/doctor and continue to allow for a considerable grey area in the matter then push the lines. Being the best in the NRL (and really any sport) and toeing thin lines often go hand-in-hand. Melbourne and their incessant bullshit (grapple, chicken-wing, frog splash from the top rope etc) in the ruck is the first thought that comes to mind here. The Dogs rode a very contentious interpretation of the amorphous obstruction rules to a grand final in 2012. If the rules are there to be exploited the NRL can only blame itself. Push the lines but expect there to be understandable gripes and outrage from external parties.

With that said, even taking away the competitive advantage of HIA abuse, I am completely happy for our team to err on the side of caution when it comes to concussion assessments. I have seen what it has done to some blokes in the NFL and ensuring that our players have genuine quality of life in their advanced years is a very serious matter.

I do however think if BA is serious about player welfare then he shouldn't be asking them 'to put their heads where other players mightn't'.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Personally I have absolutely zero compunctions with us pushing the line on the HIA protocol. If the NRL refuse to appoint an independent body/doctor and continue to allow for a considerable grey area in the matter then push the lines. Being the best in the NRL (and really any sport) and toeing thin lines often go hand-in-hand. Melbourne and their incessant bullshit (grapple, chicken-wing, frog splash from the top rope etc) in the ruck is the first thought that comes to mind here. The Dogs rode a very contentious interpretation of the amorphous obstruction rules to a grand final in 2012. If the rules are there to be exploited the NRL can only blame itself. Push the lines but expect there to be understandable gripes and outrage from external parties.

With that said, even taking away the competitive advantage of HIA abuse, I am completely happy for our team to err on the side of caution when it comes to concussion assessments. I have seen what it has done to some blokes in the NFL and ensuring that our players have genuine quality of life in their advanced years is a very serious matter.

Yep. Whilst we can get away with it we should try to. Totally agree.

 

[Bazal]

Mannah reeled out of a tackle looking wobbly, was squinting and shaking his head as if to clear it, complained of an aching head and blurred vision.....

Yep, none of those things are in any way associated with concussion.

 

[strider]

IIRC Tim came off early and we lost impact. How did that benefit the team?

He didn't come off early - he came off at about 21m mark - which is the usual time you replace the starting props ... hence why I made the smartass comment about it in the game thread

 

[strider]

Personally I have absolutely zero compunctions with us pushing the line on the HIA protocol. If the NRL refuse to appoint an independent body/doctor and continue to allow for a considerable grey area in the matter then push the lines. Being the best in the NRL (and really any sport) and toeing thin lines often go hand-in-hand. Melbourne and their incessant bullshit (grapple, chicken-wing, frog splash from the top rope etc) in the ruck is the first thought that comes to mind here. The Dogs rode a very contentious interpretation of the amorphous obstruction rules to a grand final in 2012. If the rules are there to be exploited the NRL can only blame itself. Push the lines but expect there to be understandable gripes and outrage from external parties.

With that said, even taking away the competitive advantage of HIA abuse, I am completely happy for our team to err on the side of caution when it comes to concussion assessments. I have seen what it has done to some blokes in the NFL and ensuring that our players have genuine quality of life in their advanced years is a very serious matter.

I agree - we may aswell push it - other teams do too

 

[Gary Gutful]

Mannah reeled out of a tackle looking wobbly, was squinting and shaking his head as if to clear it, complained of an aching head and blurred vision.....

Yep, none of those things are in any way associated with concussion.

What about the other 45 times we have done it?

 

[Bazal]

What about the other 45 times we have done it?

f**k Gaz I can't remember what I did yesterday....too many concussions. I think I did well to remember what happened with Mannah.

In all seriousness though, given the McManus thing and the dangers of concussions, the more cautious we are the better.

 

[strider]

can we not admit we might be stretching the rules?