Round three vs The Storm

[Luke Bowden]

Players leave the field, pass the HIA protocols and return to the field during the course of the same game.

Nathan left the field at the end of the Bulldogs game, couldn’t return and I suspect given the state of the game we basically just gave him an early mark.

I’ll be very, very surprised if he is not declared fit for Thursday night, it was not as if he was knocked senseless it really wasn’t that bad.

Let’s not be naive here, all clubs take advantage of the HIA protocols to get a free interchange, particularly around subbing front rowers at convenient times. It is just the way it is. We see it each and every game, week in week out.

he went of with under 10 minutes to go. He can’t take the test until his been off for 15 minutes...... you can suspect all you like, the rules say he couldn’t come back..

 

[Luke Bowden]

Cleary was heavily targeted in the grand final, therefore blunting his game. With Burton there, that could provide another point of attack, and could prove critical.

They didn’t target Cleary in particular, they just played up tempo in defence and gave no one anytime. Burton on the bench would not fix that, not at all.

 

[Jane Murray]

They didn’t target Cleary in particular, they just played up tempo in defence and gave no one anytime. Burton on the bench would not fix that, not at all.

He would add an extra point of attack. To be honest, I would be shocked if Nathan plays. It is a short turn around and Nathan looked awful.

 

[Luke Bowden]

He would add an extra point of attack. To be honest, I would be shocked if Nathan plays. It is a short turn around and Nathan looked awful.

What do you mean by an extra point of attack? I think I know what you mean, but I can’t for the life see how that would work in our structure.

Its not like defences look at an attacking line and mark the “play makers”, it doesn’t work like that. Play with a 3rd “halve” would weaken our attack, quite significantly.

So unless you’ve got some sort of crazy attacking strategy in mind, it’s a bad idea

 

[WestyLife]

What do you mean by an extra point of attack? I think I know what you mean, but I can’t for the life see how that would work in our structure.

Its not like defences look at an attacking line and mark the “play makers”, it doesn’t work like that. Play with a 3rd “halve” would weaken our attack, quite significantly.

So unless you’ve got some sort of crazy attacking strategy in mind, it’s a bad idea

In our structure you'd have to have him replace Edwards on the right as May did last year which would mean replacing Momirovski.

I'm not advocating for it for the record just the best I can think of how it'd be achieved

 

[Jane Murray]

What do you mean by an extra point of attack? I think I know what you mean, but I can’t for the life see how that would work in our structure.

Its not like defences look at an attacking line and mark the “play makers”, it doesn’t work like that. Play with a 3rd “halve” would weaken our attack, quite significantly.

So unless you’ve got some sort of crazy attacking strategy in mind, it’s a bad idea

I don't, however, I am sure the powers to be would.

 

[Luke Bowden]

In our structure you'd have to have him replace Edwards on the right as May did last year which would mean replacing Momirovski.

I'm not advocating for it for the record just the best I can think of how it'd be achieved

Correct, which doesn’t actually give us anything extra.

 

[Kilkenny]

he went of with under 10 minutes to go. He can’t take the test until his been off for 15 minutes...... you can suspect all you like, the rules say he couldn’t come back..

I’m well aware of the 15 minute rule and protocols and therefore was not returning against the Dogs. You have misinterpreted something I have said.

 

[Luke Bowden]

I’m well aware of the 15 minute rule and protocols and therefore was not returning against the Dogs. You have misinterpreted something I have said.

Did you not say that you suspected he would have come back on if the game was close?

 

[WestyLife]

Did you not say that you suspected he would have come back on if the game was close?

Yes

 

[Kilkenny]

Did you not say that you suspected he would have come back on if the game was close?

Had the game been in the balance, he wouldn’t have gone off, I’m sure his response and that of our trainer may have been different. Once he left the field with with under 10 to go his game was over, I’m well aware of the HIA rules.

 

[Kilkenny]

Yes

Maybe re read what I posted.

 

[WestyLife]

Had the game been in the balance, he wouldn’t have gone off, I’m sure his response and that of our trainer may have been different. Once he left the field with with under 10 to go his game was over, I’m well aware of the HIA rules.

This comment is what I was talking about and I was right. He would've been forced off either by the Panthers or by the independent doctor.

 

[betcats]

Had the game been in the balance, he wouldn’t have gone off, I’m sure his response and that of our trainer may have been different. Once he left the field with with under 10 to go his game was over, I’m well aware of the HIA rules.

He definitely would have gone off he was knocked out.

 

[Kilkenny]

This comment is what I was talking about and I was right. He would've been forced off either by the Panthers or by the independent doctor.

Each and every game, more often than not on multiple occasions, players who have apparently suffered a head knock are assessed on the field, many are cleared to play on, some are taken off particularly the obvious and serious cases and then there are the ones who come off to take advantage of the rules and earn your team a free interchange.

In Nathan’s case the tackle was high, made contact with the head, and given the circumstances of the game Nathan got an early mark. I have no doubt had the circumstances of the game been different Nathan’s response would have been different and the trainer would have said good to play on. It is not automatic that all players are forced off are being hit in the head, I’ve seen far worse and players are allowed to continue.

 

[Kilkenny]

He definitely would have gone off he was knocked out.

That’s not how it appeared to me. Maybe dazed, but didn’t appear to lose consciousness.

He walked off basically under his own steam, unaided and two of his team mates patted him on the head prior to his walking down the tunnel.

 

[Luke Bowden]

Had the game been in the balance, he wouldn’t have gone off, I’m sure his response and that of our trainer may have been different. Once he left the field with with under 10 to go his game was over, I’m well aware of the HIA rules.

He had no choice but to go off. There is no chance the NRL doctor let’s him stay on, he was clearly rattled.

And further more, I don’t think he’s a dead set certain to play this week.

 

[snickers007]

It was a free interchange too - because DWZ was placed on report.

I actually think he would have been replaced regardless, but the circumstances are such that I can understand Kilkenny's point of view.

 

[Kilkenny]

He had no choice but to go off. There is no chance the NRL doctor let’s him stay on, he was clearly rattled.

And further more, I don’t think he’s a dead set certain to play this week.

Happy days.

 

[roofromoz]

So... who will be at Blue Bet Stadium on Thursday?