NRL to issue Souths a 'please explain' over handling of Burgess head knock

[jo_95]

Just how would Maguire know he was not concussed. Did he conduct the scat test and pass him fit to return to the field? Oh yes that is right THERE WAS NO TEST!!!!! Did he run on to the field in the first minute of play and check the severity of the injury in case he needed to come off the field? Oh yes that is right IT WASN'T CHECKED UNTIL HALF TIME!!Burgess said he could not remember anything about the game BUT HE WAS NOT CONCUSSED!!

Surgess never looked concussed though. That's why they never did the scat test. He seemed awfully aware of where he was for someone that is now allegedly concussed the entire GF.

also I took the burgess quote more to be saying like that everything felt like it happened so quick that it is hard to remember anything that happened. Because I am not sure but I thought there was another quote where he said that he knew they were going to win after Gurgess scored?

 

[CeeEss]

Ah the NRL is an easy target isnt it?

They make themselves an easy target with their inconsistency.

 

[Nano]

Anything come of this yet?

 

[dogluva]

Anything come of this yet?

Probably has to wait until Souths lodge their 300 pages of excuses; I mean reasons; I mean facts including Doctors reports, video evidence, sworn statements from all concerned as to why they should not face any type of punishment. It has now been 1 working week since the incident and only a day or two since they were asked to explain.

Seriously I can not see them moving any quicker than they have done during the year on cases dealing with flouting of NRL guidelines, but one thing for sure they have to get it 100% right or the next time something like this happens the lines will already be well and truly blurred.

 

[dogluva]

I am watching a replay of the GF now and a few things I have noted on second viewing. In the very first hit up of the game when he fractured his cheekbone, Burgess actually caused the problem himself by leading with the upper part of his body and arm initiating the way the collision happened; the collision that some people have claimed was a 'head butt' by James Graham.Sam Burgess immediately knew he had badly damaged himself but as the trainer approached him he just pushed him away. As was the case with anything that happened in the GF the commentators continued to make comment with Fittler even saying that he heard the trainer on the side line say "his cheekbone is fractured" and this was from just a cursory inspection. In a break in play when Tony Williams was deemed to have dropped the ball in the play the ball ( actually the marker crowded him) Burgess himself said to Inglis that his cheekbone was "gone". It pissed me off to hear the commentators continually praising the fact Burgess stayed on "whilst blood continued flowing from his face and mouth "or "will the medical people assess he has to leave the field". Comments were made in relation to the George Burgess incident too. It seems unbelievable to me that he was taken off immediately by the trainers for assessment and looked very groggy ( also mentioned by the commentators)but returned not long after to finish the game. I think that South's would have to have the highest record of returns from concussion incidents in the NRL ( Kyle Turner being a good example) I hope they throw a massive fine and a warning to South's that should they go against the NRL protocol again, they will not only face a further fine but loss of competition points.South's will throw all sorts of statements at the NRL: he was not concussed, our medical staff did not believe the injury was severe enough to force him from the field, the injury was caused by foul play etc. etc.. I just hope the NRL also watches and listens carefully to replay to draw their own conclusions.

 

[dogluva]

Watching GF replay 62.45 minutes into the game and Sam Burgess still bleeding from the nose.

 

[pupii]

Dogluva, were you as Passionate about this when Graham played on earlier in the year when concussed? Sounds like you're chewing down on some sour grapes.

 

[dogluva]

Dogluva, were you as Passionate about this when Graham played on earlier in the year when concussed? Sounds like you're chewing down on some sour grapes.

Mate any player that continues to play when they are concussed is a fool. We were fined for that incident and so we should have been. All I want is some consistency in relation to this type of incident, Burgess was not assessed, nor did he leave the field. Not sour grapes buddy just frustration that it was allowed to happen and apparently so with the blessing of Souths and their medical staff. It is truly frightening to read medical opinion on the long term effects of a concussion and I would never wish that on anyone.

 

[dogluva]

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...y-on-playing-with-injury-20141011-114ndu.html

And this article really says it all, not.

 

[Mr Invisible]

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...y-on-playing-with-injury-20141011-114ndu.html

And this article really says it all, not.

More purile dribble from the medias Souths wankfest.

How about asking a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who doesn't play for the clubs opinion?
How about asking someone like Charlie Teo who is a specialist in neurosurgery and brain conditions?
How about asking an Ear/Nose/Throat or Maxiofacial surgeon, or a facial reconstruction surgeon on their thoughts on the matter?

No, because any medical professional in such fields would say exactly what they don't want heard in the media, and that is that he should have been removed immediately from the field after injury.

Given it is reported he fractured his cheek bone and eye socket, there is a large risk of permenant damage, from a brain injury to lifetime eye damage, simply from broken bones pressing on areas they shouldn't. Add to that the potential for that bone to be pushed back more in a tackle (because it is no longer structurally intact), and you have the potential for a major issue, very quickly to occur.

The NRL have a duty of care, and whilst the clubs doctor/trainer (who generally wouldn't know a serious head injury from a common cold) are going to keep the player on purely due to their own clubs interest, it is about time the NRL have club neutral doctors for diagnosing concussed and injured players. It would stop this sort of thing, and allow a neutral doctor/specialist to give an expert opinion on how safe the player is to continue in the game.

 

[dogluva]

More purile dribble from the medias Souths wankfest.

How about asking a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who doesn't play for the clubs opinion?
How about asking someone like Charlie Teo who is a specialist in neurosurgery and brain conditions?
How about asking an Ear/Nose/Throat or Maxiofacial surgeon, or a facial reconstruction surgeon on their thoughts on the matter?

No, because any medical professional in such fields would say exactly what they don't want heard in the media, and that is that he should have been removed immediately from the field after injury.

Given it is reported he fractured his cheek bone and eye socket, there is a large risk of permenant damage, from a brain injury to lifetime eye damage, simply from broken bones pressing on areas they shouldn't. Add to that the potential for that bone to be pushed back more in a tackle (because it is no longer structurally intact), and you have the potential for a major issue, very quickly to occur.

The NRL have a duty of care, and whilst the clubs doctor/trainer (who generally wouldn't know a serious head injury from a common cold) are going to keep the player on purely due to their own clubs interest, it is about time the NRL have club neutral doctors for diagnosing concussed and injured players. It would stop this sort of thing, and allow a neutral doctor/specialist to give an expert opinion on how safe the player is to continue in the game.

Exactly my thoughts. That article was disgraceful. Of course other athletes are going to applaud the bravery of Burgess. To say though that young kids should look up to this as great that someone is pushing through the pain barrier and showing they can go the extra yard is ridiculous.The repercussions relating to this could have been absolutely devastating and then those that applauded his bravery might be saying why was he allowed to continue. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Mr Invisible]

This was said by Dr George Peponis recently about the injury:

if he got another bad knock on that eye socket it could've done some more serious damage, it could've been further depressed and caused some damage to his muscles around the eye.

 

[The DoggFather]

This was said by Dr George Peponis recently about the injury:

Didn't another doctor say he could of lost his sight?

 

[Mr Invisible]

Didn't another doctor say he could of lost his sight?

Then he'd be one eyed... which is great because he'd be able to take up a career as an NRL ref.

 

[The DoggFather]

Then he'd be one eyed... which is great because he'd be able to take up a career as an NRL ref.

Lol, it's funny coz it's true.

 

[CB1935]

They will not fine them.

The whole premise of him winning the clive churchill medal was him playing the 80 with the broken cheekbone.

To have the club fine would mean that he should have been taken from the field and the medal should now have an * next to it.

It also takes away the gladiator aspect of his performance and the spectacle of it in the gf.

 

[Natboy]

They will not fine them.

The whole premise of him winning the clive churchill medal was him playing the 80 with the broken cheekbone.

To have the club fine would mean that he should have been taken from the field and the medal should now have an * next to it.

It also takes away the gladiator aspect of his performance and the spectacle of it in the gf.

It's like the NRL saying naughty naughty to Paul Gallen for punching Nate Myles leading to this pathetic punching ban but still using the footage to promote origin as much as possible without wearing the tape out!!

 

[dogluva]

It's like the NRL saying naughty naughty to Paul Gallen for punching Nate Myles leading to this pathetic punching ban but still using the footage to promote origin as much as possible without wearing the tape out!!

Yes we have all the following no no things:no punching,no third man in, no chicken wings, no crusher tackles, no cannonball, no shoulder charges, no tripping, no leading with the elbow, no biting, no eye gouging etc. but above all we have NO CONSISTENCY.

 

[1991]

When has the NRL used that punch as advertisement?

Ive seen TV networks use it to promote the game without input from the NRL. The NRL has a strict no violence rule when the NRL themselves promote the game.

Happy to proven wrong if shown when the NRL organisation has broken thier rule.

 

[dogluva]

When has the NRL used that punch as advertisement?

Ive seen TV networks use it to promote the game without input from the NRL. The NRL has a strict no violence rule when the NRL themselves promote the game.

Happy to proven wrong if shown when the NRL organisation has broken thier rule.

Probably right there 1991.
It is more likely the perception by many that the NRL is a puppet for the TV networks (Particularly 9 ). It seems they have a huge input into the running of the game by picking and choosing when games are played and which teams as they are paying massive amounts of money for the broadcasting rights. I don't know if I have ever heard the NRL complain about TV networks using footage of these type of incidents as promotions. I may be wrong but I can't remember any. You are correct in your comment about a strict no violence rule for the NRL, however they are conspicuous in their silence by NOT telling TV stations to avoid the use of these types of incidents in advertising SOO etc.