Round 20 Cronulla Sharks vs South Sydney Rabbitohs - PointsBet Stadium - Saturday 3rd August 7:35pm

[snowman]

imagine if he played that incredible face ball then failed the HIA

 

[bort]

If a player fails a HIA, they should give the offender 10 minutes, especially if it’s on report. We lose a player, but the opposition isn’t affected until the following week. The team they play the next week benefits the most off it, while we gain the least

Get what you're saying but it'd work weird though

In this circumstance Burgess would have been given 10 minutes about 15-25 minutes after the actual incident (delay in tech plus time to fail the test). An outlier I know, but also imagine you take your interchange prop off for a free interchange to give them an HIA (which they pass) meanwhile their best forward cops 10 in bin for a fairly low impact shot.
It couldn't be 'mandatory' would have to be on review of bunker and failure of HIA so would often be 10ish minutes after the actual incident. Bunker to review actual tackle also as if, for example, attacker clearly just slips into a normal tackle attempt 10 minutes would be harsh.

Potentially would create more fair outcomes but it's super messy and abusable.

Hooper was having a cry about Moylan assisting in a try when he should have been off.

The purpose of this is to look after the player, it's not to penalise the player and the team that has been on the wrong end of foul play.

Yeah I know, I didn't get that either, it's like he's actively upset the victim was okay and still able to play well?
Think Hooper would fail an HIA

If anything try assist is another tick in the suitable to play on column, although that issue covering the deadball line is probably a tick in the needs to come off column...

 

[snowman]

so moylan isnt playing this week after tests yesterday

a fine will be coming our way - the trainer that left him on the field should pay it

 

[HaroldBishop]

so moylan isnt playing this week after tests yesterday

a fine will be coming our way - the trainer that left him on the field should pay it

I'd like to know the process he followed before chastising him.

 

[kotwben]

Why we would get fined, he passed the on-field and locker room tests.

 

[Western Sharkie]

Why we would get fined, he passed the on-field and locker room tests.

Cos the NRL.
Common-sense has nothing to do with how they rule.

 

[bort]

I'd like to know the process he followed before chastising him.

Exactly - presumably on field test is standard practice. The disconnect between video and doctors is unrelated to trainers results.

Trainer doesn’t see what we see on tv.

Also entirely possible for symptoms of concussion only to manifest hours or even days later. If he passed on field and off field test then has symptoms later how can we be blamed for that?

 

[Jaz]

He was knocked out - everyone saw it. It doesn't matter if he passes a test. That's it, his game's over.

 

[snowman]

He was knocked out - everyone saw it. It doesn't matter if he passes a test. That's it, his game's over.

seems simple doesnt it

 

[HaroldBishop]

He was knocked out - everyone saw it. It doesn't matter if he passes a test. That's it, his game's over.

I don't think that was the case.

 

[snowman]

I don't think that was the case.

watch again, his bod was limp, he dropped the ball cold and was out before he hit the ground

how that trainer didnt take him off is beyond me

 

[bort]

He was knocked out - everyone saw it. It doesn't matter if he passes a test. That's it, his game's over.

But I don't think that's the rules? You still have the fail the off-field assessment. So I think it entirely matters if he passes a test...

I also maintain that although 'everyone saw it' the trainer did not see it like everyone saw it.
If you watch the coverage the trainer is partway through the assessment when Fox wrap up their 2nd replay of the hit so he has no reference to replays, just whatever sideline angle he may have had to see it once, live, from much further away than the camera angle from the broadcast.

Standard series of events should have been
- he passes on-field
- doctor reviews footage and pulls him next chance
- he passes off-field and returns to play out the game

So only difference was a delay in the process, not the result of the process.

watch again, his bod was limp, he dropped the ball cold and was out before he hit the ground

how that trainer didnt take him off is beyond me

For sure he got knocked out.
Is your expectation of the trainer that he should be all seeing and all knowing or that instead of doing his job he should have pulled up Kayo and had a bit of a watch to make his call?

He did the assessment he is required to do to judge if the player is fit to continue playing and he, seemingly correctly, passed it. His on assessment is more valuable to him than what he may have half seen from 60m away

 

[snowman]

But I don't think that's the rules? You still have the fail the off-field assessment. So I think it entirely matters if he passes a test...

I also maintain that although 'everyone saw it' the trainer did not see it like everyone saw it.
If you watch the coverage the trainer is partway through the assessment when Fox wrap up their 2nd replay of the hit so he has no reference to replays, just whatever sideline angle he may have had to see it once, live, from much further away than the camera angle from the broadcast.

Standard series of events should have been
- he passes on-field
- doctor reviews footage and pulls him next chance
- he passes off-field and returns to play out the game

So only difference was a delay in the process, not the result of the process.

there shouldnt have even been an onfield assessment though, he should have been taken straight away

horses for courses now, but we should get a warning or a fine for it

not a good look

 

[bort]

there shouldnt have even been an onfield assessment though, he should have been taken straight away

On whose judgement?

The trainer? He made his judgement based on his assessment?

It's on the doctors judgement and there was a technical issue there, once resolved they did pull him straight away. Again he passed the test the NRL deemed meant it was safe for him to return to play, or at least as safe as they can judge.

 

[slide rule]

Meh.

It’s all a deflection to save Channel 9 Sam.

 

[snowman]

On whose judgement?

The trainer? He made his judgement based on his assessment?

It's on the doctors judgement and there was a technical issue there, once resolved they did pull him straight away. Again he passed the test the NRL deemed meant it was safe for him to return to play, or at least as safe as they can judge.

yes, the trainers assessment - the trainer in question who caused this issue

as you said on the previous page, the trainer saw a player laying on the ground limp and ran out and didnt hook him, despite moylan still laying down when he got to him

the same trainer that hooked dugan straight away v the dragons despite dugan being on his feet

the trainer ****ed up here, ut as usual you will continue to make excuses

 

[bort]

yes, the trainers assessment - the trainer in question who caused this issue

as you said on the previous page, the trainer saw a player laying on the ground limp and ran out and didnt hook him, despite moylan still laying down when he got to him

the same trainer that hooked dugan straight away v the dragons despite dugan being on his feet

the trainer ****ed up here, ut as usual you will continue to make excuses

Telling you what happened is not making excuses.
But it's obvious your button eyes are melting off if you think Moylan was still laying down when the trainer got to him so I guess there is no point trying to discuss the issue with you.

 

[ben]

Played average anyway, so it all evens out.

 

[Sparkles]

Cheap post

Haha

 

[Gards]

Meh.

It’s all a deflection to save Channel 9 Sam.

havn't seen his mum on tele for a while, maybe big Packer is tuning her