In the past 12 months here’s a smattering of some of the issues faced by rugby league.
An extremely public and antagonistic Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiation process between the NRL and the Rugby League Players Association which is still not resolved.
St George Illawarra Dragons chair Craig Young writing a letter of support for Brett Finch, who pleaded guilty to using a carriage service to make child abuse material available.
The season of the Manly Sea Eagles absolutely disintegrating over a rainbow on a jersey and the less said about Jarome Luai’s speech at Brian To’o’s wedding, the better.
But for Phil Gould, none of these issues are even on the spectrum of what this week he called the NRL’s ‘greatest abomination’; the use of independent doctors being used to assess potential head injuries.
I’m not going to mince words. Gould’s comments are dangerous and irresponsible, as is plenty of the coverage of the concussion issue in mainstream media this week.
The fact that we are still having conversations in game coverage about whether headgear reduces concussion risk is staggering (it doesn’t).
I love rugby league. One of the things I love most about it is its physicality. This physicality distinguishes tackle footy from other versions of the game like tag and touch.
I want to see rugby league continue to grow and to be played for generations to come.
For that to be a reality, the safety of our players must be the top priority and the protocols which the NRL have introduced in recent years are an important and necessary step.
This does not mean the physicality of the game will dissipate. It just might look a little different.
The problem with people like Gould questioning the role of the independent doctor is his lack of expertise in this space and his conflict of interest given his role at the Bulldogs. No doubt his job is for Canterbury to win games of rugby league.
Sebastian Kris. (Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
Concussion is not as obvious as some of us think and in this space, my response is to trust a doctor who is highly trained and qualified.
These doctors understand concussion and its symptoms. They are experts. We are not. I would also rather err on the side of caution, especially if video is signalling to that doctor that a player is exhibiting Category 1 or Category 2 signs of concussion, requiring that player to undergo further assessment.
Questioning these important processes because a team may be without a player for 15 minutes is deeply concerning.
Gould was not the only one to weigh in on the debate this week and in fact, his comments came not long after Ricky Stuart unleashed after the Raiders loss to the Cowboys. Stuart pointed the finger at the NRL and the Rugby League Players Association.
He is not the first coach to make comments like this.
“The RLPA, the NRL, they don’t trust coaches mate. Do you think I’d let a player play if he has a concussion or is concussed?” Stuart said.
My response to this, is that I don’t trust coaches either. And I trust the players even less so.
This is not to question the integrity of any of the coaches in the NRL or any of our players.
Ryan Matterson of the Eels is attended to by a team trainer (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
But the reality is, most of these coaches are judged on performance and in rugby league that means winning games.
Coaches are constantly under pressure and if a team is not winning games, a coach can very quickly find themselves on the outer, with their livelihood on the line.
In a game that hangs in the balance, where the loss of one player early can sometimes mean the difference between winning and losing, it is absolutely conceivable that a coach may take a risk and allow a player to continue playing, based on a conversation they have with that player or their understanding of concussion symptoms.
Even if they don’t take the risk, they may turn their mind to it, which is just as problematic.
There is also a risk that players minimise potential concussion symptoms with their ultimate focus potentially being to get back onto the field with their teammates.
This risk is potentially even more pronounced in the women’s game, where shorter seasons may mean that players minimise symptoms so as to not miss game play.
Last month it was announced that the AFL may be facing a class action brought on behalf of former players suffering from the impact of concussion.
A law firm in Melbourne has signalled its intention to go to the Victorian Supreme Court.
Tony McRae #29 of the Cincinnati Bengals is carted off of the field after suffering a concussion (Photo by John Grieshop/Getty Images)
This follows class actions which have already been brought in the United Stated by NFL players.
This is not an issue which is going away in rugby league and in fact is one which needs more attention.
Think of how far the concussion protocols have progressed in the men’s game, but we are still learning on the impact of concussion on men, with lesser focus on the women’s game with even less known about how things like the menstrual cycle impacts concussion for women.
When it comes to the safety of our players, present and future, it is extremely important that relevant and useful information is presented to media commentators and fans.
But from my perspective in this space, I would rather err on the side of caution here and trust the advice of independent experts.
After all, I’m not a doctor.
sheek
Roar Guru
This is part of what Phil Gould said: "I think the doctor in the bunker is the greatest abomination perpetrated on our game in history. It's confusing for players. Not every bump to the head is a concussion, not every concussion is life-threatening. It's just total overkill. Not every slap to the face or bump in the head requires a HIA review". What's wrong with this? Nowhere can I find Gould saying let's get rid of HIA. Nowhere. What he says is get it out out the bunker. And stop overreacting. Now there's easily a million, make that millions of articles & comments on the uselessness of the bunker. Why all of a sudden are some of you defending the right of a doctor being in the bunker? They're pretty much useless on every other adjudication. The bunker, that is. And I agree with Gould, there's too much overreaction, too much knee-jerking. Nor is Gould responsible for past players suffering dementia. That's the problem of the entire sport. But now the NRL is going too far the other way. But that's society for you. Firstly, we don't fully absorb & understand what someone says. And secondly, we go off half-cocked before fully comprehending what's been said. We just use it as an opportunity to sound off our deep-seated biases & prejudices against someone or something we don't really like. It would be an interesting exercise not to show the author of any articles or replying comments. Folk would then be forced to comment on what they read & not on knowing the author. In other words, read the message, not the messenger.
Griffo 09
Roar Rookie
Buddha, Confucius, Edward de Bono, and Gus Gould. The great minds according to Roy and HG
Griffo 09
Roar Rookie
Yes, I think we agree where the hysteria is coming from.
Griffo 09
Roar Rookie
True, Mary! Though, while I can see Ricky Stuart and Phil Gould as characters in a melodrama, Wayne Bennett might have to stick to coaching. :silly:
Gus O
Guest
Shame on you with these disingenuous straw man arguments. The point is NOT just about an independent doctor, it is about a DISTANT independent doctor in an off site location using the TV replays to make a judgement based on… TV replays… with no opportunity to directly communicate with or assess the player (ie. examine the patient). The obvious instances are not the issue, expertise is barely an issue there. Can we all acknowledge there will be instances where a distant “medical expert” cannot make a sufficiently informed judgement from afar? Anyone who wants to pretend that this isolated-in-the-bunker approach is the complete and final answer is kidding themselves. However, I like it because the coaches and players will quickly learn how they need to react to a knock and this will reverse the trend of players deliberately staying down to milk a penalty (if they want to stay on the field). But I don’t like it because the players and coaches will also learn how to milk it for an additional concussion substitution any time they like, effectively increasing the available interchange. It’s not about trust, it’s about changing one systematic incentive to a different systematic incentive to take advantage of without effectively solving the problem. This bunker approach has not solved the problem. At some point the NRL will need to take this seriously and have a suitably qualified independent medico in attendance AT every game. But where does that end for non-professional league competitions?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yeah, I made that comment above that some of the material includes holding the head. NRL physio is normally right across this stuff and they had that in a social media post recently When you try and search for this stuff, you just get random results Souvalis makes a good point that the NRL would reduce the number of blow ups by being transparent with the guidance material We’d probably still have people blowing up “he was only lying motionless for 1.94 seconds…” but things would be a bit clearer for those of us that want to understand…
mushi
Roar Guru
Given the NRLPA are supportive and we're stuck in negotiations it helps.
mushi
Roar Guru
The possibility of loss of coordination being why he lies prone and the head grasp a possible indication of minor seizure are also there. Worth noting also the nrl put out a paper in 2021 saying the player grabbing their head after contact was also considered a sign.
matth
Roar Guru
The NRL don't have the greatest track record when it comes to riding out storms.
matth
Roar Guru
Yes but if he wants to do that, then he can’t have an official role at the Bulldogs.
matth
Roar Guru
That's not true - they also have to wave to the crowd. :stoked:
matth
Roar Guru
Here is an interesting contrast. In cricket Steve smith was banned for a year for turning a blind eye to a ball tampering incident. In rugby league we pretty much acknowledge that coaches and even trainers will turn a blind eye to a player potentially causing themselves life long injury. It's an odd world we live in.
Tony
Roar Guru
In PVL we trust!
mushi
Roar Guru
The fact you acknowledge his view can be "taken" gives credibility to their potential to be irresponsible or dangerous.
mushi
Roar Guru
That's Mary's "no doubt" though. Even with out it both Barry and Souvalis were right. He rolled around clutching his head and then sat motionless for enough time. It certainly looked like he had suffered a heavy blow to the head.
Albo
Roar Rookie
Sorry Mary, but Gould's role as a media personality is to give his opinion of issues in the game. I'm sure he doesn't think he has a role in educating fans. He has always just espoused his opinion, usually in a loud and over the top performance. As a fan, you can take him or leave him , as you can take or leave Paul Kent or Buzz Rothfield and their opinions. Gould's ‘the biggest abomination’ call is hyperbole at its best, but I'm sure this all about him trying to express his own fears that the game as we know it, might be lost as a contact sport. He may well be correct down the track, but for now, his histrionics won't have any impact on the NRL's direction , and fans in general won't be in danger of uprising .
Don
Roar Rookie
I could cop it if he only had a role in the media providing his opinion Mary. He'd be like Buzz then. And I don't know anyone who takes Buzz seriously or even thinks he's a truthful source. However, the bigger issue is Gould's employment at the Bulldogs. In that role has a duty to the club, players, fans, the game, sponsors and broadcasters. His comments go against all the professional advice and do not present Gould as a person who is interested in even considering an opinion or taking advice other than his own. That is a dangerous person to have speaking on the subject in a senior role and we should have seen people within the Bulldogs publicly distance themselves from his comments.
Noel
Roar Rookie
If that is the case, it should be part of the guidelines. I'm not against it, at all, but as others have commented, the guidelines for Dr's don't appear to be publicly accessible, and medical history did not apparently rate in the press conference with Annesley (see comments from Souvalis and The Barry). I just don't know why the NRL continues to make life more difficult for itself. Here are the guidelines, here are the facts as we perceived them at the time, here was the action we took. Simple. Argue about the facts all you want, but the decision making structure should be 100% transparent.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
It's rugby league - does anyone trust anyone? :laughing:
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Albo, the reason I think it is dangerous and irresponsible is because as a media personality, Gould has a role in educating fans. It's like when those in the media discuss the rules and get them wrong - in my view this perpetuates a culture of ref blaming. Those in the media have a responsibility and in my view, given all the issues in rugby league, to call this one 'the biggest abomination' is unnecessary, unhelpful and yeah... dangerous.