Check out what the club actually said.

"...further tests revealed...".

As in "after not being satisfied with the original diagnosis we were presented with", might you surmise?

I do wish some folk would not be so eager to jump to conclusions!

There is a lot of confusion about this. The time frame will have been something like this, given when info came out.

Sat night - Significant swelling, xray not done as too late, put into precautionary cast although Bulls medical staff quite optimistic.

Sun - Xray done, must be a subtle sign of a fracture on xray, difficult to be sure, cast is kept on. MRI recommended to confirm.

Mon - MRI done, fracture ruled out, ligament damage(which doesn't show on xray) is now detailed. Treatment plan organised. Bulls medical staff initial diagnosis confirmed

I rather think you are pretty close with that analysis.

That sounds about what would have happened!

Let's look forward to him getting fit and getting back on the field!

Are you working with me in CT Saturday morning?

Now the dust has settled, something I suggest for some people to think about.

Those people on here who played up at the club for putting out an update as soon as they were in a position to, and then revising that update after further scans had been carried out because of reservations about the in initial diagnosis: would you have been having a go at the club had they instead not issued any update to the fans until Tuesday? Given they knew the fans were very concerned about Heath having seen what happened, and were desperate for an update (as evidenced on here)?

I would expect the club to be feeling very much that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't here.

We can't have it both ways, guys. If we want timely updates (and I suspect that is the desire of most fans) then we have to accept that - in some cases - releasing updates quickly might mean subsequent revision is required should further facts become available. Through no fault of the club. And I think you will find that neither club nor player were in any way at fault in this instance, and I have validation of that from outside the club too.

If people attack or deride the club in such circumstances, that could well (I choose my words deliberately and with care) lead to the club considering saying bollox to this, we'll either wait till there is no chance of the situation changing before releasing anything, or we'll not bother trying to keep the fans informed at all if we just get derided. I'm sure none of us would want to see that, so think on?

I hope not. I will be on the golf course, killing a small white ball about a hundred times.

Who do you mean and what have they done wrong?

I honestly can't see how they'd feel any other. Regardless of what route they take, it seems someone criticises them for it. Even if somehow everyone on here leaves them alone, there's usually one or two muppets on the T&A Forum that'll have a go at them over whatever it was.

I understand what your saying Adey but if your agreeing with Highlanders sequence of events then surely it would have been better for them to say suspected broken ankle after initial scans but further scans should hopefully reveal the full extent?

Then they are giving people who get in a pi$$ about it the best of both worlds.

I have criticised how they have given us inaccurate time scales for the injuries that people have picked up but it doesn't really bother me when its announced it was the fact someone was 50/50 midweek and then turn out to be out for 4-6 weeks a few days later that annoyed me. Now i'm no doctor but surely someone got something wrong there? If I told my boss I would have something done maybe by the weekend then come friday I said oh no its gonna be 4 weeks now then I would be in for a bit of a bollocking!!!!

Some people automatically assumed that the club got it wrong. Seems to be the case so often.

Why didn't those people admit the possibility that maybe it was the original doctor who got it wrong? That maybe after the initial x-rays (X-rays are not "scans"icon_wink.gif where a double fracture was concluded, the club engaged a specialist to determine the prognosis for "his fractured ankle" and that specialist was instead unconvinced with the diagnosis and so commissioned "further tests" - i.e. an MRI scan, they never said "further scans" - which revealed the correct nature of the injury and enabled an updated prognosis to be issued?

At the point of engaging the specialist, the player would have been given a "double fracture" diagnosis by a doctor, based on the evidence available to him. What would you have expected the club to have said other than what they did???

Regarding any 50/50 becoming 4-6 weeks, two observations there:

1 - could always be mind games to make the opposition have to prepare for the possibility of x playing, so making their job harder. Would we object to that?

2 - more likely, you rate someone 50/50 before you see how thet stand up to full training sessions, only to then see the player break down in training and do more damage. That happens more often than you might think, from what I understand. In such cases, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't again?

all a storm in a teacup, IMO.

the club have kept us informed every step of the way and they didn't have to do that so fair play to them.

the bottom line is Heath still won't be available in the near future and who is to say nothing else will happen in training before he comes back? Take the news as it comes and when he gets back to playing is the time to be excited. I personally don't understand the ing and moaning of some about this.

Very true! Can't wait to see Briggs, Herbert and L'Estrange back in bulls colours!

Fully concur witgh both of the above!

That is alright then. Philgee and Rickflynn can continue to post.

Well done chaps.

If that's what the specialist was given then that information differentiates from what Highlander said which is what I was basing my points n.

1. So to be fair they are then also playing mind games with their own fans and putting doubt into their mind which is where the lack of trust or faith will obviously start to break down. I will revert back to Jamie Langley last year as a typical example.

2. He may well have broke down in training but these "specialists" who they see when they are carrying an injury should surely be able to spot this kind of thing, again going back to what I said about if it was me and my boss. If the $hit hi the fan and he simply aggravated it and made it worse in training then that's unfortunate, but if we were told he took a knock in the game on Sunday and is out for x number of weeks then we aren't been told the full storey which I think more fans would appreciate.

Why thankyou 

2 l's in phillgee

I don't doubt your totally correct on this and the similar situation vis a vis Briggs being rated 50/50 and then being ruled out for 4 weeks. However, isn't the real issue here a fleeting suspicion that the club occasionally 'tells the tale to suit itself' as my late Mum would say. A poster on here recently suggested (unchallenged) that Jamie Langley wasn't injured when he was missing for a large part of last season. The conclusion of the Matt Orford saga left a nagging sense that something was not quite as presented.

It's things like this that erode that little bit of trust and cause people to question when there's probably no reason to do so.

Not sure about the Langley situation, and to be honest I've only ever seen one person alude to that and not heard a single other thing relating to it. But the Orford one is surely a legal issue and hardly something we can blame the club about either? If the club COULD tell us more, I'm sure they would. But it seems fairly clear to me from what was put out that the reasons behind it all are confidential and can never be revealed in public. So again, would we prefer they revealed them anyway, then got taken to the courts over it?

I think there's a tendency for some people to automatically jump to the negative conclusions regarding a lot of the things the club does or does not put out, when they often don't know the reasons for it. It seems to me that there's a few on here (and I'm not meaning you here) that just want to slate the club regardless of what option they choose. If you asked those people before the club said owt, what their opinion was, then the club came out with the same one, these people would probably change their opinion just so they could tell the club they were wrong again.

If the club do something that's worthy of criticism, then I'm all for it being done. They certainly aren't immune to it. However I think a lot of the time, it's highly unwarranted, and the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" phrase is a perfect one for it.

Can understand that POV, tbh. In response, could I suggest anyone concerned about an issue (real or imagined) ring or email Stuart Duffy when questions like this crop up? He has always said he will seek to answer any reasonable questions from fans (as indeed the directors have said), and that has certainly been my experience. Surely that is far better than wild speculation on here? How much easier to just pick the phone up, or send an email or even a text?

I'm sure you can forgive the club for thinking that there are some people (I'm not meaning you, btw) who seem far happier going on about some half-baked artificial issue rather than actually finding out the inconvenient truth of the facts?

The conclusion of the Orford saga reflected the legalities of the situation. I am sure if the club was in a position to explain in full what went on, and why decisions were taken as they were, then most fans would have a much better understanding of the situation the club was in. And some few of the more vocal critics and conspiracy theorists would probably look and feel pretty foolish, tbh. But the club is bound by legalities and other constraints for issues like this, as I know you appreciate and I would hope most other folk would likewise appreciate.

There are two f's in P**s off.

Agree with this.

Why does there always have to be blame? Why does someone always have to be "at fault". The club acted with good intentions and in good faith regarding the injury to Heath.

Medicine is not an exact science - because it mainly deals with people.

Xray interpretation is just that - interpretation.

It should be noted that the final diagnosis confirmed what the Bulls medical team thought initially on Sat night. Much credit to them.

B. Franklin 1789 "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes"

Even if there are, it still wouldn't spell a real word.

Not forgetting Heathenbergs uncertainty principle, which as we all know is related to the "observer effect"

Thought Ainscough showed some good pace on Saturday, and dealt well with everything kicked at him. And what about Heaths cheeky try, reminded me of James Lowes, as did Discos quick dive over.