Messing about with interchanges is far less likely to reduce brain injuries than making sure all players are adequately hydrated.

Dehydration is one of the biggest causative factors in severe brain injury. When the body is starved of fluids the brain shrinks inside the skull cavity. Any blow thereafter causes the brain to smash into the skull like jelly hitting a brick wall at thirty miles an hour.

I think interchanges would affect the power and size of players as they'd have to be more mobile and so reduce the strength and power going into tackles. The only downside is that would having fewer interchanges lead to injured/concussed players staying on the pitch?

I agree on the reffing. Unfortunately the refs are wimping out of making the big decision to send someone off. The Travis Burns one was pathetic. IIRC the ref even gave a penalty but no punishment to the offender. A complete wimping out.

It's not just the offender that is not being dealt with, it's the player with the injury. Should it not be the referee's duty to remove a player from the field when he's clearly injured? Saints medical team in the Burns game weren't even allowed to properly assess him, he shoved them away and shouted at them that he was continuing. Burgess in the GF told his medical team he'd broken his face and they knew the damage was there at half time and ignored it and let him play on. I doubt either players were assess, Burns because he wouldn't allow it, and Burgess because they wanted him to finish the game.

You say you agree on the reffing but you'd have to surely agree that a spate of sendings-off would be met with at least equal and probably greater howls of derision and complaint from fans and clubs. Fans want to see 13 v 13 and sure an obvious sending off should be just that but many such incidents aren't obvious in the sense that the majority of neutrals would agree, and the ref needs to be pretty certain to issue a red, given the massive effect producing one will have on the game. You call it "wimping" but surely you don't actually believe that? It's not as if not being sent off helps the offender much anyway since he can be banned just the same.

All pro players I'm involved with are required to take a hydration test twice a day when training, the kits are stored in the players locker room, break out area and the toilets. They are required to log the results of the tests with the S&C staff.

Match days are exactly the same both before and after the game.

I have said before I think that there is a deliberate decision to avoid sending players off as it has such a huge impact on our game.

I suggested a sub-sending off, where a player is forcibly substituted and sits out the rest of the game. So they play no further part and their side loses a rotation sub, but it doesn't have as big an effect as a sending off.

Got to feel for Lance.

Like any player who has to retire due to injury it's never the way they want to go out.

Not the fairy tale ending to a pretty good career.

I hope given time away from playing he can start to recover from the head injury.

very disappointing statement from Blake Solly, who along with Saints seem desperate to shut down any talk on this issue.

“As far as we’re concerned at the Rugby Football League, the matter has already been dealt with,” he said. “There was a disciplinary panel last October which appropriately dealt with matters when we suspended Ben. We won’t be going any further into it. That’s as far as the RFL’s involvement into it stretches.”

Really Blake? nothing we can learn about post concussive care? nothing to be investigated as to whether we can do more to protect players from concussion and related effects? no duty of care to investigate if this is more widespread than just one player? No moral duty to make sure the Lance Hohaia is ok and properly cared for post-RL? no duty to every player who has ever or will ever play to make sure that everything we can learn about this is learned and every effort is put in to protecting them?

What is worse is addressing the 'perp' on first name terms like that. It's so annoying.

If Flower had done what he did in boxing, he would never be allowed in the ring again. And that's in BOXING.

The whole idea that the 'poor lad' has a god-given right to ply his trade as a Rugby player, and to deny him this is somehow heinous is absolute bull. If an accountant is caught commiting fraud, he can't practice as an accountant any more. If a policeman shoots an unarmed man he wouldn't be allowed back on the beat. (As well as whatever criminal proceedings arrive in those cases.) The reason is that when you're a professional, and League players are supposed to be professional now, you have certain responsibilities to that profession, and the trade body has a responsibility to safeguard the reputation of their other members. In not banning Flower sine die the RFL have neglected that responsibility. (And I've been watching RL 30+ years and can't think of a single other incident that would more merit that sentence, at least since Les Boyd & Steve Bowden in the early 80s). A two and a half month playing ban is absolute joke and opens up the RFL to charges of ignoring the issues.

And as for poor "Ben", so what if he can't play rugby again? Fine, give him counselling, give him anger management, give him vocational training if you're that bothered. But like the fraudulent accountant, he has no right to continue in the profession he let down so badly. He can still get other jobs in other walks of life without any physical restriction, which is more than Hohaia can.

I couldn't agree more; for a professional organisation to wash it's hands of this situation with a terse and dismissive statement like that, is very poor form. From a governance point of view, there is a responsibility to learn from serious incidents and demonstrate changes to policy or procedure designed to prevent them from happening or again, or mitigating the impact.

This has the whiff of the beginnings of something serious - and the RFL statement has the counter-whiff of a something that the legal dept has drafted...

as well as the welfare of lance hohaia - the RFL also have to consider the welfare of Ben Flower.

Ben Flower and only Ben Flower bares responsibility for the consequences of his actions. This injury may very well be one of them. His 'welfare' takes 2nd place.

However, it really isn't the issue here. Ben Flower is kind of irrelevant at this point. The issue is Lance Hohaia and the injury he has suffered.

Is there much else that the RFL can do???

It's not like it was something that came about due to the rules of the game. It was down to foul play that the injury has occurred and that is and has always been banned.

The heroes welcome back for flower had little to do with the RFL or flower and was all about Sky and Wigan fans bigging up his return. In the end he had done his time. Banning him for life would have been an extreme consequence and whilst I'm unsure about whether it was long enough in the end he was always going to come back at some point.

Lance Hohaia is a classic cause and effect player. Whilst not condoning the OTT action of Flower, Hohaia brought the action on himself.
He's always been a nasty niggler and he has to suffer the consequences of his actions.

They have done that for the last six months. It is now Lance Hohaia's turn as he was the injured party in all of this and there is the possibility that what Ben Flower did has not only ended Lance's career but put his future health at risk.

I generally respect Blake Solly but on this occasion his response was poor form. He should have made a full statement about Lance's wellbeing and how that is of the utmost concern to the RFL, how they have learned from the GF experience, etc, etc, and our so-called rugby league correspondents should be pressing him on the matter, challenging him on his dismissive statement.

Spoken like a true Sean Connery: [i"When they don't stop niggling - it's ok to give them a slap!"[/i

after typing this you immediately started making excuses which is in itself condoning.
Lance could have spat in his face, elbowed him on the back of the head and kicked him on the nuts and insulted his mother.......it still wouldn't excuse the second punch on an unconscious and prone player lying on the ground defenceless.
Hohaia's ability to niggle and get under the skin of opposition players is a part of the game from many RL players....the fact that you seem to think the assault on him was "deserved" or somehow "earned" is a condoning the thuggish action that should have seen the perpetrator banned for life IMHO.....
I see the BBC are quick to remind anyone lucky enough to stumble on their RL section about a probable cause of Hohaia's concussion
[urlhttp://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-league/32525472[/url

And if he did it in UFC he's just be like all the other fighters (We'd probably be asking why he didn't use an elbow or a knee). We can all pick a sport for our agenda.

Let's all cut this stupid sensationalism. Recurrent concussion symptoms is not a permanent thing, there is no recorded case in history of it being a permanent thing. Let's be frank, he's probably taken harder hits to the head than the one Flower gave him. The punch itself wasn't that hard. The fact Flower did it to an unconscious player is what was appaling. He'll have taken shoulder charges harder than that. He'll have probably hit the ground harder than that punch. Christ, he may have even flat out been punched harder than that. If he is suffering from something like that, I'd be willing to bet it's from playing a tough, contact sport week in, week out rather than a single incident. I've no doubt it contributed, but let's get real here.

Say a boxer has to retire from something like that, does everyone point the finger at the last guy he fought?

for a bit of a laugh, read the wigan board on this issue.... when i say laugh, i mean cringe.

The danger of this incident was the fact that Hohia's brain absorbed the full impact of the contact. Usually, if the head is able to move backwards, the brain does not suffer the full impact of the force due to the movement of the head that will disperse the force. When the head is unable to move at the point of impact the brain will suffer greater damage.

I've avoided the Wigan board on purpose after seeing some of the comments on cherry and White, I'd probably end up getting a ban.

Don't come on here with all that sensible talk.

Is that actually correct, or is it a RLFans 'truth' that people have adopted as gospel?

On the face of it, it seems to me that a head that is violently accelerated will do far more damage to the brain, which is then also subjected to violent movement, consequently impacting not only the skull but damaging blood vessels and other tissue.

It also seems patently obvious that 'Hohaia's brain' didn't 'absorbed the full impact of the contact'. His cheekbone/eye socket did, and they did exactly what they evolved to do - absorb the shock and protect the tissue behind them. There was no great movement of his head on the floor, therefore I can't see why the brain would have suffered particularly as a result.

Put it this way: if I place an apple in a metal box, which will bruise the apple more - punching it out of my hand and letting it hit the floor, or placing the box on the floor and punching it?

Almost everything I've read on brain injury talks consistently about acceleration as the key cause of traumatic brain injury - of which there was practically none during that second punch, as outrageous as it was morally. If anything, the first one (which most people agree was fair game) did more damage - it knocked him out cold for a start, which isn't to be underestimated.

Oh God - here we go! Cronut's thinking again. Anything can happen in the next five minutes.





Is this a sentence?



You have no idea what Hohaia's brain did or did not absorb.



An apple is about as far away from a human brain in form and function as yours is.



You read as well!? What - "Apple Injuries For Dummies"?