Immediate effect.

All a tad bizarre, especially the statement from Saints (although tbf not surprising, given Saints' propensity towards being hopeless in the area of communication).

Agree it all seems a bit abrupt. I'm not saying it's the case but it makes it look as though there's been a big falling out.

I could understand if he'd suffered a serious injury and so retired now. But to retire now rather than see the season out seems like he's not at all happy with Saints. Whether that's justified or not is another matter.

Quote ="Him"Agree it all seems a bit abrupt. I'm not saying it's the case but it makes it look as though there's been a big falling out. I could understand if he'd suffered a serious injury and so retired now. But to retire now rather than see the season out seems like he's not at all happy with Saints. Whether that's justified or not is another matter.'" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32525472

Quote ="Him"Agree it all seems a bit abrupt. I'm not saying it's the case but it makes it look as though there's been a big falling out. I could understand if he'd suffered a serious injury and so retired now. But to retire now rather than see the season out seems like he's not at all happy with Saints. Whether that's justified or not is another matter.'" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32525472

Looks like saints trying to say as little as possible to avoid stoking fires. Hope he's ok.

I'm not a doctor, but I'm going to take a punt here and suggest that 'recurrent concussion symptoms' are fairly consistent with a heavy blow to the head. Something like, say, being punched in the head whilst out cold on the floor by a rugby league player.

I'm guessing a certain Wigan player might not be sleeping well tonight.

Not the last we hear of this then....

Opens the door for him to make a legal case against whoever caused the condition.

Top guy, met him at the roses 20/20 match last year. A real shame his grand final ended like it did and a bigger shame his career has too. Good player, never seemed to quite settle at Saints but he was always capable of quality.

This could get ugly.

I'd expect it to have more to do with recurrent blows to the head, as with [url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856Shontayne Hape[/url, than any single incident. If sh[ii[/it is hitting fan, it's possibly wider than that particular event at last year's grand final.

...ugly for the sport.

Good luck to Lance and hopefully everything goes well for him.

One guy I've worried about is Rob Burrow. He's been knocked out quite a few times and played on. After this they might tighten up the concussion rulings even tighter.

Luke robinson too. Playing at hooker in the middle of the park in their later careers won't have done them any favours either.

Saracens RU had some players wearing impact monitors to assess concussive injuries, but it was part of a study so, results yet to be released.

The problem is - if there is a proven link between rugby (of either code) and brain injury, then how does the game change/adapt to reduce risk?

You cannot remove the risk of contact to the head from any contact sport entirely. You just can't. Kallum Watkins took a knock to the head making a tackle last Friday, it's not just caused by punches or high tackles that are punishable as foul play.

All you can do as a sport is ensure that players long term health is not being put at risk by being exposed to repeated damage over a long period of time, which is why the new concussion protocols are in place.. There really isn't an awful lot else you can do without completely removing the element of contact or collision from the game and making it tag or touch and pass.

What about making the headguards a mandatory part of the kit? Wouldn't like to see it myself but if it stops players from suffering serious injuries then worth considering.

There has to be better care taken of players who receive blows to the head.
We've improved but you still see players who were knocked out either playing on or coming back on.

In the Leeds v Wigan game this year Larne Patrick came back on after initially taken off.
It's not a pop at Wigan btw I've seen it happen at other games on TV too.

To be honest I think we need to look at ways of reducing the power that is put into tackles. Whether it's through fewer interchanges or other changes to the game that would have an affect on players size/power etc.

I don't think interchanges would affect anything, you'd potentially get even more severe injuries, as fatigue worsens technique. Reducing the 10 to 5 again might, but I probably wouldn't watch the pushathon that would cause the game to become.

Travis Burns was another severe head shot that was ignored by the ref and docs. Sam Burgess in the Grand Final another. Both broken facial bones and I'm pretty sure you can't break your cheekbone without impacting the brain.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/nfl-concussion-lawsuits_n_7120016.html[/url

Could be something that could drift into RL on the back of this Hohaia announcement.

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.