bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
That he clearly had concussion.
... and only North fans could see this?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That he clearly had concussion.
The question here isn’t really about whether Simpkin was concussed, but why no further testing was done which could have helped determine how serious the level of impact was.
... and only North fans could see this?
Why wasn't he taken straight off?
I think showing some comparisons would make my point a bit more clearer.It seems like you are assuming they just went 'oh well he failed let's leave him' They can rule him out concussed and then still provide further treatment, all the test is for is to diagnose the concussion to begin with.
He got hit on the head, by a player who had chosen to bump, and was clearly affected by the hit.
20 mins is the set time for a hia. they don’t test you for 20 mins.“He failed at first step. End of test” - this is not consistent with players being assisted to the changerooms. Are you suggesting that players sent to the changerooms for 20 minutes aren’t severe enough, so need further testing to qualify “concussion”?
I think showing some comparisons would make my point a bit more clearer.
Exhibit A (Sloane concussion)
Exhibit B (Will Hamill concussion)
I'm only showing 2 examples above because I watched these games when it had happened, and on both occasions, Sloane and Hamill could walk and talk and was brought into the changerooms for a thorough assessment. You can argue that both these examples were worse appearing than the Simpkin knock, from the vision of impact, the length of time they remained lying on the ground, and behavioural changes after the knock. Yet, both were assessed further, and not done at the bench.
I’m quite intrigued how you know what happened with Sloane and Hamill in the rooms? And what made you seem to think there was no doctor at hand to test him?20 mins is the set time for a hia. they don’t test you for 20 mins.
sloane when he got up was combative. That’s a huge red flag. the guidelines if you don’t have a doctor is to transport straight to hospital when a player does that. They didn’t test Sloane either btw. They took him into the fridge in Darwin to watch him
hamill was in a bad way. they didn’t test him. They took him down to the rooms to lay him down And watch.
I think showing some comparisons would make my point a bit more clearer.
Exhibit A (Sloane concussion)
Exhibit B (Will Hamill concussion)
I'm only showing 2 examples above because I watched these games when it had happened, and on both occasions, Sloane and Hamill could walk and talk and was brought into the changerooms for a thorough assessment. You can argue that both these examples were worse appearing than the Simpkin knock, from the vision of impact, the length of time they remained lying on the ground, and behavioural changes after the knock. Yet, both were assessed further, and not done at the bench.
Is it really wrong of me to ask why a concussion test was done on a bench, when in recent years, it’s been done in the changerooms?What difference does it make. They had enough visual evidence to rule him out of the game. Further assessment and care occurs later and is unrelated to the risk analysis and procedures relating to determining if he can get back on the park in that game.
The test can be done quickly. Even looking at a replay can tell a medico if someone is concussed or not. The 'test' is to check if they can go back on. If they have already decided they can't go back on, they don't need to do the test.Is it really wrong of me to ask why a concussion test was done on a bench, when in recent years, it’s been done in the changerooms?
I don’t mind a quick assessment anywhere as long as it’s on protocol and ongoing assessments are done. Just on this example it’s an anomaly location, and thus why I’m asking the question why the anomaly.
I’d argue though testing in the rooms is a more beneficial location as there is less noise and distraction, and perhaps can benefit both the assessor as well as the player to rest their brain better after a hit.
Is it really wrong of me to ask why a concussion test was done on a bench, when in recent years, it’s been done in the changerooms?
I don’t mind a quick assessment anywhere as long as it’s on protocol and ongoing assessments are done. Just on this example it’s an anomaly location, and thus why I’m asking the question why the anomaly.
I’d argue though testing in the rooms is a more beneficial location as there is less noise and distraction, and perhaps can benefit both the assessor as well as the player to rest their brain better after a hit.
I’m quite intrigued how you know what happened with Sloane and Hamill in the rooms? And what made you seem to think there was no doctor at hand to test him?
I’m not really arguing with you btw, and I know 20 minutes in the rooms isn’t 20 minutes of testing, but merely 20 minutes time off minimum while there is testing done.
I purposefully picked the Sloane incident because any medico and a child could probably see Sloane wasn’t “with it”, even though he could jog off the ground looking comfortable. If it was as simple as the argument “he failed at first step”, then why wasn’t Sloane monitored and assessed at the bench, and like all the other ones similar to the Sloane incidents?