• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

NSW CAS Rugby 2021

Running_rugby_1954

Larry Dwyer (12)
Well, anyone can guess, but does anyone actually know?

He was given a blue card. Rugby Aus stepped in and said he couldn’t play because you have to wait 19 days. Despite Rod’s best efforts to say otherwise, Barker did not do the right thing at all in this instance.

Barker and the head of CAS should be held accountable for what happened this evening as a result of the way this situation was handled and the lack of care shown for the student and the significant impact it had on the CAS teams as a result.

I imagine St Aloysius will also have something to say about it as well as he should not have been in the game last week.
 

WLF

Arch Winning (36)
Still stand by this Rod?

Heard you may be wrong mate and Aus Rugby have taken significant action as a result. Barker should be held to account for this. Ned was not cleared to play against St Aloysius, so shouldn’t the points be taken off then for that game as well?


RR, I agree completely that every boy's best interest is absolutely priority no 1. Full stop.

Clearly I have no idea what happened here, but I do think you have made your point, but NO Barker should not have their points from last week taken away. That would effect ALL the Barker boys in the 1sts, and that is overkill, and I am not a Barker supporter, trust me, feel free to ask other G&G posters to back me up here.

Maybe the school hierarchy has something it needs do, but never the boys!

Hopefully it's a lesson going forward for everyone.

July 17 at Barker will happen soon, and the best team WILL win, from the East!
 

Hasbeen

Bob Loudon (25)
Watched the game on cluch. To say the GPS played better in the set pieces is a bit of a cliche but was demonstrated last night. The GPS no 15 was quite a Guy on the evening and the GPS backline was outstanding given the mongrel conditions. Quite a game for all that and thanks to the Boys from both teams for the tenancity and the show. The CAS forwards seemed a bit sluggish and I noticed a few missed tackles here and there by the big fellows which was a bit odd. The conditions were atrocious but would have been fun to play in eh. Just like the old days when rain and mud were played in and you could half drown down the bottom of the ruck and precious school and council grounds men did not exist.
 

WTF?

Charlie Fox (21)
The much vaunted CAS pack were pushed off the ball numerous times until a few subs came on late in the second half. I think we lost the first 5 scrums on our feed and any ball we got was not clean. Too many pushed and glory passes for such a wet night, Isy had no space and the GPS defense was just too good.

I will admit I thought CAS would win, but after 5 minutes I thought that unlikely. Not sure the selections were right for the conditions, GPS seemed to be able to get it right not sure why we couldn't.

Hats off to GPS, they played very well, kept it in tight and went wide on occasions making plenty of meters.

Not much fun standing in 8 degrees and being rained on, F%#K it was cold....
 

Number 7

Darby Loudon (17)
He was given a blue card. Rugby Aus stepped in and said he couldn’t play because you have to wait 19 days.


A Blue card does not mean you are concussed. It means (From Rugby Australia's site): when "a player leaves the field due to signs and symptoms of concussion or suspected concussion, the referee will show the player a Blue Card".

The player is then compulsorily referred to a medical doctor within 72 hours. The doctor then assesses the player to confirm if there was a concussion OR provide clearance per section 3 of the form (all on Rugby Australia's website).

So if a doctor deems a player to be ok, a player can return to play within the 19 day period.

Schools and club are being super cautious with this issue at present and there are examples of players being removed from games with no symptoms of concussion after a head knock but having to go to a doctor simply because they were removed from play because of how the Blue Card is defined above. Happened to my daughter.
 

Snort

Trevor Allan (34)
A Blue card does not mean you are concussed. It means (From Rugby Australia's site): when "a player leaves the field due to signs and symptoms of concussion or suspected concussion, the referee will show the player a Blue Card".

The player is then compulsorily referred to a medical doctor within 72 hours. The doctor then assesses the player to confirm if there was a concussion OR provide clearance per section 3 of the form (all on Rugby Australia's website).

So if a doctor deems a player to be ok, a player can return to play within the 19 day period.

Schools and club are being super cautious with this issue at present and there are examples of players being removed from games with no symptoms of concussion after a head knock but having to go to a doctor simply because they were removed from play because of how the Blue Card is defined above. Happened to my daughter.

Yes, that's correct. A blue card does not mean an automatic 19 day break. Which means I'm still wondering why, having been cleared by a doctor, the Barker 8 wasn't able to play last night.
 

rod skellet

Alan Cameron (40)
Yes, that's correct. A blue card does not mean an automatic 19 day break. Which means I'm still wondering why, having been cleared by a doctor, the Barker 8 wasn't able to play last night.

That is a question that Rugby Australia really needs to answer and do so publicly.
 

Snort

Trevor Allan (34)
Well, if Rugby Australia did intervene it should explain why - otherwise there’s too much scope for (probably unwarranted) criticism of the school and doctor involved.
 

shanky

Larry Dwyer (12)
Without wanting to comment on this specific case, I’d say we all agree that precautionary approach is warranted with young people and head knocks.

‘Second impact syndrome’ is a real thing in youth head injuries. If we end up being over-cautious then it’s probably a good thing
 

Snort

Trevor Allan (34)
If Rugby Australia intervened because they felt it was in the best interests of the player, then I'm 100% behind that. Concussion must be taken seriously and player welfare is the first concern.

Yet it appears in this case that the intervention leaves the player, school and doctor open to criticism when they all appear to have followed Rugby Australia's own guidelines to the letter. This is why I think that either the intervention should be explained or the guidelines should be altered. If Rugby Australia wants a blue card to amount to an automatic 19 day rest it should say so.

I keep coming back to this because the wider issue is so important. If it isn't good enough to follow Rugby Australia's guidelines, then maybe the guidelines need to be changed.

And, for clarity, I don't believe for a moment that the school or player did anything wrong: I don't think Barker thought it needed its captain on deck to beat St Aloysius.
 

rod skellet

Alan Cameron (40)
If Rugby Australia intervened because they felt it was in the best interests of the player, then I'm 100% behind that. Concussion must be taken seriously and player welfare is the first concern.

Yet it appears in this case that the intervention leaves the player, school and doctor open to criticism when they all appear to have followed Rugby Australia's own guidelines to the letter. This is why I think that either the intervention should be explained or the guidelines should be altered. If Rugby Australia wants a blue card to amount to an automatic 19 day rest it should say so.

I keep coming back to this because the wider issue is so important. If it isn't good enough to follow Rugby Australia's guidelines, then maybe the guidelines need to be changed.

And, for clarity, I don't believe for a moment that the school or player did anything wrong: I don't think Barker thought it needed its captain on deck to beat St Aloysius.

Your comments are so to the point Snort. I could not agree with you more.
 

Snort

Trevor Allan (34)
Hey, random idea. This is the 92nd season of CAS Rugby, which means a centenary is coming up not too far away. I'm toying with the idea of compiling a centenary history of the competition. Is this a dumb idea, or worth pursuing?
 

rod skellet

Alan Cameron (40)
Hey, random idea. This is the 92nd season of CAS Rugby, which means a centenary is coming up not too far away. I'm toying with the idea of compiling a centenary history of the competition. Is this a dumb idea, or worth pursuing?
Very worthwhile Snort. Let me know if I can help
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Hey, random idea. This is the 92nd season of CAS Rugby, which means a centenary is coming up not too far away. I'm toying with the idea of compiling a centenary history of the competition. Is this a dumb idea, or worth pursuing?
Great idea.
get in first with your concept to the CAS who could offer enormous support and also prevent copy-cats from trying to gazump you.
 

William88

Syd Malcolm (24)
Some uncertainty about blue cards.

Suspected concussions are treated the same as concussions. In this instance, the player was concussed and the inappropriate actions of the CAS Convenor and Barker have let a lot of people down, particularly the CAS rep rugby teams. Players who present with concussion symptoms must be provided with a different diagnosis to overturn a blue card after they present with concussion symptoms, in this instance, it is clear, there can be no other diagnosis based on the footage.

Barker and CAS got this terribly wrong.

Whatever the outcome, there will have to be some sort of review of CAS concussion protocols moving forward as this needs to be taken out of the hands of schools who have a vested interest.
 
Top