Well, anyone can guess, but does anyone actually know?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Very worthwhile Snort. Let me know if I can helpHey, 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.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?