The major semi was a great game of rugby but see that the Brothers Red Bib gent who is not a registered medic created some issues around the blue card in the second half. He pick the player up and pushed him back into play after he had been clearly concussed.
it is irresponsible of Brothers & the QRU to continue to allow this muppet to wear a red bib run up and down the sideline yelling instructions and racing past injured players in order to get his rugby messages to the huddle.
Brothers you are better than this so let him sit out the GF because what he did today was disgraceful and then in the middle of the field to what appeared to be questioning the referee’s blue card decision was not a great sight for rugby’s emphasis on player safety.
Hi Bulldog, thank you for your commentary regarding the incident that occurred during the Major Semi involving the Brothers #12. However, I believe it is important that the factual sequence of events is clearly outlined.
It should be noted that the Brothers #12 was struck in the back of the head by a high contact from the Easts #8. He remained on the ground for exactly 60 seconds before being assisted to his feet by the Brothers medical staff. During this time, he was assessed for concussion symptoms through both observation and questioning. The three questions asked were: Where are you? What day is it? What is the score? The player answered all three correctly and, in the view of the Brothers medics, displayed no observable signs of concussion.
The match-day doctor (wearing a black Guinness hoodie) was also present at the scene. The Brothers medic asked whether he would like to conduct his own assessment before the player resumed. At that stage, the doctor was satisfied that no concussion had been sustained, and the player was permitted to continue.
In the following five minutes, Easts medical staff independently reviewed video footage and began pressing the match-day doctor to intervene and remove the player. The doctor, perhaps influenced by these discussions, re-entered the playing area, halting the game and engaging the referee. Rather than providing a direct medical diagnosis, he attempted to show the referee footage of the incident. The referee (correctly) declined to view it, as retrospective video review is not part of concussion protocol, nor is it the referee’s responsibility or expertise in the way this event had transpired.
After extended discussions which created confusion given such a process does not exist in community rugby union it was ultimately suggested that the player leave the field, which he did. Despite now indicating a concussion had been sustained, the match-day doctor did not follow up with the player post-game until approached by the Brothers medical staff to do so.
While this account may not generate the same controversy as some opinions circulating, it reflects the facts as described by those directly involved. What is concerning, however, is that much of the discussion has centred on the concussion management process rather than the foul play that caused the incident in the first place. If a retrospective review were to be applied, it would seem more appropriate that the Easts No.8 be sanctioned with a yellow card, given the clear and direct contact to the head of the Brothers player.
I will address the separate claims relating to the Charlie Brosnan injury in a subsequent post as these are as fanciful as the assertion by Bulldog that the Brothers #12 was picked up and pushed back into play after he had been concussed.
