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.
