Discussion on MoTD2 just now re head injuries and football's head injuries protocol. They focussed on David Luiz, with cut in head and playing on with his bandage - and, then being withdrawn later on because the cut was bad enough to stop him heading the ball.

As most will know, Raul Jimenez was taken to hospital after the clash of heads with Luiz. Now reported as conscious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55125293

We all know that Nick Pope got a bang to his head making the save on Monday night. He was then "checked out" and the protocol allowed him to continue the game. But, a few days later the injury from Monday night stopped him playing on Saturday.

The point is is the football head injury protocol good enough? It doesn't meet the standards of other sports.

I’ve not seen MOTD2 or any of the fallout since the game, but I posted on the daily football thread at the time that it was a ridiculous decision to allow Luiz to play on. It showed a total disregard for player safety.

There was a suggestion Burnley didn't do anything wrong last Monday. Even if they did follow the protocol there is something not right if a player is stopped from playing 5 days after a concussion which Dyche admitted was due to the rules rather than any noticeable lasting effects, but yet was allowed to continue playing in the game immediately after the incident. Very concerning if that is somehow correct.

Footballs concussion protocols are a joke, it's like second impact syndrome isn't a thing.

Fractured skull for Jiminez. Doubt he'll be back from that, like Ryan Mason. Very sad, just hope he recovers as best as possible.

It's absolutely crazy how players are allowed to play on after a serious blow to the head.

Did anyone else lip read Nick Pope after his knock against Palace? While he was sat up with the physio he clearly said 'I feel sick', yet they patched him up and let him continue playing.

Not good enough and a lot more needs to be done to protect players, even if it means taking these decisions out of clubs (medical staff and managers) hands.

JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:38 pm

It's absolutely crazy how players are allowed to play on after a serious blow to the head.

Did anyone else lip read Nick Pope after his knock against Palace? While he was sat up with the physio he clearly said 'I feel sick', yet they patched him up and let him continue playing.

Not good enough and a lot more needs to be done to protect players, even if it means taking these decisions out of clubs (medical staff and managers) hands.

I thought the same after reading CTs article that Pope was missing the Man City game. He said all protocols were followed so I thought fair enough. Yesterday incident shows those protocols need changing immediately. How Luiz continued is beyond me.

Agree with the previous posters, it's crazy in this era that footy doesn't have proper protocols which other sports such as cricket and rugby do, how hard can it be to have a concussion substitute system in place, crazy that both Pope and Luiz continued playing, and I've no doubt there must have been other cases which didn't come to light at the time.

Not a mention so far of Tarks looking spark out on Saturday and then playing on.
The rules need changing. Assessment subs seem to be the way forward. With an independent doctor having the final say on the matter.

As Raul Jimenez has suffered a fractured skull it's sadly the end of his career most likely as he needed major surgery.

Given how difficult some head injuries are to spot immediately there should be a rule where if one player is injured enough from a clash of heads that they have to be substituted then both players must be substituted.

I also think head injuries and serious injuries should be a free substitution. The point of having only 3 subs each is to avoid stopping the game a bunch of times for subs, but with injuries the game's already stopped.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:19 pm

Given how difficult some head injuries are to spot immediately there should be a rule where if one player is injured enough from a clash of heads that they have to be substituted then both players must be substituted.

I also think head injuries and serious injuries should be a free substitution. The point of having only 3 subs each is to avoid stopping the game a bunch of times for subs, but with injuries the game's already stopped.

You might be surprised how many defenders have to go off with head injuries after a clash with Harry Kane.

And it's pretty clear that allowing free substitutions for injuries means unlimited substitutions. When subs were first allowed only for injuries, the number of players who were injured with 10 or 15 minutes to go, but able to recover and play next week, was phenomenal. Almost as if players were not entirely honest where injuries are concerned. By all means support your policies as long as you're aware that it will mean infinite substitutions per match, and obviously with extra stoppages for all the fake injuries that would happen.

Have players come back from fracturing their skull before?

Mason is the obvious one to look back on. Suppose their must have been more?

Only Petr Čech I can think of but a goalkeeper isn't expected to head the ball.

huge focus on football and heading now, and debate about correct way of dealing with players receiving head injuries. Seems very odd that boxing has continued at all age levels without much recent interventions from the medical experts. More so because it is televised and popular, albeit it a watered down corrupt sport ran for the bookies primarily thesedays.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:50 am

You might be surprised how many defenders have to go off with head injuries after a clash with Harry Kane.

And it's pretty clear that allowing free substitutions for injuries means unlimited substitutions. When subs were first allowed only for injuries, the number of players who were injured with 10 or 15 minutes to go, but able to recover and play next week, was phenomenal. Almost as if players were not entirely honest where injuries are concerned. By all means support your policies as long as you're aware that it will mean infinite substitutions per match, and obviously with extra stoppages for all the fake injuries that would happen.

That's why I didn't say just "injuries".

https://www.dw.com/en/head-injuries-in- ... a-43657467

Good article here and reminds readers of the film Concussion, which highlighted long term NFL issues.

NHL players also have similar problems, the enforcers especially resort to drugs/alcohol to keep themselves going and several have committed suicide.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:52 pm

https://www.dw.com/en/head-injuries-in- ... a-43657467

Good article here and reminds readers of the film Concussion, which highlighted long term NFL issues.

NHL players also have similar problems, the enforcers especially resort to drugs/alcohol to keep themselves going and several have committed suicide.

I think the NFL investigation lost impetus when they discovered the suicide rate for professional footballers was only half the suicide rate for the equivalent non-football population.

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:34 am

Have players come back from fracturing their skull before?

Mason is the obvious one to look back on. Suppose their must have been more?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... njury.html

Sparked out for more than an hr on the pitch receiving treatment.

dsr wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:03 pm

I think the NFL investigation lost impetus when they discovered the suicide rate for professional footballers was only half the suicide rate for the equivalent non-football population.

And as we all know NFL professionals are a representative sample of the general population of the USA.

Reckoner wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:04 am

There was a suggestion Burnley didn't do anything wrong last Monday. Even if they did follow the protocol there is something not right if a player is stopped from playing 5 days after a concussion which Dyche admitted was due to the rules rather than any noticeable lasting effects, but yet was allowed to continue playing in the game immediately after the incident. Very concerning if that is somehow correct.

Pope had all the necessary tests prior to being allowed to continue. A doctor was present and he and the other medical staff had no concerns. Pope, I believe, gave some cause for slight concern after the game had finished and so we took all the necessary safety precautions. Once that had been done it meant he couldn’t play for five days which is why he didn’t play last Saturday.

So absolutely no concerns. Burnley followed all the protocols. There was no reason to substitute the player at the time of the incident. Everything then, and afterwards, was absolutely spot on from the doctor and medical staff.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:43 pm

Pope had all the necessary tests prior to being allowed to continue. A doctor was present and he and the other medical staff had no concerns. Pope, I believe, gave some cause for slight concern after the game had finished and so we took all the necessary safety precautions. Once that had been done it meant he couldn’t play for five days which is why he didn’t play last Saturday.

So absolutely no concerns. Burnley followed all the protocols. There was no reason to substitute the player at the time of the incident. Everything then, and afterwards, was absolutely spot on from the doctor and medical staff.

I think it’s more the fact protocols are wrong than anyone doing anything wrong.

An head injury substitution is the way to go for me. If used the player taken off is then unavailable for a period of so many days. That will then prevent the rule being abused.

Dyched wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:47 pm

I think it’s more the fact protocols are wrong than anyone doing anything wrong.

An head injury substitution is the way to go for me. If used the player taken off is then unavailable for a period of so many days. That will then prevent the rule being abused.

I wouldn’t disagree but I honestly don’t think there was a problem with the Pope situation. The David Luiz one was ridiculous, no way should he have carried on.

And I just hope Raul Jiménez will be ok.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:36 pm

And as we all know NFL professionals are a representative sample of the general population of the USA.

No, they aren't. That's why the scientists who did the study compared figures for the equivalent population. You might have expected the scientists to make an elementary error that you could pick up on, but on this occasion they didn't.

dsr wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:45 pm

No, they aren't. That's why the scientists who did the study compared figures for the equivalent population. You might have expected the scientists to make an elementary error that you could pick up on, but on this occasion they didn't.

You did that. That was your suggestion. Lol.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:00 pm

I wouldn’t disagree but I honestly don’t think there was a problem with the Pope situation. The David Luiz one was ridiculous, no way should he have carried on.

And I just hope Raul Jiménez will be ok.

I'd say there's quite a big problem if a player claims he feels sick immediately after receiving a heavy blow to the head and is then allowed to carry on playing. The fact that there was a problem after the game which meant he had to miss the next one shows that.

If Burnley followed the protocols, then the protocols are wrong and not fit for purpose.

Obviously I'm assuming that Pope did say he felt sick. It certainly looked that way on TV.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:25 pm

You did that. That was your suggestion. Lol.

This is a simple misunderstanding and we do not want to start an argument about it. When I said that the NFL discovered that there was less suicide in NFL players than in the equivalent population, by "equivalent population" I meant adjusted for the same demographic, specifically including no women at all and a large number of black players from poor backgrounds.

All future references to the NFL players being representative of the general population are irrelevant because they are based on that misunderstanding. Let that be an end of it, no points scoring required.

JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:41 pm

I'd say there's quite a big problem if a player claims he feels sick immediately after receiving a heavy blow to the head and is then allowed to carry on playing. The fact that there was a problem after the game which meant he had to miss the next one shows that.

If Burnley followed the protocols, then the protocols are wrong and not fit for purpose.

Obviously I'm assuming that Pope did say he felt sick. It certainly looked that way on TV.

Who said he felt sick? Pope didn't. Pope told the medics there was no problem and none was detected. That's why he was allowed to continue playing.

Just seen this in the Darmstadt v Hamburg match. Wonder if they could all be playing in one in 10years?