World Rugby give their view on Cowan-Dickie's Lions concussion row
World Rugby have responded to criticism of the Lions’ recent selection of Exeter and England hooker Luke Cowan-Dickie to play a tour match for them in South Africa just seven days after he suffered a Gallagher Premiership final concussion in London.
The front-rower was left sparked out on the Twickenham pitch after got his tackle technique wrong in a collision versus Harlequins. Cowan-Dickie flew out the next day with Lions and he was chosen on their bench for the following weekend’s fixture versus Sigma Lions in Johannesburg.
This selection ignited online controversy. Ex-England scrum-half Kyran Bracken tweeted: “Luke is unconscious for over 20 seconds. Possibly 40-60 secs. How can he play the following week? I am absolutely disgusted that the powers that be allow this to happen. A stain on our great game.”
Concussion awareness group Progressive Rugby added: “How on earth is Luke Cowan-Dickie on the Lions team sheet just 5 days after this? Cowan-Dickie will have to undergo stringent return to play protocols and will not be able to progress to full training until he passes series of tests.”
This outpouring of negativity resulted in Warren Gatland having to twice defend the Lions’ Cowan-Dickie selection decision, initially stating: “I take full advice from the medical team and whatever they say goes as far as I am concerned so he has been through all his protocols and we feel like we have been over and above with those protocols with him.
The alleged "stain on our great game" has been addressed a second time by Lions boss Gatland #LionsRugbyhttps://t.co/OqqIw3Nu1O
— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) July 6, 2021
“We have had an independent consultant, a world-leading expert, have a look at it and he has given the all-clear as well. As far as I am concerned we have followed everything and the medical team have given him the all-clear. He is fit and good to go.”
This additional precaution taken by the Lions is part of a new World Rugby initiative whereby an independent concussion consultant (ICC) must now be consulted on whether a player should return to play following the successful completion of the six-stage graduated return to play process.
It’s an additional layer of review that World Rugby used at the 2019 and 2015 World Cups and they have now set up a panel of independent consultants so that a concussed elite-level player looking to return to play ten or fewer days after a concussion has their case independently reviewed before receiving clearance to take the field.
“It’s quite timely to speak about this given the incident around one of the players on the Lions that gained a lot of publicity,” said Eanna Falvey, the World Rugby chief medical officer, at a media briefing where he explained the reasoning behind the introduction of the permanent use of independent concussion consultants.
“It’s worthwhile looking at that purely from a scientific perspective, medical perspective. I can’t talk about the individual case but I am well aware of the case, I have discussed it with the team and I very happy that the entire process was managed optimally from a medical point of view.
“What is worth noting is we, as an extra measure for the Lions tour, have helped the Lions implement concussion consultants for the tour and in that particular case a consultant who is a concussion specialist completely outside of rugby, actually from a different continent and from a different sport, was fully appraised of the entire case management and the assessment result and was very happy with the process around the player’s recovery and that the player wasn’t at adverse risk with regard to returning to activity.
“This is obviously an emotive area and there will be many opinions on this and we welcome those and having a situation where we are talking about this raise the awareness of the process, makes players more aware of it and probably will give pause for a number of players in the future coming back into activity, being more honest about their symptom reporting and being more careful in adhering to the process of outlined by their medical management. All of us will continue to work hard on this but the ICC process adds a layer of robustness to a process which we have been continuing to refine over the years.”
An extra layer of care regarding concussion has been added if a player is returning to play in 10 days or less https://t.co/Ipr2VkGyCk
— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) July 13, 2021
Falvey added: “Luke was entirely symptom-free so you are going to be looking at this very carefully to ensure there aren’t any delayed onset symptoms, that there isn’t anything untoward and then at the end of that you have the independent review to ensure there is no stone unturned and that you have done the job as well as you can.
“We have to treat players individually, we have to treat them on the basis that we have and the evidence that we have because, in a professional game, players demand their care is individualised to their medical history and to their situation and that is what we deliver.
“The vast majority of these (concussion) situations are clear cut. The difficult cases are ones that sometimes cause controversy and sometimes cause an issue and it is one of the confounding and difficult factors around concussion that they are well defined central areas but there is a lot of grey on either side down to the point where there are groups who don’t agree on the definition of concussion.
“Because there isn’t definition we have developed what we call an operational definition for a concussion which we published back in 2012 which was the basis for the head injury assessment, the first sport to introduce an off-field assessment from that perspective.”
'…he came into the changing room on his own, grabbed one of the coaches & said, ‘Can you grab Charlie?’
Rising England prospect @atkinsonc_ talks to @heagneyl ???about his rise, being thrown in the deep end at @WaspsRugby & THAT Farrell tackle #ENGvUSA https://t.co/GJbBXQ2VeU
— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) July 4, 2021
Comments on RugbyPass
When you read those facts, you can say safely that the game was handed to the Springboks by the ruling mistakes made by the Referee and TMO. Perhaps that is why South Africans were/are so “noisey” about the win…. Certainly not a good look for the IRB going forward…pretty shoddy sadly.
48 Go to commentsI must admit to being quite surprised by all the wine-ing and hand wringing from most AB pundits; commentators and the general analysis after a classic and engrossing final. I shudder to think how the pundits would’ve reacted if the AB’s where victors with 1 point on the day.. Most Bok fans pundits; fans and commentators take a loss on the chin; congratulate the winner and move on…and till now the NZ rugby fans where the same.. Naas Botha’s famous quote has never been more apt…. Cowboys don’t cry or make excuses.. STOP IT CRY-BABIES; …..YOU LOST.
48 Go to comments4 out of 8 beats 3 out of 10 cups. Maybe NZ are bad finishers???🤣🤣🤣
48 Go to commentsBokke bokke Bokke
1 Go to commentsThe main thing you need on your side to win a World Cup is luck. ABs had their fair share of it in the 2011 final. One score game in the SF vs Springboks in 2015 means there always things you can look at and say if this thing or that thing happened then SA would/should have won that game. Smith’s try being called back broke protocol, but it was the correct decision, so I don’t have a problem with that. If it was an SA try called back in the same circumstances I don’t think many ABS fans would have a problem with it. Cane’s shot was high, it was the classic thing NZ players have been doing, and getting carded for for years - Walking around bolt upright trying to put a big hit on someone. Stupid play by someone with a poor disciplinary record. The one that was a big problem for me was Etzebeth’s obstruction. The referee just choked on this occasion. Frustrating to have the TMO in his ear all night, apart from at this moment. Minimum yellow card for Etzebeth, but a very strong case for a penalty try also. Despite all that the ABs had the opportunity to be ahead with 3 minutes to play, so it’s hard to point fingers too much. Pollard makes that kick 99/100. JB and RM make it 50/100. That’s what it came down to in the end.
48 Go to commentsBOKS had a great side in 2011 and were in kicked out by a NZ ref and Nz were very lucky to win in final against France.
48 Go to commentsBarrett's try came from a forward pass, and perhaps the Bok game plan would have been different had the ABs remained with 15 on the pitch. We will never know. But if we are living in a world if what if's, then go back to the France v Bok game. France dominated the WC, and had they gotten past the boks, would have easily beaten the ABs in the Final
48 Go to commentsRehashed articles. But this piece does not do justice to how good the Boks had to be to win that tournament, and how immense some of their players were in that final. Peter Stef du Toit played one of the greatest games by a loose forward ever. All Blacks played well but not well enough and came up short. There are a million ‘if’s’ and none of the ‘if’s’ that don’t happen will win you a footy match.
48 Go to commentsSour grapes/ face it the allblacks aren't that good anymore LoL!!!
48 Go to commentsDear Internet, This is what sour grapes look like… It wont make any difference in down playing the SA win. The scoreboard is the ultimate statistic. I agree with Johnz, I would have liked a full 15vs15 for the whole game. Could have been even better or worse. What we as rugby supporters got, was a fantastic game where the result could have gone either way. It was great.
48 Go to commentsben loser smith. I haven't read the article. Just saw the headline and knew it was him. Rugbypass surely you can do better than this clickbate loser.
48 Go to commentsIf if if….If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle
48 Go to commentsBen is right, the RWC should be taken from SA and awarded to NZ. Rugby matches from now on will not be decided on points but rather on who deserved to win the most. This will be decided by 1 journalist sitting in a bunker.
48 Go to commentsThat's quite a wind up Ben. I'm an all black fan, and admittedly the loss felt a little hollow, given how well the boys played once Cane left the field. But that's finals footy, sometimes it's cruel. Let's look at the reality though. This was a team that spent an entire year thinking about how to beat Ireland, and did so magnificently. Come final time, they started the match looking overawed, fearful and unprepared. This led them to getting behind on the scoreboard, and chasing the game, which is never a good position to be in a final. SA started better, were confident and assured. That, in the end, was the game. The comeback led by Savea was phenomenal, but not quite enough. That's how comebacks often go. The real questions should be why they looked so unprepared? Why we needed to get behind and lose our so called leader to start playing? And why the best player against SA from a month or two before wasn't even in the team? Plus give some credit where it's due, PSD was quite phenomenal and instrumental in keeping SA ahead, a performance for the ages.
48 Go to commentsMy only response is “Check the Scoreboard” nothing else matters. Ben you will not wind me up pal. Boks are 4 times RWC Champions.
48 Go to commentsThere is no place to hide in the front row. You win or lose each time and it selects for hard men/women and those who enjoy combat
7 Go to commentsThey might have won several different areas on the field but the one that ultimately counts is on the scoreboard. Ben Smith’s nonsense is still shown up for what it is following criticisings by his team’s coach claiming similar nonsenses and several other players as well. I am not an expert but I know All Blacks know that the game is won by the team with more points on the board than the opposition. Also the red card on Sam Cane is entirely his own fault. If they were aggrieved for having one less player on the pitch, that was their own fault, their own captain who possibly in a moment of forgetfulness tackled too high but either way it is a RWC Final, you cannot be having lapses of forgetfulness in a match like that. The fact that they were down a man for 64 minutes was their fault. And even if they did dominate the second half for 35 minutes, they had crossed the whitewash twice, they had several kicks at goal, the fact is they didn't maximize on all the opportunities they were given. The one try was disallowed, the two kicks at goal were missed, the opportunities not taken. Every tackle was made by the Springboks with so much more fervour than anyone had seen even in the Semi Final the week previously. Whatever Ben Smith says, most of what he says can be chalked down to a spoiled sport who has nothing better to say than whine and moan because ultimately the team he supports lost when it mattered most.
48 Go to commentsThere’s plenty I could write on this, I won’t stop if I really get going, so i’ll make just 2 important points. Don’t forget that SA didn’t have a hooker, don’t discount that fact. I would have taken MBONAMBI fit for the game over a yellow to Frizelle. Also you forget that NZ had the luxury of playing without pressure once the red came. Noone expected them to win and they could always fall back on 14 men if they lost. I’d also have taken 15 men NZ and MBONAMBI on the field over what transpired.
48 Go to commentsSome people in France say that JB Lafont have some problems with alcohol….
2 Go to commentsThis is awesome news. I hope he goes well.
1 Go to comments