Spoken like a true Sean Connery: [i"When they don't stop niggling - it's ok to give them a slap!"[/i

after typing this you immediately started making excuses which is in itself condoning.
Lance could have spat in his face, elbowed him on the back of the head and kicked him on the nuts and insulted his mother.......it still wouldn't excuse the second punch on an unconscious and prone player lying on the ground defenceless.
Hohaia's ability to niggle and get under the skin of opposition players is a part of the game from many RL players....the fact that you seem to think the assault on him was "deserved" or somehow "earned" is a condoning the thuggish action that should have seen the perpetrator banned for life IMHO.....
I see the BBC are quick to remind anyone lucky enough to stumble on their RL section about a probable cause of Hohaia's concussion
[urlhttp://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-league/32525472[/url

And if he did it in UFC he's just be like all the other fighters (We'd probably be asking why he didn't use an elbow or a knee). We can all pick a sport for our agenda.

Let's all cut this stupid sensationalism. Recurrent concussion symptoms is not a permanent thing, there is no recorded case in history of it being a permanent thing. Let's be frank, he's probably taken harder hits to the head than the one Flower gave him. The punch itself wasn't that hard. The fact Flower did it to an unconscious player is what was appaling. He'll have taken shoulder charges harder than that. He'll have probably hit the ground harder than that punch. Christ, he may have even flat out been punched harder than that. If he is suffering from something like that, I'd be willing to bet it's from playing a tough, contact sport week in, week out rather than a single incident. I've no doubt it contributed, but let's get real here.

Say a boxer has to retire from something like that, does everyone point the finger at the last guy he fought?

for a bit of a laugh, read the wigan board on this issue.... when i say laugh, i mean cringe.

The danger of this incident was the fact that Hohia's brain absorbed the full impact of the contact. Usually, if the head is able to move backwards, the brain does not suffer the full impact of the force due to the movement of the head that will disperse the force. When the head is unable to move at the point of impact the brain will suffer greater damage.

I've avoided the Wigan board on purpose after seeing some of the comments on cherry and White, I'd probably end up getting a ban.

Don't come on here with all that sensible talk.

Is that actually correct, or is it a RLFans 'truth' that people have adopted as gospel?

On the face of it, it seems to me that a head that is violently accelerated will do far more damage to the brain, which is then also subjected to violent movement, consequently impacting not only the skull but damaging blood vessels and other tissue.

It also seems patently obvious that 'Hohaia's brain' didn't 'absorbed the full impact of the contact'. His cheekbone/eye socket did, and they did exactly what they evolved to do - absorb the shock and protect the tissue behind them. There was no great movement of his head on the floor, therefore I can't see why the brain would have suffered particularly as a result.

Put it this way: if I place an apple in a metal box, which will bruise the apple more - punching it out of my hand and letting it hit the floor, or placing the box on the floor and punching it?

Almost everything I've read on brain injury talks consistently about acceleration as the key cause of traumatic brain injury - of which there was practically none during that second punch, as outrageous as it was morally. If anything, the first one (which most people agree was fair game) did more damage - it knocked him out cold for a start, which isn't to be underestimated.

Oh God - here we go! Cronut's thinking again. Anything can happen in the next five minutes.





Is this a sentence?



You have no idea what Hohaia's brain did or did not absorb.



An apple is about as far away from a human brain in form and function as yours is.



You read as well!? What - "Apple Injuries For Dummies"?

Oh look, Mugchump's on the sauce again.


Only to those who can comprehend English.


Hence the question at the top. Is the claim factually correct or not? You clearly have no idea.


I'd say yours is pretty similar, and has been heading that way for some time.


I do! Occasionally from Mugchump's approved list of conspiracy authors - not that I approve of course. My brain isn't an apple.

Are you denying acceleration-deceleration is (apparently) the main cause of brain trauma? Or do you know better?

Oh, I forgot, Hohaia was a Saints player. Flower is a Wigan player. In your practically cider brain he should probably face a firing squad.

Nope ... you've sent me to sleep already.

Jesus wept....if the supposed overseers act like you two, what hope for the rest of this board

But ... but ... HE started it!

There's always one

Firstly, it's sad that LH is leaving this way but it is the best decision all things considered.

Second, headguards are not the solution, there are plenty of reasons why, if you check out why boxing removed them from the amateur game, why cycle helmets don't work for all but low end scrapes and bruises & why in the US there are thousands upon thousands of ex-NFL players with long term brain injuries you'll find out why.

Thirdly, the 2nd punch from BF is the least damaging of the two (IMO), certainly from the force of the impact (coupe) and the amount the brain moves (contrecoupe) compared to the first punch.
In the first punch (the 'knockout' punch), not only is there greater force imparted but also the amount the brain will have moved/rotated (comparatively to the 2nd punch) this lends itself to greater risk of diffuse axonal injury, that's the type of force injury that is the highest cause of brain damage.
as opposed to just a direct blow with little head movement.
That's not to say the 2nd punch didn't do [iany[/i damage but by comparison his head moves less (Less brain rotation) and the physical strike is with less force.
Certainly going by the obvious effects of the first and what damage occurs from certain situations (from a factual medical POV)it is the lesser of the two.

Insane and insular post......well done you

Insular AND insane


Aside from your obvious inability to post something intelligent I'll give you a second bite at trying to explain your viewpoint and why you disagree...away you go sonny

In Boxing you accept you will be punched in the head(albeit when stood up, conscious by someone with padded gloves on with a ref overseeing proceedings). In RL it is against the rules to be punched (when conscious) not once but for a second time in the head when unconscious on the floor. Do you see the difference?

Do that on a high street and you are facing prison and possible civil charges for damages.

possibly - however if the whole thing had happened on the street would both involved parties not be arrested. Lance elbowed flower in the head, would that not be classed as assault?

If you want to play that game....... if the one being elbowed pulls a knife out and stabs the 'elbower' he goes to prison. Where does it ever stop?

Do you agree that what Flower did was wrong!

Of course it was wrong! absolutely.
If this happened on the street Im not sure he would go to prison, plenty don't.
But if you did what lance did on the street you would also be arrested.

No, because an airy fairy shove with the forearm in the situation of retaliation for being pushed over previously (one individual low level shove from each) would get both of them a serious dressing down but not arrest.

The violent punch/es that followed would be ABH (possibly considered GBH in so far as the law states) and due to the second punch on an unconscious person unable to defend themselves [icould[/i see a custodial sentence though first time offenders often see a fine.
Even taking into account it's a physical contact sport and fights happen regularly, the second punch though not the most damaging is the bit that would have re-inforced the ABH at the very least and might have pursauded a judge to make an example with a custodial sentence due to the extreme nature.
IF the police/CPS had got involved (they're pretty fecking useless in any case) it would be unlikely they'd go for the GBH charge because of them less likely to get a conviction.
All supposition because nothing was done, that said IF the police had decided to take matters further do you think RL players would be less likely to start throwing haymakers or not?

What he did was shocking, and probably one of the worst things I've seen on a rugby field.
What I'm getting at is this clamour of people claiming if he did that on the street he'd be arrested etc etc. as if behaviour on the rugby field wouldn't normally see people arrested if they did it on the street.
If someone elbowed me in the face - Id be pretty annoyed if the person I involved didn't get arrested. If I was rugby tackled Id hope they got arrested!
I'm not surprised the police stayed away from this one- it's difficult.

what Hohaia did is a common reaction on a rugby field when you have just been shoved over trying to defend a kick in a Grand Final. Nothing in it at all.(oh and elbow in the face, my a***) Flower's response was not a common occurrence, it was the most thuggish thing I have seen on a rugby field.

I'm sure a good brief would get him off with an instinctive reaction to the initial off the ball shot from flower that sparked the whole sorry episode.