Oh look, here he is.




That didn't take long at all

That would define wouldn't it?

This I agree with.


Drivel. NFL players throw themselves about BECAUSE they arer wearing helmets. The cases in the USA are down to players leading with their heads and attacking the head area in tackles because they are under the misguided impression that their helmets will protect them. As for your quip about cycle helmets, [urlhttp://www.helmets.org/stats.htm[/url thjey are required by law here and they do save lives!



The second punch was just as damaging as the first. Just because the head didn't "whip back" doesn't mean the impact was any less dangerous or damaging. Have a read..
[urlhttp://fineanimalgorilla.com/2012/10/29/what-exactly-happens-when-you-get-punched-in-the-face/[/url
you're welcome.....but if you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

You clearly misunderstood with regard to my mentioning the NFL, do you not understand the correlation between wearing 'protective' gear and risk compensation, you've described it perfectly in fact?
THAT was my point as to why so called safety equiment can & does increase injury rates (in cycling, boxing and NFL at the very least) as well as in some instances increasing the injury itself (brain rotation injuries for one) as opposed to when no protective gear is worn.
That backs up my point about headgear not being the answer with regard to concussions.
Thanks for proving my point

Re cycle helmets, where does that say bicycle helmets save lives?? Where is your evidence? That shows number of deaths total, it doesn't compare how many people were cycling before/after. There is so much lacking about that table that the only thing it proves is that more people die on bicycles in the US than do in the UK, Australia, NZ and a fair few of the Western European countries combined.

In the two countries with reliable stats pre & post helemt laws, (Australia & NZ) head injuries and overall number of injuries went UP as a % of cyclists - because the amount of people put off from being forced to cycle with helmets increased significantly more than the drop in absolute number of head injuries and overall number of injuries sustained by cyclists post helmet laws. The only difference was Helmets.
In the Netherlands, Denmark etc it's pretty clear that helmets aren't needed, not just because they have great infrastructure (the leading thing that reduces all injuries just as changing the environment/laws on the rugby field changes things) but because cycling just isn't that dangerous and head injuries are minute compared to other injuries in any case.

If you can't accept that that's down to you, if you want to beleive that helmets protect you much above the test limit of about 14-16mph drop test that's fine by me also. BUT you will find that risk compensation is a factor in cyclists too, extra head circumference, extra weight (5% makes a difference) and the fact that a few mm of polystyrene isn't designed to withstand that much of an impact except low level stuff. But it is no great surprise when you are blinded into thinking they work with all the media and UCI promotion which was all about money and not real facts..you're welcome.

As for the last point, er, no, go ask someone with true experience of what happens with regard to head trauma, the first punch did the most damage, you have your opinion I have mine based on what I've seen, read and spoken to experts about.
If you think that the brain moves more or equal to in the second punch direct to the cheekbone compared to the first you haven't got the feintest idea what you're talking about. The result of knocking out LH with the first punch is evidence enough. In the same situation with LH on the floor with his head against the ground but conscious having not being struck to the head the second punch would not have knocked him out.
You're VERY welcome

That is ludicrous and actually the first time I have seen anyone stretch reality that far (and there has been some stretching by Wigan fans since the incident).


Lance Hohaia was entirely blameless. Entirely. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that took place before the punches deserved or in any way instigated even remotely that second punch while he was prone on the floor. That was solely and totally the responsibility of Ben Flower.

For a civil suit there does not need to be proof. Civil suits are judged on balance of probabilities. If Lance wishes to sue anyone over his concussion symptoms then he will have plenty of medical evidence to back up any claim as no lawyer would take him on without it. I'm not a lawyer but I have worked for litigation lawyers.

You've missed the key word in his statement. The key word is 'recurring'. Lance played in 8 games but he didn't play the full 80 in those 8 games and they weren't consecutive games either. Saints fans were wondering why he kept getting dropped. Well, now we know. We tended to think he was out of favour with the coaching staff but it would seem not.

His symptoms were recurring. Assuming Saints knew of his symptoms, they could not be blamed for allowing him to play if those symptoms cleared up, only for them to return again after playing at a later date. No doubt it was the pattern that developed which signalled there was something else going on that could become dangerous for Lance should he continue playing, and hence we have his retirement after two weeks of not playing.

Hmmm...all you've done is repeat your opinion which is in my opinion wrong.
Put it this way, if 2 Neurosurgeons can't agree, what chance us.
[urlhttp://road.cc/content/news/121280-cycle-helmets-save-lives-says-neurosurgeon-ongoing-helmet-row[/url
Cheers

Mate, I've being studying the effects of helmets for over 20 years, I've delved into it in a big way and as non helmet wearing cyclist (all my life), sometime rugby player and with a brother who was an ex boxer I've personal real world experience too.
There is ZERO (peer reviewed and not debunked) evidence that helmets improve things in pretty much all the sports that have introduced them in one form or another, all the stats available prove that. The sports develop so that more risks are taken, cricket with bouncers (players losing the ability to avoid them knowing they have a helmet as a 'safety' back-up), hockey with lifted sticks and lifted shots, boxing with regard to concussive blows being masked by head gear at amatuer level (but higher cut rates which are less damaging) which is why they removed them because they found greater rates of concussion post compulsive headgear wearing.

Just because you have countless 'helmet saved my life' stories doesn't equate to them working, very very often the impact forces from a crash exceed the test perameter of a bicycle helmet massively and they split, that means they failed to absorb all but a tiny fraction of that force. In some cases the helmet can actually increase the forces in play (extra weight of head for one) and there is evidence that brain rotation injuries are increased through cycle helmet wearing, again it is the brain rotation injury that does the most damage.

Low level impacts yeah helmets can work as I've said but certainly in rugby it isn't going to work just on the basis of risk compensation alone never mind the efficacy of something like what BJB wears which will reduce abrasions/bruising but it won't have ANY reductive powers with regard to concussion.

The facts that do stand out are that risk compensation due to wearing 'protective' equipment increases the chances of an injury in any case AND from that you have the situation with regard to NFL players as you pointed out.

This is incorrect, Lance was almost static and was beginning to turn around when he got walloped by Flower before Lance moved in on retaliation. I think you are just clutching at straws for desperate justification, after a thousand replays maybe reality becomes distorted.

Static? I don't call someone bouncing on their toes watching a runner and then turning into their path, 'static'. He blocks him, simple as that. It's hardly an uncommon tactic.

Go on, watch it again and watch him carefully. He's looking at Flower throughout, staying agile on his toes as RL players should. Then he turns his back into Flower's path. Honestly, if you can't see that you're either blind, blinkered or a rare type of stupid. Pick one.

I get it. It's cool to condemn Flower. Nothing - and I repeat this for the terminally idiotic - can excuse what happened. But to pretend Hohaia played no part in instigating events shows either a childish agenda or a lack of understanding of what goes on on the RL pitch.

He went for the block and took exception when Flower clobbered him out the way. Flower then took exception to the arm in the face but took things way too far and has rightly served his time.

Awaits the next Hohaia denier. Does that rhyme?

Around the town of Wigan there is sport motto saying "Believe" which gets distorted when the rugby team loses, the fans are lost and retort to "MAKE BELIEVE" and go into denial mode.

That's even worse!

Cronus. Thankyou for the laughs. You've brightened my day up

Regards

King James

Did anybody see the last minute of the 1st half of the Rabbitohs v Bulldogs match at the start of April? The infamous Jammer Graham dummy spitting extravaganza?
Do you recall the moment Issac Luke ran from dummy half and dived over the line only to be greeted by a Kasiano's knee to the back of his head while simultaneoulsy receiving a full frontal swinging kick assault to the face by one of the Morris brothers? Now that was a head injury, yet Luke played in the test match on Sunday. It made the Hohia incident look like a school play ground fight yet he was given the all clear to play? How does that work, I'm no medical expert but that was the worse double head tackle I've ever seen.

A bit flippant, I know, but I doubt there's that much to hurt in Isaac Luke's head.

...and generously stepping up to the role...





Especially that stupid "Regards" thing. Not sure what you're trying to achieve. Puts you down there with Capdouze and his name fetish.

The reason that a lot of non-Wigan fans are struggling with your view of events is the simple fact that NOTHING excuses Flower's second punch on Hohaia. He did nothing to deserve the second punch.

Bringing all the earlier stuff into it is as irrelevant as what Flower had for breakfast that morning.

And now you'll go and find where I've said otherwise. You can, can't you?

You prove my point. Some people simply can't differentiate between acknowledging the 'earlier stuff' - that Hohaia played a part in instigating and escalating the incident - and what followed. Both players were responsible for escalating the sequence of events disproportionately. Flower, ultimately, took it way too far.

To my knowledge, no-one - myself included - has said that second punch was anything but utterly disgraceful.

I think Rhino's point is that the second punch makes all before it moot. There's little point in acknowledging/discussing who started it, who escalated it and who finished it.

That would be correct if plenty of people weren't claiming Hohaia was an innocent little cherub who did NOTHING at all, and Flower is just a big nasty who knocked him to the floor for no reason as he ran past, and then punched him not once but twice, the second being the worst single incident ever seen in the world, ever.

In any incident, instigation and escalation, responsibility and retaliation are taken into account. This is no different. Hohaia and Flower both played their part, Flower went too far.

You and a lot of other Wigan fans are just embarrassing themselves with this.

Hohaia did nothing in the initial play to warrant being clobbered from behind by Flower. He may have been attempting to disrupt the Wigan runners from getting to the ball, but so what? He's playing sport at the time, trying to gain an advantage for his team. You will see this at EVERY attacking kick made in Rugby League and it does not entitled you to strike at the player blocking you.

The second point is your and a lot of other Wigan fans assertion that Hohaia should have been sent off for 'elbowing Flower in the face'. It was a shoving motion with the arm, not the elbow and it is incredibly cringeworthy that you lot suggest he should have been sent off for it. If that's a red, you'd have reds in every Grand Final, which clearly doesn't happen.

What happened after it was ridiculous and should have lead to criminal proceedings. Flower is a mindless thug who has no place in the game, he could easily have killed Hohaia with that second punch. And yet the Wigan fans saw fit to celebrate his return with a big fanfare.

To suggest that Lance Hohaia played no part in this is as stupid as some Wigan fans suggesting he deserved what he got. He played his part and paid a price but What Flower did makes every action before the second punch completely moot. There's an old saying "For everything a reason".

What we should be grateful for although the game was dragged through the mud is that this wasn't a drugs scandal or a rape claim or even worse a drink driving charge leading to the death of someone. Ben Flower has served his time and both clubs dealt with the situation admirably.

The problem here is typical one eyed RL fans dragging the great game through the mud once again. It's over and been dealt with. Get on with it.

This is now getting boring.

Ye it is, its really sad all this pretend outrage.