Agree with Stone. He lost consciousness didn't he? Can't take chances with a head injury and even if Lloris wanted to continue, i'd've instructed the bench to sub him.
The head injury itself may well have affected his judgement, so it was for others to make the decision in this particular scenario. Medically it's quite clear, he had lost conciousness, so he should have been subbed immediately and placed under medical supervision.
Health and Safety at Work Act is very clear about the duty of care..... where there's a blame there is a claim, I fully expect him to be on the blower to Injury Lawyers 4 U, claiming concussion, whiplash and various other ailments... On a serious note, there is no way he should have stayed on, the Dr should have insisted as should AVB.
So the Spurs keeper is knocked out during a game but allowed to continue playing.
A dereliction of the club's duty of care to its employee by risking a player's health or it's a man's game, get on with it.
Discuss
Discuss??? Ha ha ha. Alright then as u asked/told
Yous paid your money yous take your chance.
Terms of contract would over ride any tortious notion of duty of care IMO.
Its for the player to refuse. Yes that might diminish him in the eyes of his manager but so be it. If Lloris said he could continue, AVB decided he could then case closed for me.
So the Spurs keeper is knocked out during a game but allowed to continue playing.
A dereliction of the club's duty of care to its employee by risking a player's health or it's a man's game, get on with it.
Discuss
Discuss??? Ha ha ha. Alright then as u asked/told
Yous paid your money yous take your chance.
Terms of contract would over ride any tortious notion of duty of care IMO.
Its for the player to refuse. Yes that might diminish him in the eyes of his manager but so be it. If Lloris said he could continue, AVB decided he could then case closed for me.
I'm not a lawyer but if I was I would be arguing that a man with a head injury is the very last person who should be consulted over whether they are okay to carry on. You have no way of knowing if his judgement is impaired by the very injury you are asking them about.
Should have been subbed, 100%. If he'd collapsed later in the game Spurs would be up to their necks in injury and negligence claims!
there is 'being knocked out' and then there is 'being KNOCKED OUT' .. the first is stunned, disorientated for a while but still awake, the second is totally KOd and truly unconscious/asleep. I would say in the first instance, after resting for a short while to clear the head, dousing with cold water and sampling the smelling salts, some brave players could carry on. In the second case, even if the player does come round after a short time, he should not be allowed to carry on.
I was playing in goal as a teenager and smashed my head on the post during the warm up (don't ask what I was doing!). Was extremely painful and I didn't really know what was going on after but the manager/parents didn't seem bothered that I play the game. Looking back there's no way I should've played and feel quite let down by it, there's just no need to take risks with head injuries.
Blimey a Frenchman with balls of steel, who ever would have thought it?
So when Wallaby George Smith was knocked out by Richard Hibbard in the Lions test match in the summer, he came back on and played and no one batted an eyelid.
Btw, how is Lukalu's knee, the poor little soldier?
So the Spurs keeper is knocked out during a game but allowed to continue playing.
A dereliction of the club's duty of care to its employee by risking a player's health or it's a man's game, get on with it.
Discuss
Discuss??? Ha ha ha. Alright then as u asked/told
Yous paid your money yous take your chance.
Terms of contract would over ride any tortious notion of duty of care IMO.
Its for the player to refuse. Yes that might diminish him in the eyes of his manager but so be it. If Lloris said he could continue, AVB decided he could then case closed for me.
I'm not a lawyer but if I was I would be arguing that a man with a head injury is the very last person who should be consulted over whether they are okay to carry on. You have no way of knowing if his judgement is impaired by the very injury you are asking them about.
Should have been subbed, 100%. If he'd collapsed later in the game Spurs would be up to their necks in injury and negligence claims!
No i dont think they would.
the duty of care test is subjective. The party affected is assessed according to the role he is performing at the time. W ho gets sued when a boxer dies? No one. His family gets paid compensation.
now i do understand where u r coming from re the affected player isnt exercising fair judgment.
I guess if a doctor passed him fit and it transpired that was incorrect, he may be liable to a medical negligence claim
look at the US. Total claimant country. And yet grid ironers play on through concussions sometimes
sport is not the same as other forms of employment. Personal injury is accepted as part of the job.
i see your hugo lloris and i raise u bert trautmann. Ok it was 50 years ok but he played on with a broken neck and that incident is seen as a glorious one. Keepers are nutters, its an inherent part of the job. Fearful of head injuries ? Dont play in goal
As for this I'd have thought that the referee has to make the final decision and can overall the physio and just about anyone else if he thinks that a player's health is in danger. If he wants the player off then he had to go off which he should've done in my opinion. Didn't Flamini get concussed for Arsenal against Norwich a couple of weeks ago and had to miss the following midweek game against Dortmund as there's a ruling as to how long it is before he could return?
Players get carried away by the moment but the manager should be substituting a player that has been unconscious. No question and IMHO no debate. The rules need to be looked at to allow the referee make the decision also, based on his better view and proximity to the incident. If we ever go to having an official in the stand watching tv images then he should be able to make the call. Who wouldn't based on what the tv coverage showed on Saturday. It is too important to allow the decision to soley rest with the manager. Would you trust some of the numbties knocking around in management to make the best call ?
So the Spurs keeper is knocked out during a game but allowed to continue playing.
A dereliction of the club's duty of care to its employee by risking a player's health or it's a man's game, get on with it.
Discuss
Discuss??? Ha ha ha. Alright then as u asked/told
Yous paid your money yous take your chance.
Terms of contract would over ride any tortious notion of duty of care IMO.
Its for the player to refuse. Yes that might diminish him in the eyes of his manager but so be it. If Lloris said he could continue, AVB decided he could then case closed for me.
I'm not a lawyer but if I was I would be arguing that a man with a head injury is the very last person who should be consulted over whether they are okay to carry on. You have no way of knowing if his judgement is impaired by the very injury you are asking them about.
Should have been subbed, 100%. If he'd collapsed later in the game Spurs would be up to their necks in injury and negligence claims!
No i dont think they would.
the duty of care test is subjective. The party affected is assessed according to the role he is performing at the time. W ho gets sued when a boxer dies? No one. His family gets paid compensation.
now i do understand where u r coming from re the affected player isnt exercising fair judgment.
I guess if a doctor passed him fit and it transpired that was incorrect, he may be liable to a medical negligence claim
That was kind of what I was getting at. The doctor on the spot has no way of telling if there are any internal head injuries. Yes, there are certain things to look out for, such as double vision, inability to focus your eyes etc but there is no way to know for sure, especially in the period of only a few minutes that the doctor has to assess him during the game, and that is why the player needs to be subbed, for his own protection.
look at the US. Total claimant country. And yet grid ironers play on through concussions sometimes
Totally incorrect, they have a 10 days rule. Any head injury and you're off the roster for 10 days. This was brought in because of the amount of concussions and the disastrous effects once the player's career has ended.
Comments
He should have been taken off, head injuries are obviously very dangerous and cannot be spotted unless an mri or similar is used
Fair play to llroris for actually managing to carry on, concusion is really not very nice
There is a case, in my opinion, for suggesting that AVB, as manager, should have substituted him.
That way nobody would have lost face or been placed in potential danger.
I'm not one for the whole health and safety thing but do think that the doctors at the ground should have made the decision he shouldn't play on.
On a serious note, there is no way he should have stayed on, the Dr should have insisted as should AVB.
Yous paid your money yous take your chance.
Terms of contract would over ride any tortious notion of duty of care IMO.
Its for the player to refuse. Yes that might diminish him in the eyes of his manager but so be it. If Lloris said he could continue, AVB decided he could then case closed for me.
Should have been subbed, 100%. If he'd collapsed later in the game Spurs would be up to their necks in injury and negligence claims!
I would say in the first instance, after resting for a short while to clear the head, dousing with cold water and sampling the smelling salts, some brave players could carry on. In the second case, even if the player does come round after a short time, he should not be allowed to carry on.
So when Wallaby George Smith was knocked out by Richard Hibbard in the Lions test match in the summer, he came back on and played and no one batted an eyelid.
Btw, how is Lukalu's knee, the poor little soldier?
the duty of care test is subjective. The party affected is assessed according to the role he is performing at the time. W ho gets sued when a boxer dies? No one. His family gets paid compensation.
now i do understand where u r coming from re the affected player isnt exercising fair judgment.
I guess if a doctor passed him fit and it transpired that was incorrect, he may be liable to a medical negligence claim
look at the US. Total claimant country. And yet grid ironers play on through concussions sometimes
sport is not the same as other forms of employment. Personal injury is accepted as part of the job.
i see your hugo lloris and i raise u bert trautmann. Ok it was 50 years ok but he played on with a broken neck and that incident is seen as a glorious one. Keepers are nutters, its an inherent part of the job. Fearful of head injuries ? Dont play in goal
Sorted!