Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 7:16 pm  

P-J wrote:

A tidy sum from Saints?

Letting him start 8 games despite suffering from concussion like symptoms is negligent.

They may not have known?

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 7:16 pm  

loiner81 wrote:

Let's hope so but there'll no doubt be another one along in a minute.

Oh look, here he is.

Cronus wrote:

I can't believe that after thousands of replays, so many people choose to ignore Hohaia deliberately moving into Flower's path to block his kick chase. Contrary to the strange belief that Flower knocked him down for no reason, Hohaia knew exactly what he was doing and took exception when he came off second best. Of course he emerged as the victim, but he's not entirely blameless in the instigation and escalation of events. As someone else mentioned, he's been a niggler all his career and that run block was pretty typical.

That didn't take long at all

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 8:24 pm  

SRV wrote:

If you re-read my post, you will not I DO NOT state this is the cause, and APPEARS to be a contributory factor, which I doubt most sensible observers would deny.

I do not know anything beyond what is in the public domain about Hohaia specifically. But having worked with victims of severe head injuries for the last 15 years of my life, I would like to think I have a better idea that most on here about the impact a blow to the head can have. And I would like to believe that I know how the high levels of care and support are, plus the vast amount of time that which is dedicated to such injuries.

And for that reason I believe it is unwise for people who know little about this matter to spread idle conjecture about how head injuries/traumas are and should be treated.

That would define

SRV wrote:

Speculating

wouldn't it?

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 8:27 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote: Firstly, it's sad that LH is leaving this way but it is the best decision all things considered. This I agree with. knockersbumpMKII wrote: 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. 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, http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm thjey are required by law here and they do save lives! knockersbumpMKII wrote: 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 any 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. 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.. http://fineanimalgorilla.com/2012/10/29/what-exactly-happens-when-you-get-punched-in-the-face/ you're welcome.....but if you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

knockersbumpMKII wrote: Firstly, it's sad that LH is leaving this way but it is the best decision all things considered. This I agree with. knockersbumpMKII wrote: 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. 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, http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm thjey are required by law here and they do save lives! knockersbumpMKII wrote: 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 any 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. 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.. http://fineanimalgorilla.com/2012/10/29/what-exactly-happens-when-you-get-punched-in-the-face/ you're welcome.....but if you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 8:38 pm  

Jim Pooley wrote: 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, http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm 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.. http://fineanimalgorilla.com/2012/10/29/what-exactly-happens-when-you-get-punched-in-the-face/ 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

Jim Pooley wrote: 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, http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm 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.. http://fineanimalgorilla.com/2012/10/29/what-exactly-happens-when-you-get-punched-in-the-face/ 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

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 8:46 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I can't believe that after thousands of replays, so many people choose to ignore Hohaia deliberately moving into Flower's path to block his kick chase.

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).

Contrary to the strange belief that Flower knocked him down for no reason, Hohaia knew exactly what he was doing and took exception when he came off second best. Of course he emerged as the victim, but he's not entirely blameless in the instigation and escalation of events.

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.

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 8:50 pm  

Cbr1000rr wrote:

I'm not here defending anyone, but surely how can hohaia prove his condition is flowers fault, hasn't he trained all preseason, played games this year? How can he prove that a stray knee, hip, elbow, shoulder etc in contact training or the matches he's played hasn't caused his condition, unless he's got every second of training footage and match footage on camera to prove he's not had on further knock to his head surely flowers legal team could take apart his claims, I'm no legal expert by the way just using a bit of logic here.

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.

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 8:53 pm  

P-J wrote:

A tidy sum from Saints?

Letting him start 8 games despite suffering from concussion like symptoms is negligent.

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.

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 9:00 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote: You're VERY welcome 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. http://road.cc/content/news/121280-cycle-helmets-save-lives-says-neurosurgeon-ongoing-helmet-row Cheers

knockersbumpMKII wrote: You're VERY welcome 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. http://road.cc/content/news/121280-cycle-helmets-save-lives-says-neurosurgeon-ongoing-helmet-row Cheers

Re: Lance Hohaia retires : Sun May 03, 2015 9:17 pm  

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.