King Eliagh - Injuries Comparison

[crocodileman]

Without wanting to embarass my fellow moderator by quoting him, I feel obliged to revisit some of his earlier comments about the toughness of Rugby League in comparison to Australian Football.

Now, the King made some mileage when Nick Riewoldt broke his collarbone in round 1and was later pictured crying on the bench as the game slipped from his side's grasp. KE went on to call him a "pussy," "weakling" and various other names that would make most people blush.

When I attempted to defend him by saying that the injury he sustained, if it was in a League match, may have resulted in a medivac coming onto the ground, the game stopped for several minutes and the player transported from the ground, whereas Riewoldt ran off the ground himself, sustaining a few "bumps" from opposition players. But the King would have nothing of it!

The King widely denied that the game would stop in league and only would stop if it was a "serious" injury. Debate continued for several posts with the King again sprouting how weak AFL players are.

Now, I was prepared to let these comments pass without notice. However, when watching highlights of the weekend AFL and NRL matches yesterday - I noticed something rather interesting.

In the Rugby League match between St George and the West Tigers, a player by the name of Matthew Head from St George sustained an ankle injury, immediately referred to as a "rolled ankle" and later diagnosed as a sprained ankle. A soon as the injury was sustained by Head, the trained ran on the field, signalled to the referee, the game was stopped for several minutes, a medivac unit came onto the field and removed poor Mr Head, still clutching at his "sore" ankle. There was never any suggestion that it was broken, just some type of soft tissue injury.

Well, well, well. There we have it! A sprained ankle holding up an NRL game for 8 minutes. I know what the AFL boys would have done - jogged off to receive treatment. (an ice pack!!!)

Thanks to Beaussie's genius, we are able to now monitor injuries received in these games. If you click on the link next to his name, you will see that sprained ankles are the most common form of sport injury - surely not serious enough for a medivac transport vehicle to come onto the ground and hold play up for 10 minutes?

On the day before in an AFL game between the West Coast Eagles and those sad Swannies, an Eagle by the name of Chad Fletcher was knocked unconscious after a sickening head clash that was replayed numerous times, each shot confirming how bad it really was. Fletcher's head hit the ground with such ferocity that it was clear he was seriously concussed. The game continued! No stoppages!

Fletcher, got up with the assistance of the trainer and started to make his way off the ground (without the aid of a stretcher or medivac unit!)before collapsing again.

My questions to KE are thus - do you now have the abiity to apologise and give an admission that you were wrong in your assessment about injuries in League and that medivacs are used when not required? Can you admit that crocodileman was right and you were wrong about this issue?

Come on KE, we've all seen your dummy spit in the arcade, now prove to us that they are balls between your legs!

[Beaussie]

In the Rugby League match between St George and the West Tigers, a player by the name of Matthew Head from St George sustained an ankle injury, immediately referred to as a "rolled ankle" and later diagnosed as a sprained ankle. A soon as the injury was sustained by Head, the trained ran on the field, signalled to the referee, the game was stopped for several minutes, a medivac unit came onto the field and removed poor Mr Head, still clutching at his "sore" ankle. There was never any suggestion that it was broken, just some type of soft tissue injury.

Well, well, well. There we have it! A sprained ankle holding up an NRL game for 8 minutes. I know what the AFL boys would have done - jogged off to receive treatment. (an ice pack!!!)

LOL, I didn't catch the game in question but how weak are those leaguies when a sprained ankle stops the game for 8 minutes.

I suppose the stop in play was required anyway as those fat heaps of shit on a league field can't keep up with the pace over a sustained period time. Any wonder why league games only go for 80 minutes. Put simply, the fat merkins couldn't play on any longer. Rugby league is a sport for those who are out of shape and can't keep up with the fast paced nature of real footy.

[King-Eliagh]

The King widely denied that the game would stop in league and only would stop if it was a "serious" injury. Debate continued for several posts with the King again sprouting how weak AFL players are.

Now, I was prepared to let these comments pass without notice. However, when watching highlights of the weekend AFL and NRL matches yesterday - I noticed something rather interesting.

In the Rugby League match between St George and the West Tigers, a player by the name of Matthew Head from St George sustained an ankle injury, immediately referred to as a "rolled ankle" and later diagnosed as a sprained ankle. A soon as the injury was sustained by Head, the trained ran on the field, signalled to the referee, the game was stopped for several minutes, a medivac unit came onto the field and removed poor Mr Head, still clutching at his "sore" ankle. There was never any suggestion that it was broken, just some type of soft tissue injury.

Well, well, well. There we have it! A sprained ankle holding up an NRL game for 8 minutes.


My questions to KE are thus - do you now have the abiity to apologise and give an admission that you were wrong in your assessment about injuries in League and that medivacs are used when not required? Can you admit that crocodileman was right and you were wrong about this issue?

Come on KE, we've all seen your dummy spit in the arcade, now prove to us that they are balls between your legs!

Ahhhh dear croc. It seems you've made a horrible blunder here. Only watched the highlights eh? Well I watched the game and what I saw was alot different to what you seem to have viewed, or made up. Mathew Head did go down, but as far as I saw the game continued without stoppage. Trainers came out took him to the sideline where he sat for probably about 8 minutes until halftime. Then at halftime the medivac took him off the sideline.

Maybe we need further investigation on this one but at the moment I'm convinced im right and you're wrong. I still believe the medivac only comes out and stops play if there is a suspected spinal injury.

[crocodileman]

Ahhhh dear croc. It seems you've made a horrible blunder here. Only watched the highlights eh? Well I watched the game and what I saw was alot different to what you seem to have viewed, or made up. Mathew Head did go down, but as far as I saw the game continued without stoppage. Trainers came out took him to the sideline where he sat for probably about 8 minutes until halftime. Then at halftime the medivac took him off the sideline.

Maybe we need further investigation on this one but at the moment I'm convinced im right and you're wrong. I still believe the medivac only comes out and stops play if there is a suspected spinal injury.

The highlights clearly showed him being taken on the medivac with players around him, and it was clearly on the field.

In any event, if League players are so tough, why would he need a medivac at all? Surely the trainers could have assisted him to the dressing rooms? It wasn't a spinal injury, KE, so according to your logic it shouldn't have been used!

I've also seen other occasions where medivacs have been used in league (and other codes) when spinal injuries weren't involved. What happens if a player is knocked out or severly concussed in League?

[King-Eliagh]

Well we've seen two different things. I think we need some further research here, maybe dizzy's can shed some light on this? In any case i hope you are man enough to admit you're wrong and I'm right croc .

The medivac is a precautionary thing that wasn't brought in by player demand and hence I really dont think it can be linked to players toughness whatsoever. I feel this whole medivac argument is very flawed.

We have to look at the players themselves for toughness. And one look at Nick Reiwoldt told me the story . Then you have players taking dives that would make roberto carlos shudder in his boots. Then we have the oh so soft laws, and what about the melees!!! A bunch of grown men running round in circles like a flock of teenage girls pinching and pulling hair. Oh yeah and lets not forget how many occassions afl players have been caught hair pulling! Oh and what about that swans player who wears a girls hairband while playing to keep the hair out of his eyes!!!

The fact players dont continue to play with injury more often than in league is just the icing on the cake really. Yes heads case was a funny one but if you ask me afl players hit the sidelines and take no further part from lesser injuries way more often than in league.

To answer your question about the players knocked out or severely concussed, it differs all the time. Sometimes a medivac comes out, sometimes the player is helped from the field, and sometimes the player continues playing. Two players come to mind, freddy fittler I have seen knocked unconscious quite severely and continue on to play a great game. And joey johns, I've seen get knocked out twice in an origin match and continue to do the same. Many league players have played on concussed, it isnt a smart thing to do but its bloody tough.

[crocodileman]

Your posts are full of inconsistencies on this topic. One minute you say medivacs are only used for spinal injuries and the next thing you say they can be used for other purposes. You are also saying that AFL players are "softer" than League players based on an untried theory that AFL players don't play with old injuries more frequently than league players.

Is there a study or statistics you are basing this claim on, is it mere puffery by you?

Each post of yours is more confusing than the previous one and I haven't even got to your original posts about Riewoldt yet!

KE, are you sure you're not related to Johnny Howard as you seem to say one thing and do another - or say one thing and in the next breath say something that totally conflicts wih your earlier statement.

Please just answer the following questions:-

1. Did Matthew Head sprain his ankle in the St George -v- Wests Tigers Match last weekend?

2. Did Matthew Head sustain a spinal injury in the same game?

3. Did a medivac vehicle transport Matthew Head to the dressing room subsequent to receiving this injury?

4. Did you say in a previous post that in Rugby League these medivac transporters are normally only used with spinal injuries?

5. (a) Can you see that a sprained ankle is not a spinal injury?

(b) Can you see the inconsistencies between your argument that league players are tougher than AFL players when league players use this transporter for such injuries.

6. Can you admit you're wrong?

Just yes or no answers will suffice thank you KE!

[King-Eliagh]

Your posts are full of inconsistencies on this topic. One minute you say medivacs are only used for spinal injuries and the next thing you say they can be used for other purposes. You are also saying that AFL players are "softer" than League players based on an untried theory that AFL players don't play with old injuries more frequently than league players.

Is there a study or statistics you are basing this claim on, is it mere puffery by you?

Each post of yours is more confusing than the previous one and I haven't even got to your original posts about Riewoldt yet!

KE, are you sure you're not related to Johnny Howard as you seem to say one thing and do another - or say one thing and in the next breath say something that totally conflicts wih your earlier statement.

Please just answer the following questions:-

1. Did Matthew Head sprain his ankle in the St George -v- Wests Tigers Match last weekend?

2. Did Matthew Head sustain a spinal injury in the same game?

3. Did a medivac vehicle transport Matthew Head to the dressing room subsequent to receiving this injury?

4. Did you say in a previous post that in Rugby League these medivac transporters are normally only used with spinal injuries?

5. (a) Can you see that a sprained ankle is not a spinal injury?

(b) Can you see the inconsistencies between your argument that league players are tougher than AFL players when league players use this transporter for such injuries.

6. Can you admit you're wrong?

Just yes or no answers will suffice thank you KE!

Ok lets get all this straightened out. Yes I think i was wrong about the medivac only being for spinal injuries. Fact is it seems to be used very inconsistently as head gets it for a sprained ankle and yet other players have torn knee ligaments and been helped off by two trainers.

There isnt any study on who's tougher. But its not puffery from me. I truly believe afl players are protected more which isnt all that bad. But the majority of them show many traits i.e hair pulling, crying like babies, going down off soft hits and milking penalties off even softer hits, melees , wearing girls headbands, and many others. I have watched alot of both codes and IMO the vast majority of league players dont share these traits. Its as simple as that and thats what im basing my theory on, I think I'm right.

Now to answer your questions truthfully.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5.a) Yes
5.b) No (read above)
6. Yes

Ok some questions for you.

1. Have you seen more afl players cry than league players?
2. Have you seen a league player wear a girls headband?
3. Have you seen a league player cry from an injury?
4. Do you agree that noone sticked up for nick reiwoldt from his team when he could have done with some help?
5. Do you believe that afl players take no further part in the game after concussion on more occassions than league players?

[crocodileman]

Your posts are full of inconsistencies on this topic. One minute you say medivacs are only used for spinal injuries and the next thing you say they can be used for other purposes. You are also saying that AFL players are "softer" than League players based on an untried theory that AFL players don't play with old injuries more frequently than league players.

Is there a study or statistics you are basing this claim on, is it mere puffery by you?

Each post of yours is more confusing than the previous one and I haven't even got to your original posts about Riewoldt yet!

KE, are you sure you're not related to Johnny Howard as you seem to say one thing and do another - or say one thing and in the next breath say something that totally conflicts wih your earlier statement.

Please just answer the following questions:-

1. Did Matthew Head sprain his ankle in the St George -v- Wests Tigers Match last weekend?

2. Did Matthew Head sustain a spinal injury in the same game?

3. Did a medivac vehicle transport Matthew Head to the dressing room subsequent to receiving this injury?

4. Did you say in a previous post that in Rugby League these medivac transporters are normally only used with spinal injuries?

5. (a) Can you see that a sprained ankle is not a spinal injury?

(b) Can you see the inconsistencies between your argument that league players are tougher than AFL players when league players use this transporter for such injuries.

6. Can you admit you're wrong?

Just yes or no answers will suffice thank you KE!

Ok lets get all this straightened out. Yes I think i was wrong about the medivac only being for spinal injuries. Fact is it seems to be used very inconsistently as head gets it for a sprained ankle and yet other players have torn knee ligaments and been helped off by two trainers.

There isnt any study on who's tougher. But its not puffery from me. I truly believe afl players are protected more which isnt all that bad. But the majority of them show many traits i.e hair pulling, crying like babies, going down off soft hits and milking penalties off even softer hits, melees , wearing girls headbands, and many others. I have watched alot of both codes and IMO the vast majority of league players dont share these traits. Its as simple as that and thats what im basing my theory on, I think I'm right.

Now to answer your questions truthfully.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5.a) Yes
5.b) No (read above)
6. Yes

Ok some questions for you.

1. Have you seen more afl players cry than league players?
2. Have you seen a league player wear a girls headband?
3. Have you seen a league player cry from an injury?
4. Do you agree that noone sticked up for nick reiwoldt from his team when he could have done with some help?
5. Do you believe that afl players take no further part in the game after concussion on more occassions than league players?

1. No. I'd say it was about even, possibly slightly more League players if anything due to winners/losers of Grand Finals and Origin games weeping tears of joy or sadness!

2. I have not seen anyone from NRL or AFL wear a girl's headband. Do headbands exclusively cater to one sex? That's like saying do you use a male toothbrush or a female's toothbrush?

3. Yes many times. Wally Lewis comes to mind when he sustained a head injury in a BRL league match at Lang Park in 1979. He is called the King isn't he?

4. I agree. Probably because unlike League, the umpires don't blow time off and take reports from touch judges, so the players first priority to their team mates is to win the game and hence remain focused on the ball and their opponent!

5. Not sure - possibly some study exists to prove/disprove your theory. Perhaps Beaussie can ask the administrator of the injury update website we promote!