Hugo Lloris

[Lost Mango]

I think in this kind of situation, no-one knows better how the player feels than the individual himself.

Lloris has well over 340 first class games under his belt and his vast experience will have told him whether he was able to continue or not.

Just not true. His experience has nothing to do with it with a bang to the head.

This support for his decision making and staying on is like the Monty Python Holy Grail scene with the Knight losing limbs and claiming they are "mere flesh wounds" and continuing.

Lloris had no objective way of gauging his mental state. He should have come off. AVB should have insisted and the ref should have stopped play until he was off.

 

[Spurs7891]

Tottenham 'irresponsible' over Hugo Lloris head injury

Tottenham have been described as "irresponsible" for allowing goalkeeper Hugo Lloris to play on against Everton after losing consciousness.

The France international, 26, suffered a head injury when he collided with Romelu Lukaku's knee late on in Sunday's game, which finished 0-0.
Spurs boss Andre Villas-Boas defended the decision to let Lloris continue.

But brain injury charity Headway said the club showed an "irresponsible and cavalier attitude" to Lloris's health.

[Lloris] was in a bad way but by the time he came around he was wanting to stay on. He's a little bit dazed but he's a lot better.
”
Initially the keeper looked set to go off on a stretcher to be replaced by Brad Friedel. Lloris was led off the field during a delay which brought nine minutes of injury time at the end of the match - but he appeared determined to continue and played on after the lengthy delay as Villas-Boas decided against making a substitution.

Headway spokesman Luke Griggs said: "When a player - or any individual - suffers a blow to the head that is severe enough for them to lose consciousness, it is vital they urgently seek appropriate medical attention.

"A physio or doctor treating a player on the pitch simply cannot accurately gauge the severity of the damage caused to the player's brain in such a setting as there may be delayed presentation of symptoms.

"By continuing to play, the player may have caused greater damage to his brain. He should have been removed from the game immediately and taken to hospital for thorough tests and observation."

Villas-Boas said: "He doesn't remember it so he lost consciousness. It was a big knock but he looked composed and ready to continue."

Talking to BBC Sport, he added: "Hugo seemed assertive and determined to continue and showed great character and personality. We decided to keep him on based on that.

"The call always belongs to me. Brad was ready to come in but the person Hugo is, there were enough signs for him to continue."

Everton striker Lukaku, who was cautioned for the challenge, had to put ice on his knee after being replaced shortly after the incident.

Spurs captain Michael Dawson appeared to try to persuade Lloris to go off after the Frenchman got to his feet.

The centre-back admitted his initial feeling was that the goalkeeper should not have continued.

Dawson said: "He took a really bad whack and I was worried when he went down and stayed down. When he got up his legs gave way but he stayed on and made two good saves.

"I lead those boys but safety is the most important thing. He was in a bad way but by the time he came around he was wanting to stay on. He's a little bit dazed but he's a lot better."

Guidelines from Headway and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence state people should not play any contact sport for at least three weeks after suffering a concussion.

Griggs added: "Sports science has evolved significantly over the past decade and yet we're still faced with the antiquated concept that a player should be brave and try to continue at all costs. Mr Villas-Boas's comment that his player's determination to play on was proof of his 'great character and personality' is simply wrong and dangerous."

-------------------------------

Already people are making a big issue out of this. Hope Lloris will be fit for the next match. Don't think we can afford to rest him for 3 weeks as Friedel is too error-prone now.

 

[chancer]

I really do agree. If the medical staff said he should come off then the player should have no say in the matter. Spurs made a mistake yesterday I think.

 

[DHSF]

I was suprised he came on but dont think AVB should be 'slaughtered' for it. Is it not the referee that should have enforced this so called 'rule'? He officiates the match and should have told Lloris to go off - Lloris wouldnt have persisted in the manner in which he did with our staff with the referee.

 

[jts1882]

There is no defence for allowing him to stay on. According to AVB, he did lose consciousness and couldn't remember the knock. Both are sufficient reason not to let him continue. A second knock to the head could do serious long-term damage.

There is a reason boxing and rugby have mandatory rest periods after knockouts and/or concussions, even the NFL is showing some concern. Football needs to have a clear policy. A concussed player must leave the field and have at least two weeks rest. One thing I would change is make an additional substitute available to avoid the dilemma of "wasting" a sub when the game is still to be won. This was clearly something clouding AVB's thinking and it should not be an issue.

Football and other sports have come a long way in how they treat suspected neck injuries, with instant complete focus on the player's interests. How concussion is treated remains a throwback to the past.

 

[chancer]

I was suprised he came on but dont think AVB should be 'slaughtered' for it. Is it not the referee that should have enforced this so called 'rule'? He officiates the match and should have told Lloris to go off - Lloris wouldnt have persisted in the manner in which he did with our staff with the referee.

It was more a failure of process, not of an individual. It is rare in football that this kind of thing comes up, so blaming people doesn't fully add up, but as a matter of policy medical advice should have the final say with no second-guessing. Not least because the medical staff cannot have their credibility questioned - they are now in a very awkward spot this morning.

Today Levy should make clear to AVB and the entire squad that in future the doctors word is law, end of.


Ed: +1 JTS's post above.

 

[Hootnow]

I was suprised he came on but dont think AVB should be 'slaughtered' for it. Is it not the referee that should have enforced this so called 'rule'? He officiates the match and should have told Lloris to go off - Lloris wouldnt have persisted in the manner in which he did with our staff with the referee.

There's no rule is there? Other than stopping the game for a head injury, which he did. The ref having the power to force subs is not a particularly attractive option.

Personally, if this had happened before any subs were made, I think AVB wouldn't have thought twice about listening to the doctors. Which I don't think reflects too well on AVB. Oh well, we move on and hope lloris is ok.

 

[squidseye]

There is absolutely no way he should have been allowed to continue, you don't need a medical degree to see that.

Chancer is right, management should make it clear that the medical team have an absolute veto in these situations, no question. I'm surprised the physio didn't stand his ground on this occasion - it could have ended really really badly for Lloris.

 

[DHSF]

There's no rule is there? Other than stopping the game for a head injury, which he did. The ref having the power to force subs is not a particularly attractive option.

Personally, if this had happened before any subs were made, I think AVB wouldn't have thought twice about listening to the doctors. Which I don't think reflects too well on AVB. Oh well, we move on and hope lloris is ok.

I dont know - I was under the impression there was a rule. My bad. In that case disregard the ref comment.

I think youre correct about AVB thinking twice about the sub as it was his last sub.

 

[Lemonade Money]

There is no defence for allowing him to stay on. According to AVB, he did lose consciousness and couldn't remember the knock. Both are sufficient reason not to let him continue. A second knock to the head could do serious long-term damage.

There is a reason boxing and rugby have mandatory rest periods after knockouts and/or concussions, even the NFL is showing some concern. Football needs to have a clear policy. A concussed player must leave the field and have at least two weeks rest. One thing I would change is make an additional substitute available to avoid the dilemma of "wasting" a sub when the game is still to be won. This was clearly something clouding AVB's thinking and it should not be an issue.

Football and other sports have come a long way in how they treat suspected neck injuries, with instant complete focus on the player's interests. How concussion is treated remains a throwback to the past.

Good post. Hopefully some good will come from this incident.

 

[braineclipse]

Pretty sure he proved on 2 occasions that his head was in the right place.

Irrelevant.

The danger with a head trauma like that, from my understanding at least, is that you're much more vulnerable if you get a second impact injury after that. There's a much higher chance of serious and permanent damage when there's already been a concussion. The fact that he could catch and punch a ball has nothing to do with it.

I think in this kind of situation, no-one knows better how the player feels than the individual himself.

Lloris has well over 340 first class games under his belt and his vast experience will have told him whether he was able to continue or not.

And how many times in those 340 games did he get kneed in the head? And how many of those 340 games contained medical training relevant to assessing a head injury and potential after effects of that?

He might have been in a position to assess if he was capable of performing at an acceptable level, but he was in no position to assess if doing so would be safe for him.

 

[DeanoAustin]

I think in this kind of situation, no-one knows better how the player feels than the individual himself.

Lloris has well over 340 first class games under his belt and his vast experience will have told him whether he was able to continue or not.

I agee with this to be honest. You let this up to medics and they'll always have the player off because they will be terrified that something goes wrong and will always err on the side of caution.

Lloris was fine to continue. He proved that afterwards. It was a bad collision but he was fine.

When did we turn into such a bunch of nancy boys?

 

[braineclipse]

I agee with this to be honest. You let this up to medics and they'll always have the player off because they will be terrified that something goes wrong and will always err on the side of caution.

Lloris was fine to continue. He proved that afterwards. It was a bad collision but he was fine.

When did we turn into such a bunch of nancy boys?

He didn't prove that he was fine to continue. This is comparable to someone driving drunk saying that doing so was fine because they got home safe.

So what you're saying is that if and when medical staff says that playing on is not safe for the player's health the club should ignore them?

 

[DeanoAustin]

He didn't prove that he was fine to continue. This is comparable to someone driving drunk saying that doing so was fine because they got home safe.

So what you're saying is that if and when medical staff says that playing on is not safe for the player's health the club should ignore them?

Not necessarily no. To me, you make a judgement call and ask the player. However, that approach will always be frowned upon in the world we live in.

Lloris says he was fine to continue. He didn't look like he was in la-la land. To me, he probably knows himself better than the medics who will have an agenda in trying to get him off (i.e. if I don't then the miniscule chance that this is serious might actually happen and then I'm in the sh!t). I understand the arguments for saying get him off but don't agree with them. That'll probably get me flamed here.

Fair play to Hugo, hell of a goalkeeper and was exceptional yesterday.

 

[Baleforce]

personally, i'm not happy with what happened for 2 reasons, firstly the medical staff concluded he had to come of, therefore he should have been subbed, secondly AVB decided to make the change but then let Lloris refuse, thats not the way it should work

 

[braineclipse]

Not necessarily no. To me, you make a judgement call and ask the player. However, that approach will always be frowned upon in the world we live in.

Lloris says he was fine to continue. He didn't look like he was in la-la land. To me, he probably knows himself better than the medics who will have an agenda in trying to get him off (i.e. if I don't then the miniscule chance that this is serious might actually happen and then I'm in the sh!t). I understand the arguments for saying get him off but don't agree with them. That'll probably get me flamed here.

Fair play to Hugo, hell of a goalkeeper and was exceptional yesterday.

So you rate your own opinion over the opinion's of people that have spent around a decade studying human physiology to become doctors? Cool...

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'm quite surprised that AVB delayed over this. Usually he is very decisive in substituting potentially injured players (often the fragile Dembele) to protect them for future matches. Although saying that didn't Rose keep playing and that make his injury worse.

 

[DeanoAustin]

So you rate your own opinion over the opinion's of people that have spent around a decade studying human physiology to become doctors? Cool...

Yes, cos that's what I said.

Those people will have a vested interest in getting him off in every instance. Even they are not in a position to make a fully informed judgement. From the Headway guy damning us today "A physio or doctor treating a player on the pitch simply cannot accurately gauge the severity of the damage caused to the player's brain". In every instance, they will get the player off even if he is actually okay to continue.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Did the docs say he should come off then? Surprising anyone would be allowed to overrule them in that situation, player or manager.

Was a big hit, unpleasant to watch. Hope there is no lasting effect.

 

[braineclipse]

Yes, cos that's what I said.

Those people will have a vested interest in getting him off in every instance. Even they are not in a position to make a fully informed judgement. From the Headway guy damning us today "A physio or doctor treating a player on the pitch simply cannot accurately gauge the severity of the damage caused to the player's brain". In every instance, they will get the player off even if he is actually okay to continue.

That is what you said when you said that you understood the arguments, but that you didn't agree with them. These are medical opinions. What are you saying if you're not saying that you're rating your own opinion over the opinions of medical professionals?

I think there's a pretty strong consensus among medical professionals that after receiving a head trauma like the one Lloris suffered yesterday you shouldn't continue playing football directly afterwards. This is not one doctor's or medic's opinion, this is a consensus opinion based on the medical understanding of how head traumas work.