• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Hugo Lloris

When the player looks disoriented and not close to 100% then yes take the player off.

But if the player has had a clash of heads and looks okay, isn't there still a risk that there is damage there he just isn't aware of? Isn't that the basis of the argument for withdrawing Lloris?

Also, Lloris looked okay to me yesterday once he came to.
 
But if the player has had a clash of heads and looks okay, isn't there still a risk that there is damage there he just isn't aware of? Isn't that the basis of the argument for withdrawing Lloris?

Also, Lloris looked okay to me yesterday once he came to.

Of course there is a risk, that's why you take the player off if there's any doubt whatsoever that he's a danger to himself.

I've known people that have had concussions in real life and trust me the effects can last for months, perhaps longer.
 
Last edited:
According to AVB he overruled the doctors which is ridiculous. The player shouldn't have a say either, the doctor has to make the call and everyone should back them

My thought on that is AVB is it sounded like taking 'individual ministerial responsibility' (i.e. taking the blame because he is the leader, not necessarily because he is culpable). From what I saw he seemed to have little or no communication with the medical team down in the goalmouth.
 
I think you're misinterpreting what I've posted. Nowhere have I posted, "I think Hugo should have played on no matter what the medical people said" so let's kill that right away.

I understand the argument people on here are making in saying he should have gone off. They're basically saying "head injury, concussion, he should go off every time". That's what I don't agree with. To me, if Hugo reckons he is okay to continue, that he isn't in la-la land then that should be factored into the decision. I think that a medic's opinion, when they've clearly got a vested interest in getting him off, should not be the only input into the decision.

Also, if the medics yesterday thought there was any likelihood of serious damage, he wouldn't have stayed on. I guarantee you that. The reason they wanted him off was purely as a precaution. He came to, was probably coherent and while they'd have preferred to have him off, they ultimately allowed him stay on because he was fine. He proved that afterwards both in the game and with the scan he had.

No, but to clarify your opinion I asked you if the club should ignore medical staff if they said that playing on wasn't safe and you said a judgement call should be made.

What is being said is that there was no way to know if he was fine or not at that time. There was a reason they had him in a scan, I'm guessing that was at least partly because they couldn't know if he was fine or not.
 
My thought on that is AVB is it sounded like taking 'individual ministerial responsibility' (i.e. taking the blame because he is the leader, not necessarily because he is culpable). From what I saw he seemed to have little or no communication with the medical team down in the goalmouth.

Well I'm sure he will be asked about if in his next press conference, would be the right thing to admit it was a mistake in hindsight to leave him on and not follow the advice of the medical team. At the end of the day the manager is in charge when it comes to substitutions, not the players.
 
How many injuries to the head are there in football? How many result in any sort of serious, long term injury or damage?

The percentage is very, very small. Miniscule in fact. Then, what's the percentage of those injuries that could have been avoided with quicker treatment? Smaller again.

What this comes down to is that you think that there is no risk worth taking with this sort of injury. No matter how small. And that's fair enough. It's a discussuion worth having.

For me, if the player thinks he's okay, if he's coherent and if the medical team are not 100% insisting that he should go off then I'm happy for him to take the misiscule risk that we are talking about here.

How many situations where players get kneed to the head like Lloris got do you see in football? American football has started to change their attitudes towards head trauma after there's been significant signs of real damage being done. I think the blow Lloris took is comparable to what is seen in american football, particularly when the fact that they have helmets on is factored in. Lukaku came off with an injury to his knee!

Speaking of. In american football there's seemingly been a real issue where medics have ignored head traumas that they really felt they should have reported because of the pressure of the game, the money involved, the importance of a match to the club/manager etc. I don't think it's that far fetched that something similar can happen in football.

Fair enough mate, I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.

On this website and others I'm seeing a lot of "head injury, no one knows the damage, subsequent blow could be catastrophic" for people justifying the criticism of AVB and Spurs and the opinion that Lloris should have come off no questions asked. Surely all of those arguments don't just apply to players who has been knocked out. Wouldn't those arguments also apply to a clash of heads or a good smack of the ball to the head? Are people on the other side of the argument to me seriously suggesting that any blow to the head, which could lead to the same sort of consequences that are being mentioned in relation to Lloris, should result in the player being immediately taken off?

Of course there are degrees. Comparing the blow to the head Hugo took to a smack of the ball to the head is to me a bit silly.
 
No, but to clarify your opinion I asked you if the club should ignore medical staff if they said that playing on wasn't safe and you said a judgement call should be made.

What is being said is that there was no way to know if he was fine or not at that time. There was a reason they had him in a scan, I'm guessing that was at least partly because they couldn't know if he was fine or not.

So how does "a judgement call should be made" mean that I "rate my own opinion over the opinion's of people that have spent around a decade studying human physiology to become doctors".

And, while the medics wanted him off, you can be sure that there is no way he would have stayed on if they thought there was any serious risk that Hugo was seriously injured. They wanted him off as a precaution. Had it been more than that, Hugo would have been off.
 
Of course there are degrees. Comparing the blow to the head Hugo took to a smack of the ball to the head is to me a bit silly.

Why is it silly? The principle is the same. Player gets hit in the head with a ball, hard, then isn't there a chance of damage that is unseen at that time?

Also, what about a clash of heads?
 
So how does "a judgement call should be made" mean that I "rate my own opinion over the opinion's of people that have spent around a decade studying human physiology to become doctors".

And, while the medics wanted him off, you can be sure that there is no way he would have stayed on if they thought there was any serious risk that Hugo was seriously injured. They wanted him off as a precaution. Had it been more than that, Hugo would have been off.

You said you understood the arguments being presented, but that you didn't agree with them. The arguments being presented in the media is, from what I can see, the consensus opinion of experts in this field. This is the opinion you're disagreeing with.

You also said that if and when the medical staff said it wasn't safe for the player to continue people with little to no medical training should make a judgement call. And one of the things you said was important was if the player himself felt fine or not. Specifically what experts in the field is saying isn't a good enough basis to make that call.

I dealt with the last point in my post above.
 
Fair enough mate, I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.

On this website and others I'm seeing a lot of "head injury, no one knows the damage, subsequent blow could be catastrophic" for people justifying the criticism of AVB and Spurs and the opinion that Lloris should have come off no questions asked. Surely all of those arguments don't just apply to players who has been knocked out. Wouldn't those arguments also apply to a clash of heads or a good smack of the ball to the head? Are people on the other side of the argument to me seriously suggesting that any blow to the head, which could lead to the same sort of consequences that are being mentioned in relation to Lloris, should result in the player being immediately taken off?

But we know he lost consciousness. We know he couldn't remember the incident. So we know there was damage that needed assessing further. The medical staff can't do that in front of 40,000 people without proper diagnostic equipment. They correctly made the decision Lloris should be replaced and either were overruled or were persuaded to change their minds.

You are right that being knocked out is not the only time for concern. Any clash of heads could cause damage, so you look for signs of a problem. Temporary loss of conciousness, not remembering the clash, double vision or confusion would be reasons to substitute the player as a precaution. Hernandez, the United striker, supposedly got concussion by heading the ball in training and was out for more than a month, so its symptoms, not the severity of the impact, that needs to be assessed.
 
Why is it silly? The principle is the same. Player gets hit in the head with a ball, hard, then isn't there a chance of damage that is unseen at that time?

Also, what about a clash of heads?

Because the brain is protected by, amongst other things, the skull. This protection is enough to protect against relatively mild impacts. And although there are some concerns that consistently heading a football day after day can lead to some permanent injury long term I don't think there's any reason to think that it's enough to cause the kind of acute injuries we're talking about that can be caused by the kinds of blows that Hugo received.

Secondly because a decent indicator that an impact reached a level where immediate injuries should be a concern seems to be the loss of consciousness. It was reported yesterday that Hugo didn't remember the impact, a pretty decent indicator that he had lost consciousness I would have though. Not sure how many times footballers have headed a football and ended up not remembering that situation afterwards, but I'm guessing it's not exactly frequent.

Clashes of heads are of course different, but once again there are some seemingly obvious indicators to look at like the loss of consciousness that can be used as indicators. No one is arguing that any head to head contact is a good such indicator.
 
You said you understood the arguments being presented, but that you didn't agree with them. The arguments being presented in the media is, from what I can see, the consensus opinion of experts in this field. This is the opinion you're disagreeing with.

You also said that if and when the medical staff said it wasn't safe for the player to continue people with little to no medical training should make a judgement call. And one of the things you said was important was if the player himself felt fine or not. Specifically what experts in the field is saying isn't a good enough basis to make that call.

I dealt with the last point in my post above.


I'm disagreeing with the arguments being put forward for withdrawing him. I'm not disagreeing with the science from experts. Only an idiot would do that. I'm just disagreeing that the science justifies the player being withdrawn without question.

If you genuinely think that the medics would have allowed Hugo to stay on even if they genuinely believed he was at serious risk because of pressure from the club or manager or whatever, then you're wrong in my view. AVB originally wanted him off, the medics wanted him off, his team mates wanted him off. It was only the player that wanted to stay on.
 
Because the brain is protected by, amongst other things, the skull. This protection is enough to protect against relatively mild impacts. And although there are some concerns that consistently heading a football day after day can lead to some permanent injury long term I don't think there's any reason to think that it's enough to cause the kind of acute injuries we're talking about that can be caused by the kinds of blows that Hugo received.

Secondly because a decent indicator that an impact reached a level where immediate injuries should be a concern seems to be the loss of consciousness. It was reported yesterday that Hugo didn't remember the impact, a pretty decent indicator that he had lost consciousness I would have though. Not sure how many times footballers have headed a football and ended up not remembering that situation afterwards, but I'm guessing it's not exactly frequent.

Clashes of heads are of course different, but once again there are some seemingly obvious indicators to look at like the loss of consciousness that can be used as indicators. No one is arguing that any head to head contact is a good such indicator.

People are arguing exactly that. People are saying "He's not in a position to make the call himself. It's not possible to evaluate how badly he was actually injured without a scan. It is possible that there is unseen damage or that another blow could do more damage than it normally would because of the first blow."

The guy from Headway, presumably an expert himself, has said "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."


All of that potentially applies to any head injury.

Had Dawson, for example, been stood in a wall and got knocked out with a free kick but got back up and played again, I bet you we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
He should have been withdrawn, simple, risk was too high.

Agree with a previous poster, believe AVB is just doing the leader/coach thing and taking the blame regardless of if he was/wasn't truly the person to make the call.

Hopefully we learn, Hugo is ok, and the next time we swiftly and decisively take the player off.
 
I'm disagreeing with the arguments being put forward for withdrawing him. I'm not disagreeing with the science from experts. Only an idiot would do that. I'm just disagreeing that the science justifies the player being withdrawn without question.

If you genuinely think that the medics would have allowed Hugo to stay on even if they genuinely believed he was at serious risk because of pressure from the club or manager or whatever, then you're wrong in my view. AVB originally wanted him off, the medics wanted him off, his team mates wanted him off. It was only the player that wanted to stay on.

Obviously I cannot know what happened in this case. I think there's precedent though from other sports. I don't think it's unthinkable, and if the regulations are such that their opinions can be overruled what can they do?

People are arguing exactly that. People are saying "He's not in a position to make the call himself. It's not possible to evaluate how badly he was actually injured without a scan. It is possible that there is unseen damage or that another blow could do more damage than it normally would because of the first blow."

The guy from Headway, presumably an expert himself, has said "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."


All of that potentially applies to any head injury.

Had Dawson, for example, been stood in a wall and got knocked out with a free kick but got back up and played again, I bet you we wouldn't be having this discussion.

People are arguing that based on the severity of the injury. Who are arguing that this could happen regardless of the impact, other than yourself?

Like I said in the post I quoted it seems that loss of consciousness is a good measuring stick for this. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. If Dawson had lost consciousness after being hit by a ball whilst in a wall we might have had a discussion on our hands.
 
Playing devil's advocate here, if AVB had taken him off (against Hugo's wishes) Brad had come on and had a moment like last Wednesday, how many of you slating AVB now would be slating him in this circumstance for not leaving a player, who wanted to stay on, in the action...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
 
Obviously I cannot know what happened in this case. I think there's precedent though from other sports. I don't think it's unthinkable, and if the regulations are such that their opinions can be overruled what can they do?.

It's unthinkable in this situation with the evidence to hand.



People are arguing that based on the severity of the injury. Who are arguing that this could happen regardless of the impact, other than yourself?

Like I said in the post I quoted it seems that loss of consciousness is a good measuring stick for this. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. If Dawson had lost consciousness after being hit by a ball whilst in a wall we might have had a discussion on our hands.

The argument has been put forward that Lloris was in no position to assess his own state, that there could have been damage that was unseen or unfelt at the time and that was basis enough to remove him. My point is that those criteria could apply to a lot more injuries than Hugo's and, if so, do people believe that players should be withdrawn as a matter of course in those instances.

If you're drawing a line in the sand that says, "if a player is knocked out, that's the point at which he should be withdrawn" that's fair enough. I don't agree with that opinion but I can see why you think that.
 
Playing devil's advocate here, if AVB had taken him off (against Hugo's wishes) Brad had come on and had a moment like last Wednesday, how many of you slating AVB now would be slating him in this circumstance for not leaving a player, who wanted to stay on, in the action...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

No sane person would be slating him.
 
I remember Paul Ince had his head bundled with bleeding in World Cup 98 and nobody made any noise about whether he should play on. Whats wrong with ppl nowadays?
 
No sane person would be slating him.
Have we got any of them?

I remember Paul Ince had his head bundled with bleeding in World Cup 98 and nobody made any noise about whether he should play on. Whats wrong with ppl nowadays?
Was Ince knocked unconscious in that incident? Not as I recall. Hugo was clearly spark out and shouldn't have carried on, whatever it ended up costing us in terms of points.
 
Back