Coaches should err on safety when players take knocks

Jerome Kaino exhibited signs that should have seen him taken off and not returned to the field against the Lions. Photo / Getty Images

Any device or mechanism to help rugby's medical teams be aware of and ultimately provide better care to players with suspected concussion, has to be welcomed.

This is not an area where there can be too much of a good thing - better 10 people saying a player might be concussed than no one.

But nor should the authorities be in such a rush to try new ideas that they don't ask a few more questions about why the current system has failed a couple of times in recent weeks.

There have been two cases this year - Jerome Kaino and Josh Hohneck - where both players exhibited signs that should have seen them taken off and not returned to the field.

World Rugby has a list of indicators that if witnessed, mean a player should be immediately removed with no requirement for a concussion test.

Kaino, playing against the Lions earlier this year, was certainly in considerable distress when he initially hit his head and appeared to stagger when he first stood up.

Hohneck was knocked out cold - not something anyone would have necessarily known - but by lying motionless for as long as he did, that was the criteria met.

It's a near impossible business for team doctors to see incidents like that - they are at ground level and scanning behind the play to look for fallen men. But plenty of other people with ability to alert the medical staff had access to TV footage of the incidents.

In this group would be the respective coaching teams. A pause is necessary here - because it is important to state that New Zealand rugby is genuine in its belief player welfare is important.

The men running New Zealand's Super Rugby sides are good people; fair, reasonable and not the sorts who would endanger the longer term health of an individual for the sake of a victory.

All five coaching teams have a fair point in that they should be guided by their medical teams; that it is not for the layman to be making decisions about whether a player is concussed or not.

But the situation should not be confused - a player only needs to be suspected of being concussed and in both of these specific cases, it was beyond doubt that both were feeling some kind of effect after being hit hard on the head.

If there is doubt, if there is suspicion, coaches have to err on the side of caution and take the player in question off. Better an irate player in rude health moaning about being wrongly taken off than an unconscious one who can't say anything because he was allowed to stay on.

Decisive decision-making by coaches in these grey areas would signal the seriousness with which concussions are taken. And secondly, the question has to be asked whether a player who has taken a major blow to the head, concussed or not, is going to be able to perform at the required level?

The statistics say not. They say a head knock will almost certainly reduce the effectiveness of the sufferer and provide yet more reason for coaches to intervene without waiting for the medics to give their verdict.