Boyd Cornder Cap Concessions

[Leck]

I'm still waiting for the precedent where a player sits out 12 weeks of footy from his first concussion. Cordner has known and long-term concussion issues, and his Origin selection was questionable in the first place, based on his known condition, let alone the decision to put him back on after that first head knock.

I don't think there's an NRL supporter around who was surprised to see Cordner go down hard after a head collision, and basically everyone called him out for the series.

The Roosters are asking dispensation for a decision that has been taken due to consistent and repeated head trauma, not a unique outcome from a rep game.

If this is the way it works, then per OP, select your worst or injured players for rep games, maybe even down as far as Tonga vs Samoa, and run them out, casts and stitches and moonboots and all, let them exacerbate the existing injury, then write off a cool 1/3rd million.

So a club can just select their worst player for a rep match? How's that work?

I was joking of course, I have yet to see a player run out in a moonboot.

The point being the injury allowance is supposed to be compensation for new injuries incurred by rep players, not for concussion-prone has-beens who continue to get selected for rep because their club is institutionalised at the Origin level.

No way was Cordner good enough to play Origin this year on form, but he was selected as incumbent, despite having huge injury clouds over his multiple concussions. And the coach is ex-Roosters. Lo and behold Cordner goes down in the first hard collision.

Not knocking the bloke as a warrior, but they are looking after his well-being VERY after the fact. Origin had very little to do with his long-term struggles with head knocks.

You're incorrect. The allowance isn't for new injuries, the NRL CEO himself said that isn't taken into account when the NRL decides whether to give a club compensation.

But they are supposed to take into account existing injuries when deciding whether a player can be medically retired and his salary wiped off a club's cap I believe. I might of confused the two.
But as we all saw with the Sam Burgess medical retirement, existing injuries don't count for squat when you play for one of the chosen 4 (Rabbitohs, Roosters, Storm and Broncos). NRL judgements on most of these sorts of issues is farcical.

He is not being medically retired though, the Roosters are claiming compensation because he was injured in a rep game that will put him out for the Roosters.

Agreed mate that he was injured in a rep game but he has had multiple concussions for the Chooks throughout last year and I think it is the NRL trying to cover their backsides with regards to head injuries and litigation further down the track.

Studies into CTE and repetitive brain injuries have only been thoroughly studied and diagnosed in the last 10 years.

The unfortunate thing is that you can’t test for CTE until the person with those injuries has died.

However the studies so far have shown a decrease in motor-neurone function, anxiety, depression, elevated aggression and in some cases psychosis.

There are now 111 cases of CTE proven within the NFL + pending lawsuits. And these guys wear helmets.

I hate to think where that will leave our past and present league players.

I know a former player who is participating in studies into CTE, I have seen early signs of issues with him in the last 5 years.

It’s really scary stuff! I hope he finds the support and help he needs

Appears to be early onset dementia to me. You can have a conversation with him and the next day he doesn't remember it.

That’s tough. I can imagine living without core body functions but not my mind.

I wish him all the best.

 

[Tiger_Fanatic3]


Typical Rorters...

 

[JC99]

I'm still waiting for the precedent where a player sits out 12 weeks of footy from his first concussion. Cordner has known and long-term concussion issues, and his Origin selection was questionable in the first place, based on his known condition, let alone the decision to put him back on after that first head knock.

I don't think there's an NRL supporter around who was surprised to see Cordner go down hard after a head collision, and basically everyone called him out for the series.

The Roosters are asking dispensation for a decision that has been taken due to consistent and repeated head trauma, not a unique outcome from a rep game.

If this is the way it works, then per OP, select your worst or injured players for rep games, maybe even down as far as Tonga vs Samoa, and run them out, casts and stitches and moonboots and all, let them exacerbate the existing injury, then write off a cool 1/3rd million.

So a club can just select their worst player for a rep match? How's that work?

I was joking of course, I have yet to see a player run out in a moonboot.

The point being the injury allowance is supposed to be compensation for new injuries incurred by rep players, not for concussion-prone has-beens who continue to get selected for rep because their club is institutionalised at the Origin level.

No way was Cordner good enough to play Origin this year on form, but he was selected as incumbent, despite having huge injury clouds over his multiple concussions. And the coach is ex-Roosters. Lo and behold Cordner goes down in the first hard collision.

Not knocking the bloke as a warrior, but they are looking after his well-being VERY after the fact. Origin had very little to do with his long-term struggles with head knocks.

You're incorrect. The allowance isn't for new injuries, the NRL CEO himself said that isn't taken into account when the NRL decides whether to give a club compensation.

Can you advise where he said that? I'm not doubting your comment, I'd just like to see where it's written down or quoted in some form.

If the NRL takes no account of previous injury history, then it's totally open to rorting. The argument being made is that Cordner was injured during a rep game and Roosters should be compensated. No argument he took a head knock, but are Roosters trying to claim that he is sitting out 12 weeks because of that head knock during Origin? Because that's obviously false, he's sitting out because of repeated head knocks over a career, and a recent escalation of issues.

If this is cleared by NRL, there's nothing to stop any club with rep footballers - and I assume it will apply just as much to Samoa or Tonga as Origin; or even Cook Islands or PNG - from claiming injury during rep and asking for compensation.

For example, say Alex Twal gets selected for Lebanon and plays a rep week. A week later he plays for Tigers and tears his hamstring, out for 8 weeks. Tigers petition NRL claiming that Twal twinged his hamstring during the Lebanon game, which increased his injury risk towards a full tear. Had he not played rep footy, he would not have had a full tear a week later.

Or more deceptive - player takes 3 head knocks in a season. Club internally decides to sit him out for a few weeks but he's desperate to play one rep game first and club does not have jurisdiction over his rep selection / non-selection. Or even more, club encourages player to play the game and claim a post-game head knock. Player finishes his rep match and club claims compensation on the existing decision to stand him down.

In fact if I was a club, I'd claim a head knock for all my rep players and then rest them for a week or two post Origin. A lot of players take a week off anyway. Or claim some strain. Have claims ready for all post-rep niggles.

It's in this article here. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/souths-want-clarity-from-nrl-about-roosters-cordner-salary-cap-claim-20210202-p56yuo.html

Your ideas are smart, but the NRL isn't silly. Seems pretty clear the the injury has to happen in the match itself, no way would someone get injured in club game before or after and their club get compensation.

Yet Cordner suffered repeated concussions BEFORE the Origin one. Studies have shown that you are more susceptible to concussion after suffering them previously. So it pretty much was an existing injury/condition.

He was fully cleared to play. Prior concussion or not he would've been concussed from the knock he took in origin - he has awful tackling technique and constantly sticks his head straight down, it's the reason for majority of His concussions.

 

[happy_tiger]

I'm still waiting for the precedent where a player sits out 12 weeks of footy from his first concussion. Cordner has known and long-term concussion issues, and his Origin selection was questionable in the first place, based on his known condition, let alone the decision to put him back on after that first head knock.

I don't think there's an NRL supporter around who was surprised to see Cordner go down hard after a head collision, and basically everyone called him out for the series.

The Roosters are asking dispensation for a decision that has been taken due to consistent and repeated head trauma, not a unique outcome from a rep game.

If this is the way it works, then per OP, select your worst or injured players for rep games, maybe even down as far as Tonga vs Samoa, and run them out, casts and stitches and moonboots and all, let them exacerbate the existing injury, then write off a cool 1/3rd million.

So a club can just select their worst player for a rep match? How's that work?

I was joking of course, I have yet to see a player run out in a moonboot.

The point being the injury allowance is supposed to be compensation for new injuries incurred by rep players, not for concussion-prone has-beens who continue to get selected for rep because their club is institutionalised at the Origin level.

No way was Cordner good enough to play Origin this year on form, but he was selected as incumbent, despite having huge injury clouds over his multiple concussions. And the coach is ex-Roosters. Lo and behold Cordner goes down in the first hard collision.

Not knocking the bloke as a warrior, but they are looking after his well-being VERY after the fact. Origin had very little to do with his long-term struggles with head knocks.

You're incorrect. The allowance isn't for new injuries, the NRL CEO himself said that isn't taken into account when the NRL decides whether to give a club compensation.

How do they come to the decision of who gets what re: compensation? As usual it's a hotch-potch dogs breakfast that changes from one club to the next. Disgraceful.
Will be interesting to see if PVL and his cronies cave-in to the Roosters request to play underage Suualli.

I’m sure Suualli has been given the green light

Not officially Hobbo