OT - Crist Injury and MSM Double Standard?

Submitted by aleng on

Just read a nice article about Crist not having a concussion that really seems to emphasis the fact the Crist was evaluated by doctors and determined to be ok.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5576505

However, according to WebMD... sorry I googled it quickly, concussion symptoms include confusion and blurred vision.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/concussion-traumatic-brain-injury-symptoms-causes-treatments

First, how does someone exhibit concussion symptoms but not have a concussion?

Second, why does the freakin media go out of their way to spin it like nothing was wrong and almost make Kelly out to be the good guy? If RR had done something like this it would have been more negativity with people saying RR doesn't care about his players. The double standard is so apparent and disgusting. People are freakin lemmings!

TheOracle6

September 16th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

It was obvious he had been concussed, I know what I saw, and IME it was Kelly being a terrible coach and putting in a player that had no business playing.  Had Crist taken another big hit who knows what could have happened to him.

gater

September 16th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^

When articles come out about players/former players with brain diseases from concussions, you would think coaches would be extra careful.  There should be a rule in place that if a player has a concussion they have to sit out the rest of the game and if it's a bad one (I think they grade them) that they have to sit out at least one to two weeks.

 

Look what happened to Owen Thomas from Penn: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5569329

Bb011

September 16th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^

he definitely had a concussion from what they said. A "Concussion" is a very broad term though. There are many different kinds and different severity's. With that said, any player having a concussion should not be coming back into the game that quickly....There is possibility of serious injury, which is not worth a "Win"(even though they didn't even win).

FGB

September 16th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

First, how does someone exhibit concussion symptoms but not have a concussion?

If a person is throwing up and feeling nauseous, they're exibiting flu symptoms. It doesn't mean they necessarily have the flu. Maybe they just spent the evening at Rick's.

Section 1

September 16th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^

where we don't have a lot of quantitative data or qualitative evidence to be able to say for sure that Rich Rodriguez would be getting severely questioned about a player's alleged concussion.

But do I believe that if Michigan had not scored in the last minute, and if the game had been lost and Denard Robinson had been allegedly concussed, would there be waves of criticism flowing from the Free Press and its ilk, all directed at Rich Rodriguez?

Yes.

As a side note, I do wonder sometimes about coverage of Michigan and Notre Dame, since every year the Detroit media know that in the week immediately following Michigan and ND, their attention automatically turns to... ND and Michigan State.  It is a week in which Michigan is ordinarily playing teams like UMass, EMU or our favorite non-conference opponenent; "bye."  And they want to build and hype the contest between Sparty and the Irish.

Of course, at one level, one might suggest that Brian Kelly deserves to be questioned for his handling of this situation and had Coach Rodriguez done the same, the same questions ought to be posed.  Fair is fair.  And that is hard to argue.

In any event, we know what an unfair propaganda organ the Free Press is when it comes to Rich Rodriguez.  I'll be content with dealing with the situation as it is, not as it might have been, and save my Freep criticisms for their actual, exposed biases and errors.  Which are aplenty.

fwiw, we did have a very brief "Rodriguez/concussion" discussion last when Carlos Brown was expected to sit fo the Iowa game.  (And didn't Tate get dinged late in that game too?)

http://mgoblog.com/content/carlos-brown-likely-out-against-iowa

Blue in sec country

September 16th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^

Let them be. If they want to risk their player health, so be it. If they continue to play players who have concussions it will catch up to them. Let the media do whatever they want, if something happens to one of those players, they'll turn on them. I prefer to have fewer supporters, it makes winning that much better. Plus it's a bigger FU to all that doubt.

bryemye

September 16th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

Like I have said on another post, the blame for this has to also go to the medical staff who cleared him. Realistically if BK can say "he was medically cleared to play, I'm not a doctor," then nothing is going to happen to him if the kid goes back in and gets a serious injury.

Chicago Blue

September 16th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^

I think the OP makes a fair point. When Rodriguez pulled Forcier in the Iowa game, he did so based on information that suggested Tate might have a concussion. Michigan lost that game by 2 points. RR wasn't praised for his decision; rather, the media seemed to view his decision as a sign of a non-existent QB controversy.

 

Fast forward 11 months, and Kelly knowingly re-inserts into the game a QB who has shown multiple concussion symptoms. Kelly was concerned enough to keep Crist out of the game for nearly 2 full quarters, so why haven't his motives been questioned? It's worth asking the question.

papabear16

September 16th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^

If I recall correctly, RichRod didnt know of Tate's concussion until after the game, and Denard was inserted as a coaching decision.  Hence the criticism.  I think RichRod might have gotten off the hook for playing Denard then if he had been able to say, "I'm not putting a concussed player back out there."  But he freely admitted that he was unaware of the concussion.

jmblue

September 16th, 2010 at 5:37 PM ^

Word didn't leak out that Tate had a concussion until a couple days later.  That was unusual.  Typically, when a guy is concussed, we learn pretty quickly.  Personally - and this is just my guess - I think RR did suspect him of having a concussion and pulled him for that reason, but wanted to keep quiet about Tate's condition in case any future defenses went headhunting on Tate. 

Emarcy

September 16th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

Head trauma (check) + change in mental status (dazed look check, memory problems check)

Those doctors are stoopid.  If not a concussion, what was their diagnosis?  I just wonder what grade of concussion did he have.  If symptoms cleared up within 15 minutes and it was his first concussion (which it was not), one could consider putting him back in the game.  Symptoms longer that 15 minutes and he should be held out.  Also history of prior concussion suggests more conservative approach.

The espn reporter didn't bother to do any actual research, but what do you expect from the leader in entertainment?

moffle

September 16th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

I read somewhere that the diagnosis on Crist was an ocular migraine.  Apparently (I'm not a doctor, just relaying what I read online), these can cause blurred vision in one eye and go away in an hour or so with no adverse effects.

Sven_Da_M

September 16th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

... that since we no longer refer to the newspaper [NAME REDACTED] here, we also drop the use of "MSM."

I know what it refers to, it's inherently political and it makes the user appear like this:

Sean@MATW

September 16th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^

I'm a resident and I deal with this sort of thing a lot, if it was not a concussion it was still borderline/severe enough to warrant him sitting out.  I wrote a piece on the blog I contribute to if you want more information, but there seems to be good discussion here already.

(link; http://michiganagainsttheworld.blogspot.com/2010/09/crists-concussion-and-irresponsible.html)

(not to link to an outside blog for hits or anything, ignore it if you don't care)

VAWolverine

September 16th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

Shame, shame on old Notre Dame.

Those aren't echos ringing in my brain.

Our QB can't see out of his right eye

Was that #16 in white again running by?

Is the concussion great or small

Our QB needs to go in or we will fall

While we will call 911

We are risking an emergency

Tater

September 16th, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^

When RR pulled Forcier last year at Iowa because he was talking in non sequiturs, the press lambasted him.  Also, they seemed to want Forcier back on the field quicker than the staff did. 

BillyShears

September 16th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

While I agree that it is possible (even probable) that football leads to head injuries, the examples we have seen fall victim to confirmation bias. We only look at the injuries of people  who 1.) Play football 2) Get head injuries.

EGD

September 16th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

What are you trying to say?  Obviously it is possible to sustain a head injury playing football. 

But yes, let's all entertain the theory that Crist simply developed an "ocular migraine" that just happened to coincide with, but was entirely independent of, his head being slammed into the turf.

BillyShears

September 16th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

My point was more of a general comment that what we know about head injuries and football is all circumstansial evidence that give us confirmation bias.

 

As for Crist, yes it seems likely that he had a concussion. To answer the original question

 

"how does someone exhibit concussion symptoms but not have a concussion?"

 

There could very well be other explanations. Concussion symptoms indicate the possibility that the patient suffers from a concussion, not a definite sign.

 

And yes, I think entertaining the theory of an ocular migraine is a better idea than rushing to judgment on whether a rival football coach put his star player into harm's way and convicting Brian Kelly based on little evidence.

dearbornpeds

September 16th, 2010 at 8:21 PM ^

migraines (ocular or otherwise) can be triggered by head trauma.  this would explain the unilateral visual loss and the fact that he appeared coherent on the sideline.  it would also explain why he was able to regain 100% function within a relatively short period of time.

EGD

September 16th, 2010 at 9:06 PM ^

Well, I am not a health-care professional so I will take your words for it (Billyshears & dearbornpeds).  I guess I was just a little skeptical, as I've watched football for decades and never heard of a player getting his bell rung the result being an "ocular migraine."

BlueVoix

September 16th, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^

I know everyone's experience will differ in regards to migraines, but when I got ocular migraines (all 2 of them, I know), I sure as hell wasn't ready to go in one hour.  I know it could have been different for him, but those things knocked me on my ass.  A little bit curious.

claire

September 16th, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^

Will someone please explain to me how Brian Kelly became the anointed savior. His antics on the sidelines this past weekend were virtually ignored while Coach Rodriguez gets drilled for far less. The issue with Crist is inexcusable and if that was my son I would have been furious. Furthermore, BK is very much an over-rated coach. Grand Valley is not a division 2 school. CMU? Wasn't he a bit above .500? What were the signature wins at Cinncinati? I know he lost to Louisville and a true freshman rolled his team for over 200 yards last year. Plus, the best coach in the Big East left 3 yrs ago. The goodness that is Rich Rodriguez is just starting to show...

SysMark

September 16th, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^

How can they say they knew he did not have  a concussion?  Putting him back in that game flies in the face of all the reports coming out of current research on the subject.  I was pretty shocked when they said he was coming back - if the backups had done better you can bet he wouldn't have.  This is a black mark on Kelly IMO - with head injuries all error is supposed to be on the side of caution, not determined by the score of the game.