Hartzog
- Thread starter salsa red
- Start date
Hamstring. But as far as I’m aware they haven’t said what specifically. Pull, tear, strain, it fell off, not sure. The first thing Rhule talked about was Hartzog using a redshirt. Then a couple weeks later he was “day to day” and “doubtful”. So with Rhule, who knows. This dude overexaggerates and undersells injuries all the time. No idea how the heck someone goes from an injury with a reaction of “oh this is a redshirt injury” to one someone can come back from in a month.
Remember last year? When Tommi Hill “ruptured” (Rhule’s exact word) his plantar fascia and was somehow capable of playing a couple weeks later? Tells you right there he a plantar fascia was never ruptured.
So a player has a very limiting injury, is a candidate for a redshirt, but is still working his rehab to get back on the field = Rhule is a lying to us.
Overrxaggerated and undersells were the words I used.
Take it for what you want, but anyone with a ruptured plantar fascia isn’t doing ANY running sport 3 weeks later. Let alone football.
Anyone with a hamstring injury that is significant enough to need a redshirt and be lost for the year, is not magically going to play 3 weeks later. It’s not rocket science, it’s medical science. After medical science, it’s common sense.
You seem very worked up over this.
My kid ran on a foot with PF the last few weeks of track season and experienced what from symptoms was a PF rupture during a race. He finished and still ran in the state meet the following week. The PF nagged him into XC season, and then we figured out how to resolve it. As for Hill, he really wanted to play, and the coaches really wanted him to be able to play bc they were very thin at corner. Rhule should have shut it down earlier and did not. Also, coaches are unclear about injury status of players for a reason. They'd rather not have the opponents know whether or not a kid in question is actually going to play. So they disclose it when they have to.
He's just expressing concern.great contributions. You seem very capable of assisting the conversation.
Please do not take this first part personally. I'm not calling you a liar because I do believe your kid had an injury so don't think I am saying you're lying here, but your kid didn't "rupture" his plantar fascia. They may have torn it, but a rupture is referred to as a full tear in the orthopedic and podiatry world. If someone fully tears their plantar fascia, they are not running. Words have meanings, and I don't mean to be the grammar nazi about it, but that's my original complaint about Rhule in this thread. I could go on a whole different tangent of how words are misused in the medical field way too often.
If Tommi Hill ruptured his PF, like Rhule said he did, putting him back out there 3-4 weeks later is criminal negligence. I don't care how bad the room was. I don't care how badly he wanted to play (very commendable). As a coach and CEO of the program, and someone who says he cares about the players, Rhule should have never allowed Tommi to play as soon as he did. And if Hartzog's hamstring is as really bad as he initially made it seem, then Hartzog should not be a topic of discussion anymore. It is very well documented how slowly and poorly hamstrings recover. Hopefully, Rhule learned from Tommi's situation and won't rush Hartzog or allow Hartzog to be rushed. Again, you don't go from "he's looking at a redshirt year from this injury" to "he's day to day" in just a few short weeks unless 1) you overexaggerated the truth, 2) you spoke before you had any information, 3) Hartzog is not from Earth, 4) we are witness to a miracle from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Walleye, I appreciate your participation on this board, but do you need to pick fights with just about every other poster?
It all depends on how you’re using the word “ruptured”. Kind of like it “depends on what the meaning of is is”. Different Drs will use words in different manners and then argue amongst themselves about what is technically correct. Some would say a ruptured PF is a complete tear of the entire ligamentous structure. Others will disagree and say it’s any tearing at all. In my professional opinion, describing a ligamentous injury as either a complete or partial tear would be more appropriate than using a word that can mean different things to different people
Having had a PF, I agree that someone who had a severe PF tear would be unable to run. Forget the biomechanical problems, the pain wouldn’t allow it without a complete nerve block.
That's the whole different gripe I have. There's a scale of significance of injury and they all bleed into each other. It's not exactly cut and dry, but we can fix it by eliminating the misrepresentation of words in the medical community. They use oxymorons too often. An "acute rupture" is assbackwards. A small rupture is like saying the Titanic had a small leak. I tore my PF early in my USMC career. I would never classify that as a rupture. I saw someone rupture their PF at the last ultramarathon I was at in July. They had to be carried off the course. I wanted to die. Achilles and PFs are my nails on chalkboard-type injuries. I keep saying it, but words have meanings. A small tear or a partial tear of something is not like a full tear of something. "Rupture" is hardly used in such a casual manner. It's more often than not used in a manner of significance.
A dam ruptured does not allude to a small leak.
The bridge ruptured does not allude to a small crack.
His artery ruptured does not allude to a small tear. Dude is 95% likely dead.
The Volcano erupted does not allude to a simple burping of smoke and lava.
Johnny ruptured the bag of potato chips. You wouldn't envision Johnny casually opening up the bag of chips.
What is medically correct in terms of terminology is something a coach might not hew to. My kid had PF, he experienced symptoms that were consistent with at least some tearing, he took a couple of weeks off after track and then he finally worked through it. Had I known then what I know now, I would have had him do more cross training.
As far as Rhule and Hill go, it was indeed a mistake on Rhule's part. But if you followed that story, Hill was quite thick headed about the whole thing and wanted to go when he wasn't ready.
In terms of how coaches communicate with the media about injured players, that is not going to change. That's because they don't want to communicate that info to opposing coaches. Until they determine Hartzog to have a season ending injury, he will be day to day, week to week, but not available when they have to disclose that status. As far as the RS thing goes, Hartzog has one available to use. The quotes from Rhule on this:
"Malcolm came out to practice last week," Rhule said. "We expected him to play, and then it just kind of re-popped on him. I don't know what things look like for him.
"He's another guy that's going into his fourth year. If it's a long-term deal,
he could redshirt, he could try to come back and play, but if there's 5-for-5, it's again, these are a lot of hard decisions."
So, it sounds like he had rehabbed a pull, was cleared for practice, and then popped it again. As I understand it, trainers and PTs make decision on return to practice after an injury. The RS talk was in the context of another discussion of just having a 5 year eligibility rule and ditching the concept of a redshirt.
So it appears that he was not overexaggerating, he knew that status of Hartzog's injury and the thinking was that he was on the way to recovery and was at least cleared for practice, Hartzog is from Earth and no miracles were witnessed.
How would it help the team for the coach to be completely transparent and honest about injuries? Some of you guys need to grow up and join reality.
We would like the information, but we are not entitled to it.
I think in this era of HIPPA and although I pretty sure coaches do not fall under HIPPA rules, but the team's doctors do, coaches are reluctant to talk in detail about injuries.