When trying to figure out how the AFL tribunal came to uphold Lachie Plowman’s suspension on Tuesday night, I came across some very dangerous thinking.

The first I want to discuss is from Mark Robinson, who said the following on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.

“When the ball was coming, he decided to protect himself and that put O’Meara in danger and he got concussed. If he left himself open and tried to spoil with an arm out, he wouldn’t be in this situation. Unfortunately Lachie, he closed up and protected himself, and because he did that, O’Meara got concussed. We’ve got to protect and encourage people to go for the ball.”

Let’s just think about that for a second, putting aside the idea that the only reason Jaeger O’Meara got concussed is Plowman protected himself.

Robinson is saying the way to protect players from head injuries is for them to leave themselves open. Robinson is saying a player protecting themselves from injury in a contest is doing the wrong thing.

Robinson is saying the only way to “protect and encourage people to go for the ball” is for both players to forgo any attempts to protect themselves and attack the ball wide open.

Does that make any sense to anyone? Does that not go against the very fundamentals that every player used to be taught, and still should be taught, from when they first started playing, that you should always protect yourself and never run into a contest wide open?

(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

This wrong-headed notion would lead to far more injuries and concussions. If Plowman had left himself open with his arm fully extended, as Robinson suggests, not only would O’Meara still be dealing with a concussion caused by the whiplash of the impact, he would likely have facial fractures from being hit by the extended arm and Plowman would likely have at least a concussion.

The best way to protect players is allow players to protect themselves.

The next dangerous piece of thinking came from the AFL prosecutor Jeff Gleeson.

“If you decide this was not a bump, that’s the end of the matter. If however you decide that prior to impact, Plowman realised there’d be high-speed impact and braced himself for and effected a bump, then it’s a bump. The fact he was simultaneously trying to spoil doesn’t necessarily detract from the fact it was a bump.”

The reason this is so dangerous is that last sentence: the fact he was trying to spoil still makes it a bump.

This one sentence opens the door for any contact, regardless of intent, to result in suspension if the player protected themselves.

Let’s just imagine that in a couple of weeks Harry McKay comes steaming out from full forward, Jeremy McGovern drops into the hole in front of him and McKay raises his knee as he hits the contest and McGovern gets concussed. Does McKay get suspended? Does he only get suspended if he doesn’t take the mark or he is forced to spoil?

This one sentence has the power to threaten the very fibre of our game, as the Blues suggested, because this one sentence can take away one of the most thrilling and celebrated parts of our game: the courage it takes to commit yourself to the contest.

The concept of protecting the head has obvious merit but we have to allow the players to protect themselves and can’t allow the prevention of concussion to be pursued at the expense of all else.

126

Join the conversation

Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.

The dangerous thinking on concussion

More AFL