The dangerous thinking on concussion

Even as a Carlton supporter, I feel for O'Meara. I don't see how he could have protected himself in any way. If he could have, I'd understand how Plowman could have gotten off. I hope the O'Meara recovers as well as he can.

I'll start by saying that I agree with every one of Paul's responses because they are sensible, well reasoned and basically true. I 'd love to hear how O'meara could have protected himself from a guy that decided to canon into him. Turn his back and risk worse injuries, raise an elbow, back away, take the feotal position or miraculously contort himself in some other way and still mark the ball? You say that Plowman was committed, but then you suggest that O'Meara needed to not be committed and take his full focus off the ball and protect himself. Anyone that has ever tried to protect themself in a marking contest will tell you that they weren't totally focused on marking the ball. That then begs the question: how could Plowman have been committed to get the ball when he changed his mind and decided to brace for contact? We get the old split second garbage in these conversations and it makes me laugh because it implies that the player doesn't have a brain that processes information at the speed of most people. It's even funnier when someone like Dangerfield uses it himself and basically calls himself an idiot, but that's another story. A normal brain processes information in milliseconds or less. He knew long before he reached O'Meara that he wasn't going to get there in time to punch the ball without leaving himself wide open, so he chose to run into him and use the force to knock the ball free. He could simply have avoided him, but he chose, yes chose, to bump rather than avoid him and knocked him out. Suspension every day of the week, regardless of what you think Robbo was saying. And saying that he had his fist up so he was trying to spoil the ball isn't fooling anyone and if it had been O'Meara that flattened Plowman and not the other way around, you'd agree.

I got knocked out at training during a drill in 1981 in under 14's... if I wanted to sue who would I sue? a.) the coach for organizing the drill? Assistant coaches ?? All fathers of the players. b.) the other player who got knocked out with me? c.) the local council for allowing contact sport on its property? d.) my parents for encouraging me to play a contact sport e.) me for choosing to play a contact sport? It is a legal minefield with no clear consequences from a single action. CTE builds up over years of sustained knocks, you cannot pinpoint which knock caused which brain disfunction. NOBODY will ever succeed in suing a football code for injuries sustained while playing the game, it will NEVER happen. Believe me, its been tried, NFL players, soccer players have all gone down that path.. none of them have succeeded to my knowledge. So the ''future litigation'' argument is nonsense.

As long as sport is played as a form of warfare with enemies and allies the human body will be the meat in the sandwich. What if our on field enemies were seen as comrades? By painting competitors as enemies and seeking to destroy them we are wiping out our future chances of improvement in our chosen skill sets. For is is our fellow competitors that assist in us finding the best of what we want to be. That is why it is crazy to intend hurt upon them. Succeeding in their elimination is losing your game totally. We are all on the same side.

Appeal dismissed.

Agree, Macca. Robinson's argument is very flawed. The more I watch the video, the more I question O'Meara's responsibility in the contest, and the disingenuousness of the AFL to put all the blame on Plowman. O'Meatra had to know Plowman was there too. He's being playing footy long enough to have highly trained peripheral vision. Further, according to the tribunal, players have a responsibility to be aware of not just the ball but other players. If you watch the behind the goals angle, O'Meara was running back and across the line of flight of the ball. At some point early in his charge at it, he would have taken in other players around and also going for it. O'Meara would have known a collision was highly possible, so therefore has just as much responsibility as Plowman of "duty of care". O'Meara's decision to contest the footy without any care for Plowman is what resulted in his concussion. If O'Meara braced (or pulled out of the contest as it seems Plowman is being told he should have), there'd be no concussion. On Gleeson's argument it was bump, that is plain dishonest and scary if we go down that path. A brace and a bump have vastly different intentions. A brace is an instinctive action to protect yourself and also the hope that will minimise injury to the other person. A bump is a deliberate act physically aimed at your opponent. Besides both players pulling out, the best way to minimise injury is for both players to brace. O'Meara chose not to, and he got injured. As you say, if Plowman also chose to continue to fully contest the ball, the results could have been a lot worse for both players. To say he should have is as stupid as saying don't hit your brakes in a car accident. O'Meara chose to throw caution to the wind. Plowman chose to do something to reduce the severity. Not necessarily the best decision, but better than O'Meara's.

I just reply to the points you publish!!

Eagles need to make a decision on daniel venables right now We need a definitive statement within 24-96 hours We need to know as supporters For the midseason draft Seriously venables is such a sad story Out since may 2019 Hope we can put him on the inactive, draft someone in midseason and he can return in 2022

Well that is a very unique line of thinking. Dangerous & illegal play can be justified if the offending team is a chance of missing the finals & the coach's career is in jeopardy. I like to be in the court room when a player presents that as serious line of defence.

Alch, not really a quality assessment of the issues at hand. Please review the replay and comeback & tell me that Plowman was either contesting the mark or was attempting to spoil the mark in a legitimate fashion. We all know you are still allow to bump. No one including the AFL are stating that. But not in the act of an opponent attempting to take a mark or if you make high contact. Plowman & his defence went to great lengths to state that it was not a bump. I would state that the Plowman jump was not more than 2 inches from the ground so I would say he landed exactly where he intended to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fBpgpD2IsM

I remembered what we did last time we jumped too, the morning of the jump we all met at my house just around the corner from where the jump was at the slsc and we watched skydiving videos of jumps that went wrong and chutes didn't open etc etc and then went to go jump. Talk about anxiety levels going through the roof. ????

I don't necessarily agree that the suspension was wrong. For me, it simply hinges on Plowman's intent. If he saw O'Meara with enough time to realise he wasn't going to get the ball first and adjust, but chose to bump, then this decision is in line with precedent. If you elect to bump and you make contact with the head, you're in trouble. This seems to be how the tribunal viewed it - at least, I hope that's the case. OTOH, if Plowman's intent was to go for the ball and he simply acted on instinct to protect himself at the last moment, then the suspension is wrong. You can't blame a player for bracing for contact purely to protect themselves from injury. That's ingrained in everyone who plays the game. I've only seen some footage on an iPhone so I'm struggling to judge the all-important point at which Plowman realised he wasn't going to get there first. I do, however, agree that Robbo's comment makes no sense. He seems to be saying that if the second scenario I described above - Plowman instinctively protecting himself - is correct, then Plowman shouldn't have done it and should have just left himself open. I wouldn't have thought a player has a choice in that situation. You simply don't have time to think it through. The duty to protect a player's head surely only extends to situations where the offending player shows intent or is at least reckless in their conduct. Punishing a player for acting on blind instinct achieves nothing in the long run, because it's not conscious behaviour that can be corrected.

Yeah. But everyone knows it's Robbo. It's like Channel 7 trying to replace Denis Cometti with BT. He's prolific but he exists only for all to reject/mock his comments.