AFL Tribunal: Lachie Plowman’s ban stands; players must change their behaviour, writes Robbo
Carlton’s appeal on Lachie Plowman’s two-match ban to seek “clarity for the game’’ was flimsy. We need clarity in a far more important area, writes Mark Robinson.
AFL News
Don't miss out on the headlines from AFL News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Carlton sought clarity at the AFL appeals tribunal on Thursday night.
Clarity for themselves, the Blues said, and clarity for the game.
The Blues misread the room. Plowman’s appeal was dismissed and the two-week ban stands.
So, why did Carlton need clarity — presumably on what constitutes duty of care between players — at a time when associated concussions are destroying lives?
It was an odd argument in a failed bid to cancel the two-week suspension for their player Lachie Plowman.
The jury members deliberated for more than an hour before chairman Murray Kellam announced they had upheld the AFL Tribunal’s guilty verdict.
What we need greater clarity on is the correlation between head hits and why two former footballers recently committed suicide and why many others have mental health problems.
Watch the 2021 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. Every match of every round Live on Kayo. New to Kayo? Try 14-Days Free Now >
Carlton’s argument that Plowman was contesting the ball — which “accidentally” led to Jaeger O’Meara being concussed — is the exact argument that has to be reshaped.
Because Plowman wasn’t contesting the ball. He was contesting the contest — if that makes sense.
In the moment he realised his timing was askew, he either chose self-preservation (to give him the benefit of the doubt) or to hurt O’Meara (to not give him the benefit of the doubt).
Whatever was his thought process, his actions knocked O’Meara into next week.
Plainly, he turned his hips and body and collided with O’Meara.
It was the wrong decision.
Thirty years ago — and for the 100 years before that — it was the accepted decision.
But footy has changed and fans have to change with it.
What were his alternatives? Pull up and lessen the impact for one, try to spoil the ball and leave himself open for contact is another. Certainly, not turn his back and go crunch.
Plowman has been praised in some quarters for committing himself to the contest, but there are levels of bravery.
Taking the hit and trying to spoil would have been the ultimate in bravery.
The incident has transfixed fans. There are customary opinions that the game is soft and that the AFL is ruining it.
MORE NEWS
CARLTON WILL APPEAL AFTER WALKING AWAY FROM HEARING CONFUSED
VLASTUIN CONCEDES CONCUSSION WIPED HIS MEMORY OF GRAND FINAL
AFL OPEN TO 30-DAY CONCUSSION STAND-DOWN IF ADVICE CHANGES
Those arguments are rubbish. The game is smarter and fans need to be as well.
The game is trying to save players from each other — save their brains from such debilitation in the future that they believe they are better off dead than alive.
Players have to change their behaviour, clubs and coaches have to try to help them change and fans need to accept change.
It’s why the Plowman action has to be universally accepted as being wrong.
Attempting to dismiss his two-match ban to seek “clarity for the game’’ was flimsy, if not naive to the greater good.
Plowman (corked knee) was already out of Sunday’s match against Sydney.
O’Meara will also miss Hawthorn’s Round 11 game with Gold Coast under the AFL’s new concussion protocols.
What Carlton had been told twice — by the match review officer and the AFL Tribunal — was that leaving a player concussed in such a situation was unacceptable.
Why can’t the Blues — and those opposed to Plowman’s suspension — understand the rules of engagement have changed? For the better, and not before time.
Originally published as AFL Tribunal: Lachie Plowman’s ban stands; players must change their behaviour, writes Robbo