He was,in the end,no chance to mark the ball,half a chance to spoil it,and a definite chance to make O’Meara “earn” any mark.

Plowman did keep his eyes on the ball but that doesn’t excuse someone from having a duty of care when entering a contest. No player who has their eyes on the ball but remains aware of possible contact with an opponent can position their body in a way that increases the chances their opponent will be hurt.

The shift that the Plowman incident should expedite is how we as observers and football fans assess the decisions of players in particular situations and how coaches train players to attack certain situations given the notion of strict liability is at play when it comes to concussion.

If,for instance,Plowman took the unenviable option of leaving himself open to greater injury than the genuinely hard knock he received in the contest with O’Meara,then we should assess his technique as one where he showed a duty of care to his opponent,a very,very brave act.

That’s not how most of us who love football’s physicality see potential collisions. Most of the time “courage” and “fearlessness” are the words used to glorify an action that leads to a heavy clash rather than praising an act that minimises the risk of serious damage as “smart” and “technically sound”.

Unfortunately,if Plowman had not bodylined the ball but only attempted to spoil with his arm in a way that avoided body contact with O’Meara,he would have been regarded as lacking commitment to the cause.

That needs to shift over time as we better understand when a player is showing a duty of care to their opponent and when they are doing less than is required to contest the ball.

Greater awareness around the impact of concussion is causing that shift,whether we like it or not.

You only have to look at the huge increase in the number of players sent to the sin bin for high tackles in the NRL to see the impact the issue is having. Their chairman Peter V’landys said a few weeks ago that if head-high hits aren’t addressed,there won’t be a game in 15 years.

“Any administrator in a contact sport who doesn’t address concussion,they are doing the wrong thing,” V’landys said onNRL 360.

That’s why consistency among MRO and tribunal decisions is so important. Carlton supporters can almost certainly point to other similar incidents where a player’s action has led to their opponent being concussed but they have inexplicably been let off.

Carlton’s decision to plough on with an appeal is admirable but the game needs to get better at reducing the possibility of concussion. For that reason,Plowman must serve a suspension.