Jordan McLean

[Belly007]

Just want to get the opinion of knights fans on what,if any, punishment Jordan McLean will get.
Should he play again? Do you think it was bad luck and he should get the usual few weeks suspension for a lifting tackle? Do you think it was all his fault? Etc etc.

I think the NRL should make any tackle in which a leg or legs of a player are lifted should bring an immediate penalty. I know that people don't want to see the game be inundated with penalties, however I honestly feel that if the referee's had penalised as soon as the leg was lifted, Alex McKinnon would have been let go and nothing else would have happened. At the end of the day, I'd prefer to see a penalty given instead of someone getting seriously injured.

In regards to Jordan Mclean, I think the NRL have backed themselves into a corner due to Kade Snowden's suspension last year. If the NRL suspend Jordan Mclean there will be an uproar and likewise if they don't. I personally feel that this was an accident and there was no intent or malice involved. This was a combination of events that went wrong in the tackle that led to this outcome. I think by suspending Mclean the NRL are directly blaming him, and I don't feel that's a fair outcome

 

[NoSchitSherlock]

8 weeks minimum for lifting in tackle.
This is an accident waiting to happen.
There may have been no malicious intent but the intent to put the player down with a 3rd man in around the legs is an issue that has been waiting for a serious injury.
More attention needs to be given to that 3rd man in around the legs. Refs need to call held sooner and stop the sort of slow down tactics we are seeing.

I'm not basing 8 weeks on the outcome.

 

[Rod]

He put his hand between the legs (which has been frowned upon for years now) and lifted Alex above the horizontal. From that point on you have to deal with the consequences as far as I'm concerned, and a decent punishment is the only way this sort of tackle will be eradicated from the game (thankfully it's actually not that common now anyway).

I've never understood the constant comments about 'intent' when it comes to severe tackles like these or even reckless high tackles. To me it almost seems like an obvious and redundant statement. Of course McLean didn't 'intend' to purposefully pick up McKinnon, flip him over and drop him on his hard as dangerously as possible. You would have to be a borderline psychopath to do that.

So personally I find comments like he didn't mean to or it was an accident pretty beside the point. Unfortunate for McLean? Yes, but that doesn't mean he should be free of punishment. There has to be some responsibility put on the defenders for the safety of an attacker, who is often in an extremely prone position when they have the ball in one hand and it's 3-on-1.

 

[The Showstopper]

I think McClean is going to be hammered at the judiciary. The game's image is literally at stake. I see 8-12 weeks minimum or maybe an enforced standing down for his own sake. I think him playing is a bad idea. He needs support too. This is such a horrible situation for all.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Hes pleaded not guilty.

 

[madunit]

It wasn't just that tackle though.

Storm were penalised at least twice in that first half alone against Newcastle for lifting in tackles.

Coaching will always push the boundaries. It's the referees job to point out where the boundary is. The big problem here is a reluctance by referees to sin bin or send off players.

McLean made a very abysmal attempt to try and spin McKinnon round in an attempt to slow down the play the ball. If McKinnon hadn't ducked his head down, its possible this horrible tragedy could have been avoided. But thats easy for me to say looking at a replay. Your body takes over and does what it thinks it needs to for self preservation in those split seconds. McKinnon's position when he hit the ground shows that McLean didn't lift him very high at all.

And therein lies the problem.

The refs will blow a penalty once a player goes past the horizontal.

This incident (and many other before it) have shown that this rule is wrong.

Lifting via a hand between the legs is what needs to be outlawed.

 

[jono]

Those who suggest McLean is a victim of circumstance miss the point that if he had never lifted McKinnon's leg none of this would ever have happened.
He has to be accountable......he is not a scapegoat of hysterical hyperbole , he tackled in such a way that resulted in the tragic outcome and needs to be punished.
Would the lifting be in question had said outcome be not so serious? I doubt it , but it should still be under scrutiny nonetheless.
8 weeks

 

[The Showstopper]

I do not envy anyone ajudicating this one bit. This is the most significant league judicial hearing ever with daylight second.

 

[madunit]

I do not envy anyone ajudicating this one bit. This is the most significant league judicial hearing ever with daylight second.

The absurd Snowden case last year where he was suspended essentially because Ray Thompson broke his jaw is going to make this, i think, a crazy verdict. Either way, it won't be long enough to compare with what McKinnon has to now live with.

 

[Knight Vision]

The absurd Snowden case last year where he was suspended essentially because Ray Thompson broke his jaw is going to make this, i think, a crazy verdict. Either way, it won't be long enough to compare with what McKinnon has to now live with.

It's been mentioned before in debates on suspensions that perhaps a player should be suspended for the length of time a player is injured. In this cae that would mean Jordan McLean should never play the game again....even if this was the case he will have gotten off lightly.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

It's been mentioned before in debates on suspensions that perhaps a player should be suspended for the length of time a player is injured. In this cae that would mean Jordan McLean should never play the game again....even if this was the case he will have gotten off lightly.

I've heard that point put across a number of times on the NRL forum and it's ridiculous. I'll give an example of why (I'm not saying u agree with the point you made). Nathan Brown had a genetic spinal condition where his spine narrowed (going from memory here). Let's say he copped a very minor high tackle, but it was just enough for the player to get a one week suspension, or even some points that will be there for loading. As a result it damaged his neck due to the condition that was already there. All of a sudden you have the tacklers career over based on a high tackle that happens most weeks. I don't mind the idea of a player copping a greater punishment if the player is seriously injured, but it's got to be within reason. For instance if Snowden copped 2 weeks for the tackle I would have been fine, because if there was no injury, then Snowden would surely have been let off with no case to argue.

 

[Knight Vision]

I've heard that point put across a number of times on the NRL forum and it's ridiculous. I'll give an example of why (I'm not saying u agree with the point you made). Nathan Brown had a genetic spinal condition where his spine narrowed (going from memory here). Let's say he copped a very minor high tackle, but it was just enough for the player to get a one week suspension, or even some points that will be there for loading. As a result it damaged his neck due to the condition that was already there. All of a sudden you have the tacklers career over based on a high tackle that happens most weeks. I don't mind the idea of a player copping a greater punishment if the player is seriously injured, but it's got to be within reason. For instance if Snowden copped 2 weeks for the tackle I would have been fine, because if there was no injury, then Snowden would surely have been let off with no case to argue.

Point taken - and a good one I must admit

 

[Spot On]

There is really no talk of how the real damage was done, it was clearly the weight of two front rowers with all their weight bearing down that proved the vital blow, the one arm in between the legs - that action only cause his top half of the body to go over, his legs hardly went anywhere near the horizontal, and withe the two other blokes, their 240 kg combined drilled his head into the turf just as alex tucked his head down.

Long suspension………..get real, complete accident, and if they suspend him on the injury out of it, the judiciary members ought to resign. Nothing but an accident.

If Maclean slides down his legs and the other two continue their tackle, he doesn't get lifted. No lift = no problem.

 

[cram]

Guilty...now for the penalty


http://m.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-p...to-alex-mckinnon/story-e6frf3sc-1226872610681

 

[Apey]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...to-alex-mckinnon/story-fni3gpfg-1226872610681

Video with Steve Hart said the defence argued that McKinnon put himself into the dangerous position. McKinnon was apparently the major contributor for being put into a dangerous position.

... I don't even know what to say if that's true.

 

[The Showstopper]

Hope they get this right.

 

[Alex28]

Either way it will be right - lengthy sentence is a just reward for lifting in a tackle and dropping head first. Short sentence recognises how guilty the guy feels and what he has to live with.

Personally I want to see a long sentence to get lifting out of the game (also because the defence has the hide to ask for a 1 week sentence), however if he gets 3 weeks I wouldn't be that disappointed...

 

[Alex28]

7 weeks. Pretty fair.

 

[Rod]

I don't have any complaints about that.

 

[Yosh]

The kid must feel just terrible as well...

Is there any system in place where the nrl or the club are legally obliged to take care of Alex in any way?

I'm gonna assume he'll get well compensated right? Through insurance or something?

Edit: probably should have posted in the Alex thread..