OT: Alex Mckinnon

[Gary Gutful]

I doubt Les Boyd eats fruit.

 

[84 Baby]

True, but there's a fair difference in the intent and negligence on the part of the defenders between this:
View attachment 10910

And this:
View attachment 10911
It's a tackle that's gone wrong in my opinion. Tragic, but certainly an accident.

Think McKinnon made the comparison too, the person in the car who loses concentration for a second and hits a pedestrian could be sued and no one would bat an eyelid.
There are hundreds of workers comp cases each year that would be even better comparisons.
Sure McKinnon goes into the game knowing the risk of injury, but an illegal action whether done with any degree of intention raises that risk and so the onus was on McLean not to perform that action.
That said, it's a tough position on McLean. Light years away from McKinnon's position, but still. I think McKinnon's action against him may be a bit contingent on his case against NRL, which who knows how that will go. NFL & WWE have had big cases go against them, while others get ripped up or the player runs out of lawsuit money

 

[strider]

I doubt Les Boyd eats fruit.

Daryl Brohman probably only ate pureed fruit for some time afterwards tho

 

[Gary Gutful]

Daryl Brohman probably only ate pureed fruit for some time afterwards tho

He would have found a way to puree a 21 piece feed from KFC.

 

[The Phelan Folly]

Adam Ritson successfully sued the Raiders for the John Lomax tackle as well.

 

[natheel]

Oh for sure, but the lawyers will clean up in the process, they'll probably end up taking a sizeable chunk of his settlement/payout. In a manner of speaking, he'll never "win." He lost out the minute he was paralysed.

It's sickening how much lawyers charge.

 

[The Charlatan]

Adam Ritson successfully sued the Raiders for the John Lomax tackle as well.

Ritson should have bought Lomax a beer, not sued him. It was the brain scan from that tackle that found the cyst that could have killed him.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Ritson should have bought Lomax a beer, not sued him. It was the brain scan from that tackle that found the cyst that could have killed him.

Excellent. So, if he had have been assaulted in the street, and subsequently discovered the cyst, should he have bought his assailant a beer or two?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yes the circumstances were apples and oranges, I cited the Les Boyd case as a precedent of where a player has launched civil action against another player because of an injury sustained in a match.

Basically when you a play a contact sport, you consent to people committing acts on you that would otherwise be an assault....if they are within the rules of the game. If you do the Les Boyd, or the Hoppa (elbow on the ranga), you have clearly exceeded the protection afforded by the rules of the game. Most other stuff is somewhere in the murky middle.

 

[Happy MEel]

Basically when you a play a contact sport, you consent to people committing acts on you that would otherwise be an assault....if they are within the rules of the game. If you do the Les Boyd, or the Hoppa (elbow on the ranga), you have clearly exceeded the protection afforded by the rules of the game. Most other stuff is somewhere in the murky middle.

This is why I think he might struggle to win a civil lawsuit against the NRL, Storm and McLean.
There wasn't a hell of a lot wrong with the tackle aside from a hand between the legs. The defence could show countless examples of lifting tackles with an arm between the legs that the player doesn't go past the horizontal.

 

[The Charlatan]

Excellent. So, if he had have been assaulted in the street, and subsequently discovered the cyst, should he have bought his assailant a beer or two?

It was light humour champ. I don't blame him for suing Lomax at all, just saying that the high shot was serendipitous in a manner of speaking and saved his life.

 

[parra pete]

Wonder what we would do if it was US injured in the tackle?

Being the affected party often changes the mindset. Being confined to a wheelchair with no prospects of getting out of it gives the 'victim' plenty of time to contemplate.

Good on him for exploring every avenue open to him. If he is entitled to it, he'll get it..otherwise he won't.
He needs lawyers to do the work for him, that's the way the system works...They need to get paid too - win or lose. Alex will need the best in the business to be successful.

 

[84 Baby]

Basically when you a play a contact sport, you consent to people committing acts on you that would otherwise be an assault....if they are within the rules of the game. If you do the Les Boyd, or the Hoppa (elbow on the ranga), you have clearly exceeded the protection afforded by the rules of the game. Most other stuff is somewhere in the murky middle.

This is why I think he might struggle to win a civil lawsuit against the NRL, Storm and McLean.
There wasn't a hell of a lot wrong with the tackle aside from a hand between the legs. The defence could show countless examples of lifting tackles with an arm between the legs that the player doesn't go past the horizontal.

McLean - has problem that his tackle was illegal per NRL suspension, court don't have to follow, but it's the obvious reason why he is getting sued. (If the court choose to ignore judiciary decision, what impact will this have on future judiciary? Probably none knowing NRL). But given it was in common enough incident in sport probably doubtful that the court smash him for full compo even if they do deem him 'guilty'. (see next)
Storm & NRL - could be an interesting case at least. Where does vicarious liability lie for players? Are there any grounds for unsafe work conditions or do the players accept this onus? If there are unsafe work conditions, who are liable for these for players/industry? A lot of these problems been answered in previous cases & (hopefully) NRL/club protocols, but if not could be good case

 

[The EELiminator]

i wonder if McLean will bring cam smith in as his lawyer
the merkin did a good job arguing his case with the ref for 10 minutes on the field

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

i wonder if McLean will bring cam smith in as his lawyer
the merkin did a good job arguing his case with the ref for 10 minutes on the field

That was one of the more disgusting things I've seen (in footy). He kept going well after it was clear that the poor bugger had suffered a serious injury.

 

[parra pete]

Straw Andrews suffered a broken neck when tackled by Newtown second rower John Oakley in 1962.
He was aptly named straw, because he was a "bean stalk" with blonde hair.."A real gone surfer boy yeah yeah'

http://au.askmen.com/sports/fanatic/the-spear-tackle.html

 

[Kornstar]

That was one of the more disgusting things I've seen (in footy). He kept going well after it was clear that the poor bugger had suffered a serious injury.

That's the part that has really stuck with me. He kept arguing for the sake of a f**king penalty, from memory it was clear McLean wasn't going to be sent off at some point and then he continued arguing about the validity of a simple penalty.........i never used to dislike Smith until that night.

It astounds me how anyone can defend him for his actions that night, and plenty have tried.

 

[The EELiminator]

That's the part that has really stuck with me. He kept arguing for the sake of a f**king penalty, from memory it was clear McLean wasn't going to be sent off at some point and then he continued arguing about the validity of a simple penalty.

to be fair bitching at the refs is probably just a reflex action to him now

 

[Gronk]

 

[Gronk]

Works fine bro