Alex McKinnon possibly Quadriplegic - Mclean guilty of dangerous throw - 7 weeks

[Noname36]

A statement from the Knights about this was inevitable. No doubt they've already been asked for their reaction to it a lot.

 

[Evenflow]

I was probably getting mixed up with the early guilty plea where you can get a reduced sentence.

Still, I don't think pleading guilty implies intent at all, unless the charge carries an implication of intent itself.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to come across as purely sticking up for my club/player I'm certainly not being insensitive to Alex McKinnon/Knights and their fans. Like every true RL supporter I'm absolutely gutted for the young bloke and no doubt that's felt even more by the Knights and their fans. It's been said plenty before but I'll say it once more, there's absolutely no winners out of this and we can only hope Alex recovers as best he possibly can.

 

[Tommax25]

Out of curiosity if the NRL had stood McLean down as they originally intended would that match have been taken off the end result? Would his 7 match ban that was handed down this week be effectively 6 matches starting this weekend?

 

[Knight Vision]

See the link below A story very close to home. Perfect analogy whos timing couldn't be better so here we go.

If Jordan Mcleans brother had punched a guy ( illegal ) and he got a black eye Tony Mclean would of gotten what ? a slap on the wrist ? Tony Mclean instead punched a guy and who hit his head and had a brain hemorrhage so Tony Mclean gets jail time.

Jordan Mclean lifts in a tackle ( illegal ) Mckinnon gets a bruise and nothing more what would Jordan get ? on report ? Jordan Mclean instead lifts in a tackle and Mckinnon suffers a spinal injury so Jordan Mclean gets 7 lousy weeks ??

Are you kidding me ?:crazy:

Perhaps his brother Tony Mclean should of just asked the guy for a game of footy instead ? Pathetic !!:crazy:

"Tony McLean - the brother of NRL forward Jordan McLean - has been sentenced to three years' jail for a single-punch attack outside a pub."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/tony-mclean-brother-of-jordan-jailed-for-singlepunch-attack-20140403-zqqdr.html#ixzz2xqEQsS1W"http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/tony-mclean-brother-of-jordan-jailed-for-singlepunch-attack-20140403-zqqdr.html

 

[Surrogate]

See the link below A story very close to home. Perfect analogy whos timing couldn't be better so here we go.

If Jordan Mcleans brother had punched a guy ( illegal ) and he got a black eye Tony Mclean would of gotten what ? a slap on the wrist ? Tony Mclean instead punched a guy and who hit his head and had a brain hemorrhage so Tony Mclean gets jail time.

Jordan Mclean lifts in a tackle ( illegal ) Mckinnon gets a bruise and nothing more what would Jordan get ? on report ? Jordan Mclean instead lifts in a tackle and Mckinnon suffers a spinal injury so Jordan Mclean gets 7 lousy weeks ??

Are you kidding me ?:crazy:

Perhaps his brother Tony Mclean should of just asked the guy for a game of footy instead ? Pathetic !!:crazy:

"Tony McLean - the brother of NRL forward Jordan McLean - has been sentenced to three years' jail for a single-punch attack outside a pub."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/tony-mclean-brother-of-jordan-jailed-for-singlepunch-attack-20140403-zqqdr.html#ixzz2xqEQsS1W"http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/tony-mclean-brother-of-jordan-jailed-for-singlepunch-attack-20140403-zqqdr.html

What a pathetic comparison.
Different context and circumstances.
The closest example I can think of is when Brett White decked Steve Price in SOO knocking him out cold. White was not suspended.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I really don't get the mindset of the people who say that the outcome shouldn't have effected the penalty. People have been saying for ages that shoulder charges shouldn't have been banned but throw the book at players when it goes wrong. Now we have a situation where a seemingly innocuous tackle has gone wrong and people don't want the outcome to be factored in.

The "there's been 20 worse tackles in the last week" rubbish is just that. There have been no worse tackles in my lifetime though there have been many that were much more dramatic in appearance. This injury is EXACTLY what the lifting rules are set to prevent. I have no issue with the 7 weeks (though I would have had no issue with 4 or 12 either). Hopefully the NRL looks at methods of preventing this from happening again.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the argument for shoulder charges.

When people said ban players when it went wrong they meant ban players when the tackle goes above the shoulders(wrong), not ban players when someone is injured.

Just as people say lifting is legal but ban the when they go past the horizontal.

It's a perfectly reasonable argument given there is no evidence that shoulder charges below the neck are a great danger, just as there's no real evidence that lifting tackles that don't go beyond the horizontal are a great danger.

Simple, really.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

guess you'll be demanding union ban competitive scrums?

Your argument makes no sense. Union fans love lifting tackles. It's about the only time you see anything resembling a big hit in the game.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

What a ridiculous statement. Did either of those tackles result in serious injury ?

The Judiciary made it quite clear last year that the outcome affects the punishment. Why do people still fail to understand that ?

People understand it very well. They just, rightly, think that its bullshit.

If you only come down hard when there's an injury all you're effectively doing is encouraging players to break the rules and perform dangerous tackles, given the majority of the time injuries don't result from them. Use a bit of logic.

Some of you people are thick as f**k. Genuinely.

 

[Bman26]

Just throwing it out there, pretty weak from the Knights to expect the two guys who had the top of McKinnon to be charged, Grade 2 Accessory to dangerous throw? They didn't do any lifting, although their weight came down on him they didn't drive him into the ground

Secondly, the Club is disappointed only McLean was charged. His defence acknowledged the involvement of his two teammates in the tackle contributed to Alex's injury, however they have escaped penalty.

 

[georgesnmith]

well done men of league.

might give you guys some money this week for the first time.

good charity.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

What a pathetic comparison.
Different context and circumstances.
The closest example I can think of is when Brett White decked Steve Price in SOO knocking him out cold. White was not suspended.

It isn't even in the same ball park... Price would have been walking that day. McKinnon has a battle to move, let alone walk ever again.

The point being made is that even our justice system works to make the outcome of a crime depend on the damage done to the individual. While I don't in anyway condone what McLean did I do not believe he intended to injure... The bottom line is sitting 7 weeks out for something he knew he shouldn't do, compared to spending your life battling to do what most of take for granted is not something I think we shouldn't even enter into comparing or debating further. If I was a Storm official, I would be far more worried about the mental state of this player than getting him back on the field right now.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Newcastle’s fury: ‘Offensive’ NRL judiciary slammed by Knights over handling of Alex McKinnon tragedy

JOSH MASSOUD THE DAILY TELEGRAPH APRIL 04, 2014 12:00AM

STRICKEN Knight Alex McKinnon has commenced discussions with a lawyer, as his club slammed the NRL judiciary’s handling of the tragedy as “offensive” and “insensitive”.

In a dramatic aftermath to Jordan McLean’s seven-week suspension on Wednesday night, Newcastle issued an explosive statement that criticised the judiciary and match review committee for:

•Not charging the two other Melbourne players involved in the tackle; Jesse and Kenny Bromwich.

•Allowing McLean to take the field last weekend.

•Allowing suggestions that McKinnon contributed to the injury by ducking his head just before impact with the turf.

•General inconsistencies in grading.

The Daily Telegraph can also reveal McKinnon’s management has made contact with a Sydney-based lawyer, Daniel McGirr, to handle his future affairs.

There has been no discussion of any legal claim as yet, with the immediate focus fixed on establishing McKinnon’s final diagnosis and the extent of insurance offered by the NRL.

Melbourne are also giving further consideration to appeal McLean’s ban, but Storm officials would have been ambushed by the boldness of Newcastle’s statement on Thursday night.

Having remained silent about the judiciary process since McKinnon’s injury last Monday, the Knights vented their frustrations “with the inconsistencies in relation to the NRL judiciary”.

Newcastle were most incensed with suggestions – tentatively advanced by McLean’s defence counsel Nick Ghabar on Wednesday night – that McKinnon had contributed to the injury.

The statement read: “Firstly, the Club takes great offence to suggestions Alex McKinnon contributed to his injury when he was totally helpless in a three-man tackle and left with no ability to protect himself.”

The remark is reflective of coach Wayne Bennett’s long-held opposition to gang tackles.

Further criticisms of the grading and charging process also echo Bennett’s anger over prop Kade Snowden receiving a seven-week suspension late last year for a contentious shoulder charge that broke the jaw of Cowboys utility Ray Thompson.

The Knights felt all three Storm tacklers should have been charged, and also expressed disappointment the NRL’s initial decision to stand down McLean was overturned last week.

“Secondly, the club is disappointed only McLean was charged,” the statement continued.

“His defence acknowledged the involvement of his two teammates in the tackle contributed to Alex’s injury, however they have escaped penalty.

“Thirdly, the club applauds the NRL’s decision to postpone the hearing while everyone focused on Alex’s recovery, however found it insensitive McLean was permitted to play before Wednesday’s hearing.

“Finally, while the Club understands the length of suspension was always going to polarise opinion, the major disappointment lies in the grave inconsistencies of gradings, especially in comparison to recent cases.”

It emerged on Thursday that McLean’s tackle was classified as a grade two dangerous throw, after judiciary chairman Paul Conlon answered calls to release the panel’s breakdown of the 725-point penalty.

That meant the penalty ascribed 400 points – or four games – to the severity of McKinnon’s injury.

NRL boss Dave Smith personally spoke to McLean after the hearing to offer his support.

Should McLean accept the suspension, it’s likely he will take at least one week off to clear his head and possibly return to family in Canberra.

NRL head of football Todd Greenberg expressed his sympathy for all involved, including the judiciary panel.

“There has been no case like this in recent memory and it was always going to be a difficult case for the independent panel,” Greenberg said.

“There is a process in place which was followed but it is clearly a tragic and extraordinary set of circumstance that we are dealing with.”

McKinnon remains in a Melbourne hospital with immediate family by his side after emerging from a coma earlier this week.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...mckinnon-tragedy/story-fni3fbgz-1226873987340

 

[georgesnmith]

rather then engaging in an internet war, if people actually care go out and donate this week to the men of league

do something positive.

 

[Noname36]

^ I certainly agree with the Knights (although seems it's coming mostly from Bennett) that allowing McLean to play on the weekend and the defence that it was McKinnon's fault is disgraceful. Don't agree that the other two Melbourne players could have been charged though. I can understand Bennett's dislike of gang tackles but honestly we'd be opening up a whole can of worms based mostly on one tragic incident if we tried to control that.

 

[STORM.99/07]

why does bennett still allow his players to gang tackle if he hates it so much.willie mason says every club still does it.

 

[Noname36]

why does bennett still allow his players to gang tackle if he hates it so much.willie mason says every club still does it.

It's like the wrestle. A lot of coaches hate it but you get left behind if you're the only side not doing it.

 

[snickers007]

Gotta love Newcastle taking the moral high ground here.

Last year when Jeremy Smith was charged with headslamming Matt Robinson (who left the field on a stretcher, wearing a neck brace), the first thing Newcastle used as a defence was 'Jarrod Mullen was in control of that tackle', much like Melbourne's 'Bromwich Bros contributed' defence.

Newcastle's claims of McClean's defense being 'disgraceful' is ridiculous. Melbourne were trying to get the best result for their club, just like Newcastle have everytime they have a player at the judiciary. Calling out someone else for being self-serving is the height of selfishness, and detracts from the otherwise great work they've done thus far supporting Alex McKinnon.

 

[macavity]

Newcastle are entitled to claim the high ground here.

Melbourne are literally a disgrace to the game in every way. This "accident" is a direct result of the way Melbourne have shaped the way defence is played. Their (cheating) success has forced the rest of the comp to adopt their tactics to keep up. Can't get that worm back in the can, and it is killing the game and looks to have crippled its first player. Drastic rule changes will be required which will fundamentally change the game again.

Of course the PC brigade don't like hearing this.

 

[betcats]

Melbourne are cheating scum that is for sure, but it was an accident.

 

[Apey]

Newcastle?s fury: ?Offensive? NRL judiciary slammed by Knights over handling of Alex McKinnon tragedy

JOSH MASSOUD THE DAILY TELEGRAPH APRIL 04, 2014 12:00AM

STRICKEN Knight Alex McKinnon has commenced discussions with a lawyer, as his club slammed the NRL judiciary?s handling of the tragedy as ?offensive? and ?insensitive?.

In a dramatic aftermath to Jordan McLean?s seven-week suspension on Wednesday night, Newcastle issued an explosive statement that criticised the judiciary and match review committee for:

?Not charging the two other Melbourne players involved in the tackle; Jesse and Kenny Bromwich.

?Allowing McLean to take the field last weekend.

?Allowing suggestions that McKinnon contributed to the injury by ducking his head just before impact with the turf.

?General inconsistencies in grading.

The Daily Telegraph can also reveal McKinnon?s management has made contact with a Sydney-based lawyer, Daniel McGirr, to handle his future affairs.

There has been no discussion of any legal claim as yet, with the immediate focus fixed on establishing McKinnon?s final diagnosis and the extent of insurance offered by the NRL.

Melbourne are also giving further consideration to appeal McLean?s ban, but Storm officials would have been ambushed by the boldness of Newcastle?s statement on Thursday night.

Having remained silent about the judiciary process since McKinnon?s injury last Monday, the Knights vented their frustrations ?with the inconsistencies in relation to the NRL judiciary?.

Newcastle were most incensed with suggestions ? tentatively advanced by McLean?s defence counsel Nick Ghabar on Wednesday night ? that McKinnon had contributed to the injury.

The statement read: ?Firstly, the Club takes great offence to suggestions Alex McKinnon contributed to his injury when he was totally helpless in a three-man tackle and left with no ability to protect himself.?

The remark is reflective of coach Wayne Bennett?s long-held opposition to gang tackles.

Further criticisms of the grading and charging process also echo Bennett?s anger over prop Kade Snowden receiving a seven-week suspension late last year for a contentious shoulder charge that broke the jaw of Cowboys utility Ray Thompson.

The Knights felt all three Storm tacklers should have been charged, and also expressed disappointment the NRL?s initial decision to stand down McLean was overturned last week.

?Secondly, the club is disappointed only McLean was charged,? the statement continued.

?His defence acknowledged the involvement of his two teammates in the tackle contributed to Alex?s injury, however they have escaped penalty.

?Thirdly, the club applauds the NRL?s decision to postpone the hearing while everyone focused on Alex?s recovery, however found it insensitive McLean was permitted to play before Wednesday?s hearing.

?Finally, while the Club understands the length of suspension was always going to polarise opinion, the major disappointment lies in the grave inconsistencies of gradings, especially in comparison to recent cases.?

It emerged on Thursday that McLean?s tackle was classified as a grade two dangerous throw, after judiciary chairman Paul Conlon answered calls to release the panel?s breakdown of the 725-point penalty.

That meant the penalty ascribed 400 points ? or four games ? to the severity of McKinnon?s injury.

NRL boss Dave Smith personally spoke to McLean after the hearing to offer his support.

Should McLean accept the suspension, it?s likely he will take at least one week off to clear his head and possibly return to family in Canberra.

NRL head of football Todd Greenberg expressed his sympathy for all involved, including the judiciary panel.

?There has been no case like this in recent memory and it was always going to be a difficult case for the independent panel,? Greenberg said.

?There is a process in place which was followed but it is clearly a tragic and extraordinary set of circumstance that we are dealing with.?

McKinnon remains in a Melbourne hospital with immediate family by his side after emerging from a coma earlier this week.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...mckinnon-tragedy/story-fni3fbgz-1226873987340

lol what a terrible article. Basically just a dramatisation of the Knights' statement with a classic "The DT can reveal..." something that was obviously and inevitably going to happen.