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

[lockyno1]

Would be two weeks for an early guilty plea unless there is loading or caryover points

Would be happy with that. Massive deterrent.

Grade 1: 375
Grade 2: 575
Grade 3: 775
Grade 4: Referred to the Judiciary (10 +)

 

[lockyno1]

My thoughts as well. He wasn't driven into the ground with any real force but 350kg of weight went right into the poor guys neck when they landed on him

Then limit the tackle to two people which I have been saying for years. As soon as the third mad comes in, doesn't matter if it is 1m from the line, it is a penalty!

 

[magpie4ever]

The idea that a guy who beats respect into people, is raising a child, should concern child protection services in Newcastle.

Or Thailand with the Russian T-girl.:lol:

While I don't condone season vet's comments.

The way Alex dipped his head into his chest does require answers as to why. It was not an instinctive movement.

My question is: are players being coached to flip themselves in potential lifting tackles to obtain a penalty or a quick play the ball?

 

[betcats]

The way Alex dipped his head into his chest does require answers as to why. It was not an instinctive movement.

Why question is: are players being coached to flip themselves in potential lifting tackles to obtain a penalty or a quick play the ball?

There is no way you could know that, no way at all.

 

[andrew057]

It was a very unfortunate accident. None of the players involved should be serving more than a week or two imo.

 

[lockyno1]

It was a very unfortunate accident. None of the players involved should be serving more than a week or two imo.

That is why the NRL is belted in the papers- the penalties are too lenient. Should get 8 weeks dead minimum.

 

[Garbler]

First of all thoughts go out to Alex.

Many seem to be to resigned to the fact that it was an accident within the rules.
But was it an accident waiting to happen?
If the NRL makes no rule changes or don't increase penalties for lifting (above horizontal and/or in gang tackles), is this likely to happen again in 1,2,10 years time?

I'm not saying either way just questions...

 

[Knight Vision]

I just wrote to the Melbourne Storm Football Club

To whom it may concern


I have never felt the urge to contact a football club before but the event of the last football game compels me to do so. I love to watch the great game and have for many decades.


I'm immensely saddened by the tragedy of what's happened to the young Newcastle boy Alex McKinnon as I think everyone is.


What saddens me more is the shame I feel for your club and your Captain Cameron Smith. No doubt you have seen the social media "storm" his comments on the field have started? Imagine this poor young bloke Alex on the ground unable to feel part of his body and the rush of shock taking over as he not only sees all his footballing dreams evaporate but perhaps his chance of a decent future as well. Just imagine as the world closes in around him the voice he can hear in the distance is of a petulant child ( your Captain ) arguing that it was his ( Mckinnons ) fault.


Cameron Smith in this moment brought shame upon himself , the Melbourne Storm Football Club and the game in general. Any decent person with honor and any sense of sportsmanship would find his actions a disgrace. Whether he knew of the severity of this young mans injury is irrelevant.


Let's all hope that Alex Mckinnon gets through this difficult time.

 

[magpie4ever]

There is no way you could know that, no way at all.

Bullshit, while I don't wish to watch it again, someone else can than say if was it an instinctive protective movement. I say, it was not and I want to know why.

 

[ek999]

Then limit the tackle to two people which I have been saying for years. As soon as the third mad comes in, doesn't matter if it is 1m from the line, it is a penalty!

I agree but there is some issues though. Players like G Burgess, Kasiano etc need multiple people to bring them down, they would be near unstoppable when attacking the try line if only 1 or 2 could attempt to stop them.

In general play it would be fine if you allow players who tackle around the legs to be able to roll into marker position over the tackled player which I think should be allowed now. The disadvantage a good around the legs tackle allowing a quick play the ball needs to be cut from the game. A lot more smaller men would be able to defend in the line better.

 

[Tucantango]

Just on the legal side (I don't have a law degree), would the matter (if it occurs) happen in a NSW Court - given the NRL Head Office is based in Sydney or Victoria - given the incident happened in Melbourne.

Regards, your legal opinion - surely, the fact that league is a contact sports and accidents will happen (causing, at times, serious injury) would have some standing and given that insurances would come into play would negate the ability to sue.

M4E,

firstly mate, long time no speak! Hope you're well. Without naming names I have noticed your young lad's name in the 'Rugby League' game sheets for SGB. I didn't realise he had changed clubs. What is the deal there? He obviously wants to emulate his father's glory days, albeit with the other side of the joint venture arrangement ... LMAO!

To answer your questions, the legalities could become quite complex. For example you have alluded to a very important point; the fact that the injury was sustained in Victoria. Given that such matters are prosecuted in "Tort" (i.e. via a civil action) then Victoria would be the place to bring such an action. It doesn't generally matter where the parties reside, only where the cause of action arises, and thus the jurisdiction of the Court.

I cant speak for Victorian law but it is my understanding that the NSW 'Civil Liability Act' puts caps how much a litigant can receive when suing for sporting accidents which are sustained during the normal course of the sport (i.e. appreciable risks). However the legality of the 'tackle' which is now being brought into question, could possibly remove such a cap as the tackle (if deemed illegal) would not be within the normal course of the game. Again this is NSW law, and I dare say it could be different in Victoria. We might have someone better than I to answer these questions pertaining to personal injury.

In addition in NSW we have employee liability laws which prevent the employee being sued (i.e. the employee is indemnified by the employer) if the accident occurs in the normal course of that employees employment and is not misconduct or gross negligence. You be the judge on the tackle. But again I am only aware of how the NSW laws apply.

Given that this matter has interstatedness (i.e. it involves two states) and probably involves a whole host of private insurance policies we could see the involvement of the Federal Court.

With respect to workers insurance I might add that the NSW Workcover authority administers a 'sporting insurance scheme' and given that his employer is based in NSW it might bring this into play.

 

[lockyno1]

I agree but there is some issues though. Players like G Burgess, Kasiano etc need multiple people to bring them down, they would be near unstoppable when attacking the try line if only 1 or 2 could attempt to stop them.

Tackle their legs, you can easily tackle them with 2 people, heck you can do it with 1 person. Limit to 2 people, end of story.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Lockys suggestion of allowing the ball to be dropped if lifted is a good one because it has little if no impact on the game.

And of course the benefit of allowing a player to better control his fall.




It would be likely that a player wouldn't remember to do it in all instances but at least the option would be there & a player wouldn't feel the pressure to retain the ball.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

My thoughts as well. He wasn't driven into the ground with any real force but 350kg of weight went right into the poor guys neck when they landed on him

This is why the situation of the player being put into that dangerous position needs to have harsher penalty. As has been said, lifting tackles have been banned for some time now. We've all seen the dangerous positions players have been put in, only for a penalty to be blown.

I would agree with an automatic 2-3 week suspension any time a player grabs someone between the legs and lifts them past the horizontal.

Those who use the technique will be called out pretty quickly, and the points loading system will mean that they'll be spending some pretty lengthy amounts of time out if they don't change their ways.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Tackle their legs, you can easily tackle them with 2 people, heck you can do it with 1 person. Limit to 2 people, end of story.

Not near the try line though.


It would be an almost automatic try for some players if you limited a tackle to two players only.



You would have to have an exception for inside the 10 meters. And that's starting to make it overly complicated .

 

[seanoff]

Even low tackles and front-on tackles driving the player backwards can cause the legs to lift - I believe it is not achievable.

one on one, probably ok. comes in as shit happens.

third man in, living above horizontal. Goodbye. immediate send off, 4 weeks. no interpretation for the refs. if it happens. see ya later.

as for the law.

NSW
In New South Wales your injury has to be completely stabilised to pursue a lump sum claim (aka Common Law Claim) and your work related impairment is over 15% for physical and psychological injuries. Negligence also has to be established from the workplace accident.

Pursing a NSW Common Law Claim takes your past and future losses into consideration as well as the pain your have been going through and the agony. The insurance companies does not take these into account which therefore limits your compensation. The Common Law Claim is through the grounds of the legal scheme. Some of the benefits include:
- Past and future pecuniary losses
- Past and future health expenses
- Past and future out of pocket costs
- Pain and suffering.


VIC
To pursue a Common Law claim negligence has to be established. If your employer was negligent for your injury and you have sustained an injury that has left you with a permanent disability of 30% whole person impairment, have ongoing medical treatment and loss of wages then you may be entitled to run a Common Law Claim.

What are the benefits of pursuing a common Law Claim in Victoria?
Pursing a Common Law Claim in the state of Victoria can help recover your past and future losses and pain and suffering that the insurance company just does not take into account. Therefore this can help you significantly with your financial concerns and also emotionally as you will have the support with you during the life of your Victoria Workers Compensation Claim. By seeking legal advice you will be educated on your further entitlements after a workplace injury.

from my reading being made a quad will get you $257.000 in insurance payout. if you can prove negligence. pretty much uncapped.

 

[Danish]

Why are people assuming what he will and won't need and how much it will cost when the doctors haven't even brought him out of the coma yet?

It's stupid people assuming all this shit said in this thread based on a small article about his condition. Going into what his life will be like for the next ten years to what will happen when he sues.

How about we wait and see how he is once all the surgery is finished and he is out of the coma first?

Yes by some complete and utter miracle he could be moonwalking out of the hospital in a few months. Does that mean that the NRL community shouldn't all band together now and start raising money for the kid's much more likely very lengthy rehabilitation?

I mean really, the worst that can happen is the knights, all 15 other clubs, and the NRL creates a charity collecting money for Alex. He then makes a miraculous recovery and doesn't need any help so all cash gets donated to spinal injury organisations instead.

Seems like it would be worth it to do either way to me.

 

[magpie4ever]

M4E,

firstly mate, long time no speak! Hope you're well. Without naming names I have noticed your young lad's name in the 'Rugby League' game sheets for SGB. I didn't realise he had changed clubs. What is the deal there? He obviously wants to emulate his father's glory days, albeit with the other side of the joint venture arrangement ... LMAO!

To answer your questions, the legalities could become quite complex. For example you have alluded to a very important point; the fact that the injury was sustained in Victoria. Given that such matters are prosecuted in "Tort" (i.e. via a civil action) then Victoria would be the place to bring such an action. It doesn't generally matter where the parties reside, only where the cause of action arises, and thus the jurisdiction of the Court.

I cant speak for Victorian law but it is my understanding that the NSW 'Civil Liability Act' puts caps how much a litigant can receive when suing for sporting accidents which are sustained during the normal course of the sport (i.e. appreciable risks). However the legality of the 'tackle' which is now being brought into question, could possibly remove such a cap as the tackle (if deemed illegal) would not be within the normal course of the game. Again this is NSW law, and I dare say it could be different in Victoria. We might have someone better than I to answer these questions pertaining to personal injury.

In addition in NSW we have employee liability laws which prevent the employee being sued (i.e. the employee is indemnified by the employer) if the accident occurs in the normal course of that employees employment and is not misconduct or gross negligence. You be the judge on the tackle. But again I am only aware of how the NSW laws apply.

Given that this matter has interstatedness (i.e. it involves two states) and probably involves a whole host of private insurance policies we could see the involvement of the Federal Court.

With respect to workers insurance I might add that the NSW Workcover authority administers a 'sporting insurance scheme' and given that his employer is based in NSW it might bring this into play.

Yeah, blew out a groin muscle in the last trial and only returned last week, the unnamed team has a very big assignment this week

 

[lockyno1]

Not near the try line though.


It would be an almost automatic try for some players if you limited a tackle to two players only.

You would have to have an exception for inside the 10 meters. And that's starting to make it overly complicated .

Yo can use 3, it would be a penalty, the deterrent is there. I think the NRL must act, this really should have been done 2-3 years ago though.

 

[El Diablo]

Yo can use 3, it would be a penalty, the deterrent is there. I think the NRL must act, this really should have been done 2-3 years ago though.

you are an idiot

increasing the penalty would not have prevented this from occurring

it was not intentional