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

[edabomb]

So it's okay to put a player in a dangerous position if it is his reflex to this dangerous position that causes the injury?

 

[herbert henry1908]

mxlegend - then how do you explain the Snowden suspension last year for 7 weeks when there were far worse shoulder charges given no suspension at all (or minor suspensions - in the case of SBW)?

If this isn't treated the same way, then the judiciary is clearly biased towards certain teams.

Or they realise they stuffed that up big time & don't do the same thing again.

 

[perverse]

Or they realise they stuffed that up big time & don't do the same thing again.

They won't realise shit.

 

[nick87]

Bollocks. Snowden got 7 weeks last year because Ray Thompson ran his face into a stationary shoulder (mere weeks after SBW had broken Willie Masons face with a far more aggressive shoulder charge). The judiciary stated that severity of injury is taken into account when handing out suspensions after the Snowden incident.

I agree with you that there are far worse tackles, but there were far worse shoulder charges last year, too. If the judiciary is to have any consistency at all - there should be at least 5 weeks on this.

3 points:

1. The judicary have NEVER felt the need to be consistant before, I'm not sure why you'd expect them to do so now.

2. Consistancy for the sake of it, is hands down the dumbest concept every thought of. If the previous decisions where wrong (and judging by the tone of your post, you very much think the Snowden decision was wrong), why would you want them to consistant make the incorrect decision.

3. Even if i ignore the first 2 points, Snowden was far more culpable for his incident than the storm players were in this.

 

[Nuffy]

Referee boss has already stated that one it was not a send off offence and two be more then likely no suspension. The hyperbole is incredible. :?

Instead of trying to crucify players or a team how about we just keep it to best wishes for Alex.

The guy was heading into the ground at 45 degrees with the first point of contact going to be his nose. He had to do something.

If the NRL excuse it then its a travesty of the highest order. But it is Melbourne so the NRL will take it easy.

Snowden got 7 weeks for a non shoulder charge that was a the lowest end of bad, he got loaded up because of the injury.

These blokes should get plenty if there is any justice.

 

[perverse]

3 points:

1. The judicary have NEVER felt the need to be consistant before, I'm not sure why you'd expect them to do so now.

2. Consistancy for the sake of it, is hands down the dumbest concept every thought of. If the previous decisions where wrong (and judging by the tone of your post, you very much think the Snowden decision was wrong), why would you want them to consistant make the incorrect decision.

3. Even if i ignore the first 2 points, Snowden was far more culpable for his incident than the storm players were in this.

Every player knows that you don't lift between the legs, especially past the horizontal. Unless you're in serious need of glasses, that's exactly what happened to McKinnon. It's a soft one, but Snowdens was equally soft.

So we just continue to let the judiciary do as it pleases? No, better yet, we advocate that they have no consistency, as long as they "learn from their mistakes" (which they never do?). When does one consider a precedence set?

Do we only give out lengthy suspensions when JT or another high profile star whinges about it in the media? How the hell do you figure Snowden was any more culpable in Thompsons injury? It was a lazy shoulder at quarter pace, nothing more.

 

[Noname36]

3 points:

1. The judicary have NEVER felt the need to be consistant before, I'm not sure why you'd expect them to do so now.

2. Consistancy for the sake of it, is hands down the dumbest concept every thought of. If the previous decisions where wrong (and judging by the tone of your post, you very much think the Snowden decision was wrong), why would you want them to consistant make the incorrect decision.

3. Even if i ignore the first 2 points, Snowden was far more culpable for his incident than the storm players were in this.

How do you figure that?

 

[Stinkler]

mxlegend - then how do you explain the Snowden suspension last year for 7 weeks when there were far worse shoulder charges given no suspension at all (or minor suspensions - in the case of SBW)?

If this isn't treated the same way, then the judiciary is clearly biased towards certain teams.

Ffs some people in here are delusional. The tackle was illegal and deserved a penalty, that was it. The exact same tackle happened several times last night to both teams. Nearly unpenalised every time. McKinnon made the outcome worse in his reaction to the tackle. This tackle despite the injury was no worse then plenty of tackles made last night and in every other game that don't even get a penalty. The outcome was worse, but a bit of terrible luck in this case shouldn't mean that players cop the blame for a freak accident. Not unless every tackle that hits that angle is a suspension aswell.

Smith did nothing wrong either IMO. I hate the prick, but he was just trying to make sure his teammate wasn't sent off for an incident which Knights did before (and after). The very first set of the second half the Knights put in an identical tackle. Not worrying about the potential severity even only 20 minutes later, nor did the referee even penalise it.

The guy was heading into the ground at 45 degrees with the first point of contact going to be his nose. He had to do something.

If the NRL excuse it then its a travesty of the highest order. But it is Melbourne so the NRL will take it easy.

Snowden got 7 weeks for a non shoulder charge that was a the lowest end of bad, he got loaded up because of the injury.

These blokes should get plenty if there is any justice.

The Snowden thing is very difficult to explain, because most people believe they got it very wrong.

The incident last night should be no more than a Grade 2 Dangerous Throw to the guy who lifted. The other players shouldn't get charged. If the MRC go harder than that, they are obviously following a very dangerous path of penalising based on injury.

 

[Tommy Smith]

45 degrees?

I would say 15 degrees at the absolute most.

That's why the injury was so severe ... he tucked his head under his own body weight with the tacklers then coming down on top of him.

If players tucked their heads like that we'd have 20 spinal injuries a game.

Let's just call it a freak accident. Penalty sufficient.

 

[blaza88z]

Cam Smith should get 10 weeks for being an absolute germ whilst the guy is laying on the ground with a potentially career ending injury

 

[BranVan3000]

It's a natural reaction to protect the face. If he didn't tuck his head, his face is being driven into the grass.

Unfortunately that natural reaction has led to a far more serious injury. And yes those players should be punished severely. It's not the most blatant spear tackle of all time, but you do the crime you do the time

McKinnon may never walk again, who gives a f**k about some Storm players sitting out a month or two?

 

[perverse]

McKinnon may never walk again, who gives a f**k about some Storm players sitting out a month or two?

That's a fair point. It's a shit situation.

 

[franklin2323]

mxlegend - then how do you explain the Snowden suspension last year for 7 weeks when there were far worse shoulder charges given no suspension at all (or minor suspensions - in the case of SBW)?

If this isn't treated the same way, then the judiciary is clearly biased towards certain teams.

We had 2 players break their neck just from normal tackling so it does happen. The tackle was bad but not the worst

 

[Stinkler]

It's a natural reaction to protect the face. If he didn't tuck his head, his face is being driven into the grass.

Unfortunately that natural reaction has led to a far more serious injury. And yes those players should be punished severely. It's not the most blatant spear tackle of all time, but you do the crime you do the time

McKinnon may never walk again, who gives a f**k about some Storm players sitting out a month or two?

There's the fault in your case.
The "crime" is a low grade dangerous throw.
The "time" for that is a week or two.

We can't start dishing out punishments based on the severity of injuries.

 

[perverse]

We can't start dishing out punishments based on the severity of injuries.

But we already have, and to the point where the judiciary was candid in saying that was exactly the case.

 

[Tommy Smith]

For a supposed natural reaction I've never seen a player tuck their head in that manner. I've only seen it happen during a blatant spear tackle rather than a fairly stock standard lifting tackle. I would think the natural reaction there would be to lift your head and brace with your left arm.

The problem was that McKinnon thought the lifting tackle was much worse than it actually was. Hence why he came down so heavily on his own head with the Storm players crushing him under his own body weight.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Lifting tackles were banned because of the potential for an accident just like this one.

You can't ignore the severity of this issue just because other lifting tackles haven't resulted in the same injury, nor can you coach players to "not tuck their heads in" when lifted in a tackle.

Therefore what option are you left with? Apply a suspension to the illegal tackle. Who cares if it is inconsistent with penalties applied to similar tackles in the past? Players need to realise that lifting a man with your hand between his legs while someone else is trying to drive his top half down is very dangerous.

 

[Stinkler]

But we already have, and to the point where the judiciary was candid in saying that was exactly the case.

They are on a dangerous path if they continue that then.

Lifting tackles were banned because of the potential for an accident just like this one.

You can't ignore the severity of this issue just because other lifting tackles haven't resulted in the same injury, nor can you coach players to "not tuck their heads in" when lifted in a tackle.

Therefore what option are you left with? Apply a suspension to the illegal tackle. Who cares if it is inconsistent with penalties applied to similar tackles in the past? Players need to realise that lifting a man with your hand between his legs while someone else is trying to drive his top half down is very dangerous.

A penalty will be applied, but it shouldn't be a big one.

 

[Tommy Smith]

And Knights fans, we get it, Snowden's suspension was grossly unfair. Please stop using that as a guide for all history to come.

 

[Noname36]

There's the fault in your case.
The "crime" is a low grade dangerous throw.
The "time" for that is a week or two.

We can't start dishing out punishments based on the severity of injuries.

We already have though.

So what is it? "Sorry Knights, what Snowden did was careless and caused a serious injury so he can have 7 weeks...actually make it 10".

Or

"Sorry Knights, it doesn't matter that a Storm player did something careless and had potentially ended a 22-year-old's career...we don't determine suspensions based on injuries"