Alex Mckinnon To Sue

[BuderusIsaBeast]

Tbh there was nothing in the tackle if Alex didn't tuck his head under.

That is rubbish, Alex was placed in a dangerous position. Im not deniying that tucking in his head made it worse. However he never should have been placed in that dangerous position to start with. The tackle was a spear tackle whether he ducked his head or not

 

[BuderusIsaBeast]

You should have stopped at "Im not a lawyer".

There is a huge difference between the law and rules of the game. There is an understanding that rules of any sports will be broken from time to time, and any player choosing to participate assumes some risk for this possibility. Otherwise literally any time a player is injured from an incident where the opposition is penalised or found guilty at the NRL judiciary (a frankly psuedo-legal process) they could successfully sue - a situation that is ridiculous.

The question that is pertinent to the law is this: was the defendant (either the NRL or McLean) negligent in preventing this incident - and a part of proving that is accepting that it was foreseeable that this would happen, given either party's actions. McLean's actions in isolation don't cause that injury - the combination of the actions of McLean, the other two tacklers and McKinnon himself all contributed in some way to the incident. Beyond that, there's also a huge degree of (bad) luck involved... how many tackles have come down more vertical or harder or from higher than this one without serious injury? All of these extra factors make the foreseeable argument very, very weak.

As I said much earlier in the thread, there's very little chance of these actions being successful.

You seem very knowladgable on the subject so I will take your word for it. Although I still highly doubt this will even get to the courts. Both parties will settle before then

 

[ed-grimley]

I can see the lawyers for both sides leaning heavily on posts from this thread for evidence as the trial progresses.

 

[NrlVader]

I can see the lawyers for both sides leaning heavily on posts from this thread for evidence as the trial progresses.

Are you serious?

What are they going to present in court from this thread on LU?

"Merkin 1 said ............ your honour"

"Merkin 2 disagreed ........... your honour"

 

[ed-grimley]

Are you serious?

What are they going to present in court from this thread on UL?

"Merkin 1 said ............ your honour"

"Merkin 2 disagreed ........... your honour"

It's a crazy, crazy world.

 

[Munted]

You should have stopped at "Im not a lawyer".
The question that is pertinent to the law is this: was the defendant (either the NRL or McLean) negligent in preventing this incident - and a part of proving that is accepting that it was foreseeable that this would happen, given either party's actions. McLean's actions in isolation don't cause that injury - the combination of the actions of McLean, the other two tacklers and McKinnon himself all contributed in some way to the incident. Beyond that, there's also a huge degree of (bad) luck involved... how many tackles have come down more vertical or harder or from higher than this one without serious injury? All of these extra factors make the foreseeable argument very, very weak.

As I said much earlier in the thread, there's very little chance of these actions being successful.

I dig.
Does reasonable doubt come into this or is that criminal proceedings? I guess like you mentioned, was it foreseeable to the tacklers that a reasonable outcome from their actions would be a broken neck?

 

[TheFrog]

You should have stopped at "Im not a lawyer".

There is a huge difference between the law and rules of the game. There is an understanding that rules of any sports will be broken from time to time, and any player choosing to participate assumes some risk for this possibility. Otherwise literally any time a player is injured from an incident where the opposition is penalised or found guilty at the NRL judiciary (a frankly psuedo-legal process) they could successfully sue - a situation that is ridiculous.

The question that is pertinent to the law is this: was the defendant (either the NRL or McLean) negligent in preventing this incident - and a part of proving that is accepting that it was foreseeable that this would happen, given either party's actions. McLean's actions in isolation don't cause that injury - the combination of the actions of McLean, the other two tacklers and McKinnon himself all contributed in some way to the incident. Beyond that, there's also a huge degree of (bad) luck involved... how many tackles have come down more vertical or harder or from higher than this one without serious injury? All of these extra factors make the foreseeable argument very, very weak.

As I said much earlier in the thread, there's very little chance of these actions being successful.

I think this will be looked at in terms of a workplace injury, and the question asked of the principal (in this case the NRL with which control of the game lies) will be "Was the risk of such an injury as McKinnon suffered reduced to the lowest level practicable, all things considered?" This will likely entail scrutiny of refereeing, the use of on-field sanctions, and the match review/judiciary system, and what part each plays in controlling dangerous play. The Melbourne Storm club might also come under scrutiny, as the employer of Jordan McLean. Did the club do everything reasonably practicable to prevent its players performing lifting tackles like this, or on the other hand did it encourage them to do so, even covertly? Is what happens at this club typical of all clubs?

I'm not so sure McKinnon won't get awarded a payout, but whether it is in the $10 million league remains to be seen.

was it foreseeable to the tacklers that a reasonable outcome from their actions would be a broken neck?

I think the question asked will not be so much of a tackler in a split second situation, but of the game and its administrators. Was such an injury forseeable (I think the answer is pretty clear and that is why they made lifting tackles illegal) and was the risk of such an injury reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable.

 

[Nice Beaver]

It's the process. It's reality.

You can't go around suing people and when unsuccessful ...move on like nothing has happened.

There are consequences.

Mclean will counter sue for his legal fees, stress from the court case, damage to reputation and other expenses.

OK. No bait.

 

[jaseg]

I dig.
Does reasonable doubt come into this or is that criminal proceedings? I guess like you mentioned, was it foreseeable to the tacklers that a reasonable outcome from their actions would be a broken neck?

Reasonable doubt is criminal, but negligence in general is very hard to prove in Australia because we've seen what America is like.

I think this will be looked at in terms of a workplace injury, and the question asked of the principal (in this case the NRL with which control of the game lies) will be "Was the risk of such an injury as McKinnon suffered reduced to the lowest level practicable, all things considered?" This will likely entail scrutiny of refereeing, the use of on-field sanctions, and the match review/judiciary system, and what part each plays in controlling dangerous play. The Melbourne Storm club might also come under scrutiny, as the employer of Jordan McLean. Did the club do everything reasonably practicable to prevent its players performing lifting tackles like this, or on the other hand did it encourage them to do so, even covertly? Is what happens at this club typical of all clubs?

I'm not so sure McKinnon won't get awarded a payout, but whether it is in the $10 million league remains to be seen.

Any claim against the Storm will be immediately thrown out - it's too long a bow to draw. Though I'd love to see them come under more scrutiny for their systematic defensive... ahh... how do I put this nicely? questionable practices.

Workplace stuff only comes into it in the NRL claim, the claim against McLean will be a tort. Regardless, the NRL is not a typical workplace and will not be treated as such under law - it's not unreasonable to expect that at some point you will be subjected to play outside of the rules of the game... all players assume that risk (there is actually precedent in this area). Cases where a sports player has been able to get something out of legal action against another player have been only the most grossly negligent (something that, given the other factors involved, is going to be very hard to prove - it's not the same as Les Boyd running up throwing an elbow and breaking the big marn's jaw... there was only one factor in that incident - Boyd's actions) or obviously intentional acts (punching someone etc). Getting something from the NRL? Not in a court case. They're hoping for a settlement to stop the media coverage.

 

[MilkShark]

That is rubbish, Alex was placed in a dangerous position. Im not deniying that tucking in his head made it worse. However he never should have been placed in that dangerous position to start with. The tackle was a spear tackle whether he ducked his head or not

Make sure you tune back in for netball this weekend mate.

 

[Sydney Knight]

Tim Fuller the former Rabbitohs player who is a sports Lawyer is quoted in the DT today saying he believes the case against Jordan McLean will be much easier to win than the NRL one.

Do NRL players individually have public indemnity insurance? If not I don't think Jordan McLean is going to be a huge cash cow.

Also I'm not an expert on PI insurance but I believe some policies have clauses that make the claim null and void if someone has broken law/rules.

 

[carcharias]

Mclean Lifting tackle on McKinnon



this years grand final
Mclean lifting tackle on Feki



both tackled players went off after the tackle and didn't return.
both tackles were penalised.

McLean clearly doesn't learn.

 

[Perth Red]

Or maybe in the heat of the moment and with momentum etc etc this sht happens in a high contact game like RL? Looking at both pics he hasn't got the classic hand between the legs positioning that a lift happens when it's 1:1, and the 2-3 players on the top part of the opposition player are clearly contributingto pulling the upper body down before the legs.

We see this plenty of times a round suggesting that maybe accidents happen? Especially with modern day 2 up top tackling techniques.

 

[carcharias]

or maybe he shouldn't lift blokes so they are facing head first into the ground.

Both tackles were penalised.
Watch the Feki one ...Mclean gets up and immediately runs away as the fight over it starts.
He knows straight away he had done it again.
Then the ref penalised the wrong player.
He was very lucky to get away with that.

 

[Danish]

Or maybe in the heat of the moment and with momentum etc etc this sht happens in a high contact game like RL? Looking at both pics he hasn't got the classic hand between the legs positioning that a lift happens when it's 1:1, and the 2-3 players on the top part of the opposition player are clearly contributingto pulling the upper body down before the legs.

We see this plenty of times a round suggesting that maybe accidents happen? Especially with modern day 2 up top tackling techniques.

They happen because lifting in he tackle is an accepted and encouraged tackle technique.

It could be stopped easily with rule changes

 

[El Diablo]

It could be stopped easily with rule changes

no it couldn't

rules will always be broken

 

[carcharias]

Both those tackles were penalised
So they are not accepted.

Putting a player in s dangerous position is
how they describe it.

 

[TheFrog]

They happen because lifting in he tackle is an accepted and encouraged tackle technique.

It could be stopped easily with rule changes

If this is in fact the case, then someone is culpable for the injury to Alex McKinnon.

Who has the werewithal to stop such tackles but has failed to do so? Clubs and coaches to some degree certainly but overwhelmingly the NRL.

 

[Allstar Knights]

Tbh there was nothing in the tackle if Alex didn't tuck his head under.

Nothing in the tackle yet his face was heading for the turf. Unfortunately in a split second situation he decided to duck to try and avoid a broken face. But I guess a normal human reaction makes it his fault. Not like every single person wouldn't have done the same. Keep in mind his hands were held so he didn't have a 3rd option.

Amazing how many people bring this up but miss the facts of the situation.

 

[Munted]

Mclean Lifting tackle on McKinnon
View attachment 10937

There's them sky high feet!