OT: Alex Mckinnon

[The Quest For Glory]

the Melbourne club should be banned for 7 weeks. It's because of them we have these tackling techniques in the game in the first place.

 

[IFR33K]

Some of you guys are wrong to say that he didn't deserve 7 weeks. FMD, he got off lightly IMHO.

He was not blameless (he had a hand between McKinnon's legs and was the one who lifted him) and his actions contributed to the injury.

The case may very well pan out that the injured player is deemed to have also contributed to his own injury in some way (queue the bio-mechanic and human movement experts) but this does not in any way exonerate McLean.

It is my understanding that Storm are keen to appeal to a watered down charge as it will help Mclean etc when (not if) McKinnon takes civil action against him, the club and the NRL .

Agree with you, if McLean doesn't lift, Alex doesn't get injured. Hard for Alex to know what to do, when his face is about to be planted into the turf. The other two didn't help by throwing their weight on Alex. I thought seven weeks was fair.

Double edge sword really for the judiciary panel. Could u imagine the Media if McLean only copped three weeks.

 

[spiderdan]

seven weeks i thought was harsh but it seems the nrl want to make an example of this tackle to try completely stamp out the potential for another broken neck.

i thought two things contributed to the unfortunate outcome. there was the partial lifting. storm players lifted mckinnon but it seemed they pulled out of the lift at the same time as mckinnon has tried to tuck his head in to roll and protect himself, as most people would if they were lifted in that position.

unfortunately the two actions worked against each other to give the tragic result they did.

if the penalty was to make an example of those tackles to stamp them out of the game then fair enough. fingers crossed we don't get another incident like this again.

i think the big thing the nrl need to be working on is retraining the refs to call held before tackles get into this situation.

 

[TheParraboy]

In all my time (from day 1) watching Hindmarsh tackle and get accused often for being 2nd or 3rd man in. He never ever once lifted a bloke from the legs. There is no need for it in our game, it is a cheap shot when the ball carrier already has a bloke or two already all over him and is often motionless and defenceless against the leg lifter

One on one? Go for it, if your technique is good enough you can lift the bloke head on and end him up on his ass


I don't mind the 7 weeks, sets a decent precedent from now on, wether the tackled player gets injured or not, there shouldn't be anything less

 

[Gronk]

For mine, McLean should get thumped. If I can get charged with criminal negligence for causing injury or death by using my mobile phone in a car, then hand between the legs and lifting is just as culpable.

He meant no harm or malice, but he knowingly engaged in an illegal activity (tackle) which caused (permanent?) injury. This was not a Paul Taylor copybook tackle and around the bootlaces that when sour. This was a tackle that was designed to push the player backwards into the ground.

 

[strider]

i think its a very harsh penalty .... and i'm pretty sick of the nrl punishing based almost entirely on the outcome .... the inu tackle on inglis last year was one of the worst i've seen, yet he only gets 4 weeks purely cos inglis got up from it - inglis is a beast, it probably would have done real damage to someone else .... that was their opportunity to send a message, not wait until a big injury and public attention to do something

mclean hardly lifted - infact imo he did a slight lift to get the opponent off balance, as happens hundreds of times each weekend, then he stopped lifting before the tackle got bad - mackinnons other foot never even left the ground ..... it was just a tragic accident the way it all panned out in a fraction of a second

and i hate melbourne, so i'm all for shit happening to them, but imo this is just a wrong reactionary poor ruling from the nrl

 

[strider]

For mine, McLean should get thumped. If I can get charged with criminal negligence for causing injury or death by using my mobile phone in a car, then hand between the legs and lifting is just as culpable.

He meant no harm or malice, but he knowingly engaged in an illegal activity (tackle) which caused (permanent?) injury. This was not a Paul Taylor copybook tackle and around the bootlaces that when sour. This was a tackle that was designed to push the player backwards into the ground.

seriously? - i think you're a smart dude, but talk about blowing something out of proportion

hate to disappoint you, but the "copybook" has changed - rugby league has changed .... its faster and a different type of physicality

this was a tragic accident

 

[spiderdan]

i think its a very harsh penalty .... and i'm pretty sick of the nrl punishing based almost entirely on the outcome .... the inu tackle on inglis last year was one of the worst i've seen, yet he only gets 4 weeks purely cos inglis got up from it - inglis is a beast, it probably would have done real damage to someone else .... that was their opportunity to send a message, not wait until a big injury and public attention to do something

mclean hardly lifted - infact imo he did a slight lift to get the opponent off balance, as happens hundreds of times each weekend, then he stopped lifting before the tackle got bad - mackinnons other foot never even left the ground ..... it was just a tragic accident the way it all panned out in a fraction of a second

and i hate melbourne, so i'm all for shit happening to them, but imo this is just a wrong reactionary poor ruling from the nrl

agree with everything you have wrote. the bit i bolded is the thing most people are forgetting or ignoring.

if the nrl are reacting to it i can cop that as long as they are consistent about these types of tackles in the future regardless of the outcome to the tackled player.

the rules and training of refs needs to be looked at as well if this is the case as the refs' actions could go a long way to helping avoid this in the future.

 

[Gronk]

seriously? - i think you're a smart dude, but talk about blowing something out of proportion

hate to disappoint you, but the "copybook" has changed - rugby league has changed .... its faster and a different type of physicality

this was a tragic accident

Sorry but I don't think that the accident argument fits here. Not saying there was malice, but the tackler's illegal actions caused injury. Sad but true. There will be no winners here.

 

[mickdo]

the Melbourne club should be banned for 7 weeks. It's because of them we have these tackling techniques in the game in the first place.

More like 7 years

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

i think its a very harsh penalty .... and i'm pretty sick of the nrl punishing based almost entirely on the outcome .... the inu tackle on inglis last year was one of the worst i've seen, yet he only gets 4 weeks purely cos inglis got up from it - inglis is a beast, it probably would have done real damage to someone else .... that was their opportunity to send a message, not wait until a big injury and public attention to do something

mclean hardly lifted - infact imo he did a slight lift to get the opponent off balance, as happens hundreds of times each weekend, then he stopped lifting before the tackle got bad - mackinnons other foot never even left the ground ..... it was just a tragic accident the way it all panned out in a fraction of a second

and i hate melbourne, so i'm all for shit happening to them, but imo this is just a wrong reactionary poor ruling from the nrl

I agree that the penalty seems harsh relative to otherwise similar tackles, and I don't think there's any great purpose served in sentencing based on the injury outcome. I wouldn't call it an accident (or at least a pure accident) though.....without McLean's actions (which contravened rules introduced to try to avoid people landing on their head) the remaining combination of circumstances couldn't happen. He introduced a risk factor that doesn't need to be there. I have a greater problem with the grubs who have initiated and institutionalised the series of innovations to tackling styles, including the grapple, crusher, chicken wing, etc.

 

[Kornstar]

I agree that the penalty seems harsh relative to otherwise similar tackles, and I don't think there's any great purpose served in sentencing based on the injury outcome. I wouldn't call it an accident (or at least a pure accident) though.....without McLean's actions (which contravened rules introduced to try to avoid people landing on their head) the remaining combination of circumstances couldn't happen. He introduced a risk factor that doesn't need to be there. I have a greater problem with the grubs who have initiated and institutionalised the series of innovations to tackling styles, including the grapple, crusher, chicken wing, etc.

Agreed, the Storm are the blight on the game that are continually propped up and favoured........I'd rather a Perth team than Melbourne tbh.

 

[fish eel]

Let's all feel for the bloke who can live a normal life and play footy in 7 weeks FFS

 

[oldmancraigy]

Agreed, the Storm are the blight on the game that are continually propped up and favoured........I'd rather a Perth team than Melbourne tbh.

I'd prefer both - and I hatez the Storm.

 

[Kornstar]

I'd prefer both - and I hatez the Storm.

Well I agree that both should be in but it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to make a decision to get rid of a Sydney team (which absolutely has to happen imo) to go to Perth and if it were an option between the 2, I think Perth is a better fit!

 

[Bigfella]

He put hands between legs. True it wasn't; the worst case and the outcome was not proportionate to his actions.

But lifting and hands between the legs is a red flag. It needs to be stamped out.

It doesn't has to be seen as blaming the individual for the injury. It doesn't have to be seen as trying to make up for the injury which no penalty would ever achieve,

It is about trying to minimize the future risk by stamping out some of the major mechanical factors which contribute to dangerous tackles arising.

If the other examples didn't get long enough - then the mistake lay in those decisions, not this one IMO

 

[Avenger]

He put hands between legs. True it wasn't; the worst case and the outcome was not proportionate to his actions.

But lifting and hands between the legs is a red flag. It needs to be stamped out.

It doesn't has to be seen as blaming the individual for the injury. It doesn't have to be seen as trying to make up for the injury which no penalty would ever achieve,

It is about trying to minimize the future risk by stamping out some of the major mechanical factors which contribute to dangerous tackles arising.

If the other examples didn't get long enough - then the mistake lay in those decisions, not this one IMO

That's actually a great post. I agree entirely.

 

[TheParraboy]

Let's all feel for the bloke who can live a normal life and play footy in 7 weeks FFS

Can we use drink driving or speeding as an analogy?

You do 110km per hour in an 70km/hr zone (ILLEGAL) and get caught, you most likely get a heavy fine, possible suspension for 3-6 months

However, its a whole new ball game if you do 90km/hr on the same 70km/hr zone (ILLEGAL) and run some over causing major injury or death.

Broke the same law but the end result is vastly different despite not breaking the law as much as the first example

Understand your point Cronk

 

[TheParraboy]

He put hands between legs. True it wasn't; the worst case and the outcome was not proportionate to his actions.

But lifting and hands between the legs is a red flag. It needs to be stamped out.

It doesn't has to be seen as blaming the individual for the injury. It doesn't have to be seen as trying to make up for the injury which no penalty would ever achieve,

It is about trying to minimize the future risk by stamping out some of the major mechanical factors which contribute to dangerous tackles arising.

If the other examples didn't get long enough - then the mistake lay in those decisions, not this one IMO

agree 100%, cause no one got hurt before their penalties were poor

but as we have seen with the shoulder charge we will still see it by brainless twats

Lets make the penalty severe, it will finally get through im sure

 

[eel01s]

I think the major issue here is inconsistency of suspensions given to other similar/worse tackles. If that is addressed then emotions should not come into the equation when determining the extent of the suspension.