The McKinnon incident debate

I'm pretty sure they took into account that McLean did go in with the intention of lifting McKinnon. That would have gone against him.

It just happened to result in a player being put in a bad position..

I'm not saying he wanted to hurt him, or perform a dangerous tackle. However, you don't stick your hand between a guys legs and lift if that's not what you want to do.

7 weeks was a bit much, but he kind of forced their hand a little.
 
Last edited:
Terrible decision. Two weeks tops but for reasons that escape me they took into account the consequences. If there was no injury the tackle probably wouldn't have even been reported. Even if it was and there was no injury it would have been a week or two. Little wonder the judiciary is so poorly regarded. By this I mean no lack of regard for the severely injured McKinnon. Like everyone else I truly hope he is able to regain his health.
 
I've long been an advocate for greater use of the send off and sin bin for dangerous tackles as I believe the most effective way to stop players lifting others in tackles is by forcing a team to play with fewer players if they do it. A send off or a sin bin for a tackle that is dangerous but doesn't result in injury may seem "extreme" at the time, but it will absolutely get the coaches cracking down on it within their own clubs just as the automatic sin bin for players who throw a punch did last year. When you see the damage this tackle did, it makes it all the more disgraceful that Krisnan Inu wasn't sent off for his attempt on Inglis last year.

McLean put his hand on the inside of McKinnon's leg, lifted up and drove. There are more than enough examples just from the past decade to demonstrate why lifting a player up from the thigh/leg is frowned upon and players should know by now not to do it. As much as I feel sorry for him, this is why I believe McLean deserves the 7 weeks he got.
 
On a side note, its weird that stuff like this happens on a footy field and the only punishment is a suspension. But if this happened on the streets the guy goes to jail.

Having said that, I think Jarrod McCracken sued either the Storm and the 2 players involved in a tackle which ended his career. Hopefully we wont see that happen again here
 
QUEENSLANDER said:
On a side note, its weird that stuff like this happens on a footy field and the only punishment is a suspension. But if this happened on the streets the guy goes to jail.

Having said that, I think Jarrod McCracken sued either the Storm and the 2 players involved in a tackle which ended his career. Hopefully we wont see that happen again here
Click to expand...

I don't think he won that case though, I could be wrong. It's the same in every sport. I'm sure it's because they sign things to say nobody is held legally accountable or something.
 
Cult3 said:
I don't think he won that case though, I could be wrong. It's the same in every sport. I'm sure it's because they sign things to say nobody is held legally accountable or something.
Click to expand...

He won. $90, 000 according to wiki
 
Crazy Sam said:
McLean put his hand on the inside of McKinnon's leg, lifted up and drove. There are more than enough examples just from the past decade to demonstrate why lifting a player up from the thigh/leg is frowned upon and players should know by now not to do it. As much as I feel sorry for him, this is why I believe McLean deserves the 7 weeks he got.
Click to expand...
He didn't actually lift McKinnon though - merely lifted his leg off the ground. watch the tackle again if you dont believe me. He never caused mckinnons body to be lifted vertically.

people dont seem to understand the rules around "hand between the legs", probably because there is no rule that even mentions it as its irrelevant and plays no part in anything.
 
Cult3 said:
Fucking hell, that is nothing. 90k would disappear sooooo fast.
Click to expand...

Yeh it would, but it also shows that it is possible to take what happens on the field and sue the team, the players or even the nrl for an injury. Not saying McKinnon will go that way, i think its highly unlikely, but the precendent was set with McCracken
 
QUEENSLANDER said:
Yeh it would, but it also shows that it is possible to take what happens on the field and sue the team, the players or even the nrl for an injury. Not saying McKinnon will go that way, i think its highly unlikely, but the precendent was set with McCracken
Click to expand...

I wonder if after that the NRL added something to their contracts saying they couldn't sue if something went wrong. Surely they'd get a pretty big pay out and be looked after for the rest of their lives. I hope it doesn't go that way. McLean would already feel horrible.

Does anyone remember what happened to Beau Ryans neck? I don't remember the injury or how it happened but there are rumours going around that he might retire because of it.
 
I too think this was a ridiculously over the top decision. I'm still unclear whether it was a grade 2 (3 weeks) + 4 weeks for injury loading, or grade 1 (1 week) + 6 weeks for injury loading.

Reading some tweets from people who were in the hearing, the tackle was compared to others that had been charged with grade 2 and "convicted" (ie, early pleas...have to remember, if players take the early plea it means that tackle is a precedent for that charge) and it was very similar. The factors being the leg lifted causing the balance of the player to tip forward and put their head/neck in a dangerous position. And nobody can argue that's what happened.

But a grade 2 is a 3 week (300-odd points) penalty. Which indicates to me they went with 4 weeks loading for the injury. THAT is wrong IMO. I do agree in theory with considering the injury outcome in cases where the act is reckless or intentional AND the act DIRECTLY causes the injury but in cases like this where it was at most careless, and the other players in the tackle including McKinnon himself contributed to the way he fell, that seems ludicrous.

And no I am NOT saying McKinnon is to blame for his injury, merely that it was a combination of factors in this tackle that caused this tragic outcome. And like others I deeply hope his condition improves over time and he gets some normality in his life.

I really think this has set a very dangerous precedent with injury loading. Let's think back to Yow Yeh, and let's say for a moment he was bumped midair while going for that bomb (for argument's sake let's say he was defending, and thus it's against the rules) and comes down and shatters his ankle. Would that player deserve a 4 or 6 week loading for a minor bump in the air? Of course not.

An example where I think injury could be considered is, for example, Luke O'Donnell's spear tackle on Boyd in Origin. And similarly, Inu's on Inglis. Both could've had the same outcome as McKinnon, and both were absolutely reckless and solely the actions of those players.

Considering the injury in EVERY suspension is a minefield IMO.
 
Whilst I don't like the injury of McKinnon being used specifically for McLean's judiciary hearing, I sure would hope it is strongly factored into future cases. You replay the Inu tackle 100 times and I guarantee multiple people end up with this injury. Do the same for McLean and you probably wouldn't get a single one.

So the next time someone does a tackle like Inu did on Inglis, I honestly hope the NRL look at how even McLean's tackle went wrong and suspend the bloke for an insane number of weeks. Even if that guy is Gillett. If there's one thing the NRL needs to do, IMO, it's to enforce exponentially greater punishments on those truly badly tackles.
 
Exactly [MENTION=1917]Ari Gold[/MENTION] and by doing that they will go a long way to stopping the type of tackle that went wrong in Mckinnons case. Players will be so much more reluctant to lift and risk a tackle going bad.
 
Absolutely, or introduce 10 minutes in the sin bin or penalise the team a compulsory interchange for any tackle that goes on report.
 
So the judiciary thinks this tackle is worse than Inu on GI when he brought him down on the crown of his head vertically?

They've lost the fucking plot, it's obvious the fix was in.
 
Newcastle are upset at the judiciary too... not so much for the length of the suspension but because:

* Mclean was allowed to play the game before his hearing (after the stand down was overturned)
* there were 3 men in the tackle and Mclean was the only one to cop punishment
* The defence claimed that McKinnon contributed to the injury by ducking his head before impact

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 725
1:36:11
NRL Round 6, 2001 - New Zealand Warriors vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Allo
  • ChewThePhatt
  • 1910
  • Financeguy
  • Big Del
  • broncsgoat
  • TwoLeftFeet
  • phoenix
  • KickHaas
  • The True King
  • Bucking Beads
  • I bleed Maroon
  • marw
  • kman
Total: 133 (members: 20, guests: 113)
Robots: 372
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.