Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McLean gets 7 weeks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • McLean gets 7 weeks

    The NRL judiciary has suspended Jordan McLean for seven weeks after finding the Melbourne Storm prop guilty of a careless lifting tackle on Alex McKinnon that left the Newcastle back-rower with a devastating spinal injury.

    The three-man panel comprising former Test players Bob Lindner, Mal Cochrane and Chris McKenna deliberated over the punishment for McLean for an hour and a half.

    McLean sat stone-faced throughout the initial one-hour hearing at NRL headquarters in Sydney on Wednesday night.

    The 22-year-old refused to watch any of the more than 30 replays of the three-man tackle gone wrong that were shown over and over from eight different camera angles.

    McKinnon remains in Melbourne's The Alfred hospital in a serious but stable condition with a broken neck and facing the possibility of never being able to walk again.

    The 22-year-old was brought out of an induced coma at the weekend following surgery last Tuesday for damage to his C4 and C5 vertebrae.

    He has been conscious since and began communicating with his family on Sunday after his assisted ventilation was removed.

    McLean's lawyer Nick Ghabar pleaded not guilty to the dangerous throw charge levelled against the 22-year-old, arguing McKinnon had been the victim of a "terrible and tragic accident".

    "There will be no winners from tonight whatever you decide," Ghabar told the panel before submitting his case for McLean's innocence.

    In one of the most anticipated judiciary hearings in the game's long history, Ghabar urged the panel to remove any emotion from the case and to exercise their common sense as former players to accept the tackle was an accident.

    Ghabar expressed deep sympathy for McKinnon and his family but, insisted with respect that the Knights youngster "unfortunately and unwittingly" contributed to his injury by "tucking his head into his chest" before hitting the ground.

    He said if McKinnon did not change his posture mid-tackle, "there is no way he would have landed on his head".

    Ghabar also argued that McLean never lifted McKinnon much beyond horizontal - and certainly not vertical - and that "significant downward force" from the other two players in the tackle, Storm brothers Jesse and Kenny Bromwich, played as much part.

    But the panel took less than 10 minutes to find McLean guilty.

    NRL counsel Peter Kite, representing the prosecution, successfully contended that while the Bromwich brothers undoubtedly contributed to the tackle gone wrong, "substantial responsibility for the lift was borne by player McLean".

    Before a packed media contingent listening to the evidence, judiciary chairman Paul Conlon SC reminded all parties that a dangerous throw was "lifting a player into a dangerous position and placing them at risk of suffering injury".

    After getting his guilty verdict, Kite asked the panel to suspend McLean for between seven and 11 weeks because of the severity of McKinnon's injury.

  • #2
    Wow didn't expect that. So they have banned him for the actual injury sustained more so than the tackle itself, considering the warriors player got 3 weeks for a tackle that looked much worse.

    If that is the case, how do they justify 7 weeks when the injury is lifetime?

    Not sure how they came up with this.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by milanja View Post
      Wow didn't expect that. So they have banned him for the actual injury sustained more so than the tackle itself, considering the warriors player got 3 weeks for a tackle that looked much worse.

      If that is the case, how do they justify 7 weeks when the injury is lifetime?

      Not sure how they came up with this.
      I Wouldn't be surprised if they completely ban lift tackles after setting a precedent like this ..

      It's the only way I can see them even coming close to justifying 7 weeks

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rooster-rooster-man View Post
        I Wouldn't be surprised if they completely ban lift tackles after setting a precedent like this ..

        It's the only way I can see them even coming close to justifying 7 weeks
        Mate I'd say someone will be sued heavily over this, if I remember correctly, jarrod mccracken sued (ironically) melbourne for the spear tackle that happened to him. Think he got paid out earnings that he could of made for the remainder of his league career.

        Comment


        • #5
          The Storm should pay for McKinnon's rehab, that would be a good start.
          SUPER DRAGON!

          Comment


          • #6
            I've refrained from making a comment so far as my intense dislike of Melbourne is well known. What bothered me most was Cameron Smith yapping to the referee, saying Alex did this to himself. As someone else rightly pointed out, once the neck brace went on, Cameron should have shut his big mouth right then and there. I know he wanted to defend his players in the heat of the moment but as Australian and QLD captain, he should know by now how to conduct himself in pressure cooker situations. This reminds me of Justin Poore standing over Steven Price in an Origin game, screaming at him to get up. Moments later, he was taken away in a neck brace as well. Players are now being told not to argue or question referees, but how about keeping their mouths shut during incidents such as these? They are not doctors so should not be dispensing their opinions about whether or not a player is genuinely injured.
            "Those who care about you can hear you, even when you are quiet" - Steve Maraboli

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by milanja View Post
              Mate I'd say someone will be sued heavily over this, if I remember correctly, jarrod mccracken sued (ironically) melbourne for the spear tackle that happened to him. Think he got paid out earnings that he could of made for the remainder of his league career.
              Someone should pay up.

              The NRL, Melbourne, someone.

              Apparently the NRL had yet to sign off on some new insurance system for players when this tackle happened.
              An ex-gratia payment of $3m is in order, IMO.

              NRL should've clamped down hard on lifting tackles and 3 and 3+ man tackles ['gang tackles' if you like] years ago...Hadley etc warned them many times that "one day someone will finish up in a wheelchair" from lifting/spear tackles.
              No 30-match suspensions were handed out...instead 3-match + a bit suspensions.

              Now the NRL must change the rules of the game to make sure this never happens again.
              It must ban all lifting tackles, and limit the number of players in a tackle to two only.
              Last edited by bondi-boy; 04-03-2014, 07:01 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bondi-boy View Post
                Someone should pay up.

                The NRL, Melbourne, someone.

                Apparently the NRL had yet to sign off on some new insurance system for players when this tackle happened.
                An ex-gratia payment of $3m is in order, IMO.

                NRL should've clamped down hard on lifting tackles and 3 and 3+ man tackles ['gang tackles' if you like] years ago...Hadley etc warned them many times that "one day someone will finish up in a wheelchair" from lifting/spear tackles.
                No 30-match suspensions were handed out...instead 3-match + a bit suspensions.

                Now the NRL must change the rules of the game to make sure this never happens again.
                It must ban all lifting tackles, and limit the number of tackles to two players only.
                I hear where you are coming from, but two man tackles, 50+ scorelines and yet no guarantee something like this will not happen once every 100 odd years again, its extremely unfortunate, but also extremely rare.
                Last edited by milanja; 04-03-2014, 06:52 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not sure if this question has been asked before but do players have there own insurance ? I remember when I played rugby a couple of years ago they recommended we take out insurance ..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by milanja View Post
                    I hear where you are coming from, but two man tackles, 50+ scorelines and yet no guarantee something like this will not happen once every 100 odd years again, its extremely unfortunate, but also extremely rare.
                    Increase the bench to 6 or 8.

                    [We have 50+ scorelines now].

                    Two man tackles...and the ref calling held when the player's forward or sideways progress has been stopped and his arms stationary...before the lifting, and third man in happen.
                    As it is now you almost have to ram the player and his head thru the ground halfway to China before the refs call held.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bondi-boy View Post
                      Increase the bench to 6 or 8.

                      [We have 50+ scorelines now].

                      Two man tackles...and the ref calling held when the player's forward or sideways progress has been stopped and his arms stationary...before the lifting, and third man in happen.
                      As it is now you almost have to ram the player and his head thru the ground halfway to China before the refs call held.
                      I couldn't disagree more I don't know if where watching the same game I already feel like there calling held to fast .. You do it any faster and it may as well be touch football ..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rooster-rooster-man View Post
                        I couldn't disagree more I don't know if where watching the same game I already feel like there calling held to fast .. You do it any faster and it may as well be touch football ..
                        What I see are players standing in tackles for a long time, held, forward progress stopped, ...then allowed to get the ball away.
                        This is why the third man/etc comes/come in to tackle the legs and drop them to the ground...and why lifting tackles occur.
                        "When is a tackle a tackle"? I hear the fans calling out.

                        Now, a player can be put on the ground in a tackle by one tackler or two tacklers...and they should be given a reasonable time to get off the tackled players..fair enough, no Superleague.

                        I can't see how banning lifting tackles and limiting the number of tacklers to two would speed the game up much, as most tackles now seem to be "one player high, one player low"...or "two high" legally.

                        I'd rather see the bench increased by two...than see players ending up in wheelchairs, or with other serious neck etc injuries.
                        Last edited by bondi-boy; 04-03-2014, 09:58 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Two men tackle would increase offloads 100%, common theme is two men to tackle the upper body to stop an offload and a third to stop the progress. Two men tackles would work if you were not allowed to offload the ball.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bondi-boy View Post
                            What I see are players standing in tackles for a long time, held, forward progress stopped, ...then allowed to get the ball away.
                            This is why the third man/etc comes/come in to tackle the legs and drop them to the ground...and why lifting tackles occur.
                            "When is a tackle a tackle"? I hear the fans calling out.

                            Now, a player can be put on the ground in a tackle by one tackler or two tacklers...and they should be given a reasonable time to get off the tackled players..fair enough, no Superleague.

                            I can't see how banning lifting tackles and limiting the number of tacklers to two would speed the game up much, as most tackles now seem to be "one player high, one player low"...or "two high" legally.

                            I'd rather see the bench increased by two...than see players ending up in wheelchairs, or with other serious neck etc injuries.
                            You cannot have only 2 players in the tackle imagine the amount of offloads there would be. You would kill the game as a spectacle.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rcptn View Post
                              You cannot have only 2 players in the tackle imagine the amount of offloads there would be. You would kill the game as a spectacle.
                              The only way it would work would be of they made a rule no off loading in tackles .. But Then you would be tying the hands of players like sbw ..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X