Quote: ChrisGS "But the point is they might as well be let go. What's a penalty - assuming there is a penalty, I still contend in a lot of cases there isn't - without a suspension, preferably a significant suspension. Is it any sort of deterrent? Not really. If it was a genuine deterrent then these tackles wouldn't be frequently found in every game.
The NRL doesn't take them seriously and it's a joke that McLean received 7 weeks, all things considered. The number of incidents that have happened after the fact (and there's threads about this on Australian forums if you want to look) shows that the NRL care nothing about said tackles. They've scapegoated the Melbourne player and really ought to be ashamed of themselves for how they've handled the entire affair - and how they've conducted themselves prior to the injury.
I don't know how you could take any position other than the NRL are idiots and the punishment to McLean is excessive given how the judiciary usually turn a blind eye to those tackles.'"
You do know the NRL Judiciary, rightly or wrongly, take the severity of the injury into account when deciding punishments? He was charged with a Grade 2 dangerous throw (325 demerit points), and received 400 demerit points for the severity of the injury. With 100 points equalling 1 week suspension, there's your 7 weeks. Hardly a scapegoat when you break it down.
And it also explains why similar dangerous tackles that don't result in injury (the vast majority) receive more lenient punishments. Further, as with Docker, the early guilty can come in to play.
