7 matches.

Sounds big but in reality the outcome was always going to have a bearing on the penalty given.

How many did Long get for betting on a sure thing??? With no life in danger. So whilst it may seem a big penalty, I think there has been some understanding shown as he could have got 11.

7 matches seems appropriate to me. It's large enough to set an example, but any bigger and it would probably have been a tad tough on Mclean bearing in mind that this sort of tackle techinque happens dozens of time in a game without even a penalty (as it's rare it ends with the player landing on their head).

What I think needs to happen now is that similar length bans are handed out to anyone lifting the legs above horizontal, regardless of how the tackle ends. It's this technique that needs to be eradicated, as we've seen, it only takes 1 to go slightly wrong and it's catastrophic.

For me, this whole culture of trying to slow down the ruck and wrestle techinques (this includes cannon balls, chicken wings, crushers, lifting the legs in gang tackles etc) is the real blight on our game, and are the ones that cause serious injury, yet we've banned the legitamate shoulder charge due to the potential risk. I can't remember anyone getting a life threatening injury from a legitate tough shoulder charge tackle.

Thankfully, though, you grace us with your presence, unworthy and ignorant as we are, and allow us to share in your wisdom, for which I am sure we are all grateful

<tugs forelock gratefully>

The 7 match ban is obviously in response to the injury rather than the tackle itself, which is I suppose understandable in the circumstances although I don't agree with it. They are making an example of a young player who has done something that every single player in the world has done at some point, the difference this time is that someone has been unfortunate enough to get hurt. You could argue that it will encourage players to be more careful, but the injury will have much more of an effect in this regard than any ban could.

Everyone will have their own view, but I would argue until blue in the face that it was a legal tackle and it was just a freak accident. I assume they are going to dish out 7 match bans for every player who uses this technique in the future, although they might have to reconsider when after 2 months we are down to playing 7 a side.

It wasn't legal though...

The inu one on inglis was worse that got 5.matches,luckily inglis didnt suffer serious injury

It wasn't? Perhaps you could travel to Australia and explain that to the NRL, seeing as you see the same tackle all the bloody time without so much as a penalty.

Heck, there were about 20 other ones in the Storm - Newcastle game alone that were let go!

Players play to the referee. The NRL is at fault here for allowing lifting tackles and lifting tackles behind the horizontal to happen several times a game without so much as a penalty, never mind a suspension.

"Superted"wrestle techinques (this includes cannon balls, chicken wings, crushers, lifting the legs in gang tackles etc) is the real blight on our game, and are the ones that cause serious injury.





Melbourne's name comes up a lot with regards to these sorts of techniques doesn't it. Add to that the fact that they were sued by Jarrod McCracken years ago.

I agree, but the problems now faced are twofold.

Firstly, there was little consistency prior to this incident. These sorts of gang tackles are not a rarity in the NRL, but very little has been done up to now to "manage/police" them. Therefore, the penalty handed down is charting new territory and seems to go against the "TV/MEDIA" experts opinions that this was a very sad and unfortunate accident.

Secondly, now they have laid down their judgement, every single tackle involving any of the elements that combined to make this sickening incident what it is will now be scrutinised, by the very same "TV/MEDIA" experts alluded to above.

There'll be lots of "I told you-so's" bandied about for the rest of the year.

Bottom line is the ARL/NRL need to come out with a very clear statement pronto, underlining exactly what will be penalised and how strongly. If not, chaos will reign and players will begin to 2nd guess themselves before going into tackles.......which in itself, is dangerous.

Personally, I think they've handed down the wrong punishment in this matter....and potentially ended a 2nd NRL career in the process. they've Punished the injury, not the infringement (if there was any).

Totally agree with you GF.

I've just spilt my beer

Knights are over the weasel words from Melbourne. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zqqej.html

Knights are over the weasel words from Melbourne. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zqqej.html

Jordan McLean's brother, Tony McLean, has been sentenced to three years in prison in NSW for a vicious king-hit punch to the back of the head of a complete stranger, outside a pub in Orange NSW. The blow knocked the victim unconscious and led to a brain haemorrhage. One of the reasons for the three year sentence was the judge's opinion that McLean had shown no remorse after the attack. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zqqdr.html I mention this not to indict Jordan McLean for deliberately causing this injury to Alex McKinnon, but to suggest that the family already has one bad apple in it , and that Jordan McLean now ought to show a bit of public remorse for his actions, which I have not seen so far.

Jordan McLean's brother, Tony McLean, has been sentenced to three years in prison in NSW for a vicious king-hit punch to the back of the head of a complete stranger, outside a pub in Orange NSW. The blow knocked the victim unconscious and led to a brain haemorrhage. One of the reasons for the three year sentence was the judge's opinion that McLean had shown no remorse after the attack. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zqqdr.html I mention this not to indict Jordan McLean for deliberately causing this injury to Alex McKinnon, but to suggest that the family already has one bad apple in it , and that Jordan McLean now ought to show a bit of public remorse for his actions, which I have not seen so far.