Is that legal advisor chasing an ambulance whilst commenting?

www.newcastleknights.com.au/news ... _alex.html Bennett - We owe it to Alex

www.newcastleknights.com.au/news ... _alex.html Bennett - We owe it to Alex

The responsibility lies primarily with the tacklers here but the onfield officials just have to be pro-active in whistling or instructing before this type of thing follows through. the moment the hands went between the legs or it was clear the tackle was going to end badly the ref should be blowing immediately. they have two refs for precisely this type of thing.
IMO there is no need for the micturate poor tackle technique..none whatsoever but as others have said it gets let by without due consideration to outcomes like this..

I've purposely avoided watching the incident. But is that photo a picture of the tackle in question??? www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... .html#poll I only ask as it's horizontal yes, but my god it's marginal. The tackler on the legs is more of a pivot, it's the weight of the 2 men on top that seem to be forcing down. And put quite simply putting the man down is the purpose of a tackle. I do think people are trying to micro manage elements of physics where not one of those players is in full control. they are all making independent movements that contribute to the final act. If it's not the tackle in question then fair enough, but I was expecting more of a spear. I think it would be hard to sue anyone on that. You could play 1000'sof similar tackles in defense showing there is little difference in the actions taken. The only real solution from that tackle in the photo would to ban tackling, as the lift is marginal, I imagine the speed was quick. how the ref steps in, or the players realize what is going on is beyond me.

I've purposely avoided watching the incident. But is that photo a picture of the tackle in question??? www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... .html#poll I only ask as it's horizontal yes, but my god it's marginal. The tackler on the legs is more of a pivot, it's the weight of the 2 men on top that seem to be forcing down. And put quite simply putting the man down is the purpose of a tackle. I do think people are trying to micro manage elements of physics where not one of those players is in full control. they are all making independent movements that contribute to the final act. If it's not the tackle in question then fair enough, but I was expecting more of a spear. I think it would be hard to sue anyone on that. You could play 1000'sof similar tackles in defense showing there is little difference in the actions taken. The only real solution from that tackle in the photo would to ban tackling, as the lift is marginal, I imagine the speed was quick. how the ref steps in, or the players realize what is going on is beyond me.

its horrible what has happened to the player but in my opinion he has tried to imitate what Inglis did against manly. But like everybody else i hope the kid can recover and have a healthy life.

all from alex Mckinnon own body movement, you can clearly sees when watching it that he moves his head towards the ground like Greg Inglis did last season.

The kid is a scapegoat. He'll have to carry this thought for the rest of his life. To be involved in it is bad enough, to then be punished for it, strengthens the guilt he'd feel.


I remember on a coaching course years ago, someone suggesting that if you can see your feet on the floor when you tackle, you'll increase the chance of getting a neck injury!!!

But of course, on this flip side of being tackled, poor McKinnon's natural instinct is to see where he was going and where to place arm arm out to protect him, thereby causing his head to be in a position that became dangerous for him.


I wish all involved well.

Some bizarre statements on here: he was imitating Inglis, McLean is a scapegoat, the ref should have stopped the tackle, it's just as much the NRL's fault...

As for the tackle, doesn't matter if it was marginal or not. He was tipped over and his neck has been broken. Simple as that. He tucked his head because he was about to be driven head-first into the turf. There was nothing he could do but try and move his head out the way - an instinctive survival reaction - which of course led to his neck bearing the weight of the impact with the ground.

As for McLean, as I've said there's no way he would have intended such an injury, but he was lifting to send a message of domination to his opponent. The ban is about right for me. It was an illegal tackle but the terrible outcome was accidental. However, it was still an accident brought on by their actions.

As for all these hundreds of similar unpunished tackles we apparently see go unpunished in the NRL (ie, the attacker being lifted past the horizontal), I'd love to see a few of them, because whenever I see someone tipped over head-first, there is generally a penalty or worse. It's an easy bandwagon to jump on, but in reality that just isn't the truth.

Thanks for that. honestly a good education. In which case it seems fair enough. He put himself in the pivot position rather than being their first.

I know some people would just say watch it, but seems a bit goulish to me.

Maybe lifting as a 3rd man in could be an immediate yellow card offense to stress the danger. Nothing wrong with a 3rd man in to stop the legs driving forwards.

I've got some other fairy tales you might like if you bought that one.
He was lifted above the horizontal by a guy with a hand between his legs.
Three big forwards drove him head first into the ground with enough force to snap his neck.
That's what happened.
All the fantasy about it being caused by the way he was holding his mouth, or it actually being a suicide attempt, or any other drivel you hear about how every second tackle in the NRL involves players being driven head first into the turf, is probably not worth listening to.

It probably was 1000/1 that his head was caught in exactly the position to break his neck, but that is why these tackles are illegal - because 1 time in a 1000 you will snap someone's neck.

The Melbourne players and admin have acted with all the empathy of psychopaths in all of this. Cam Smith started blame shifting while the guy was 10 feet away from him screaming that he couldn't move or breath, and the 'defence' that McKinnon contributed to the injury is beyond pathetic.

That's the best analysis of the situation I've seen thus far.

The need to super-scrutinise the movements of each player involved and the public blame-shifting that is being conducted through the media is distasteful and unpleasant; a young player has been permanently disabled as a result of an illegal tackle - that's about the size of it.

No it isn't. He wasn't driven head first into the ground. That is a fantasy and a fairytale. The only reason mckinnon's head came into contact with the turf was because he bent it at a wierd angle. If he'd kept his head in it's original position he'd have been put on his back, got up and played the ball. That's the point. It's not Mckinnons fault, f*ck no, but it wasn't down to a devil tackle from melbourne either. It was an accident.

It was an illegal tackle. It took the judiciary 10 minutes to decide that.
Anyone with an ounce of common decency would immediately accept responsibility for their actions and show remorse and contrition.
All we have seen from Melbourne is blame shifting.
If you look at the interview with Bennett, the Knights were trying to make no comment on all of this and concentrate on the more important task of looking after his wellbeing, but as Bennett said, "We owed it to Alex" to not have the blame for this put onto the guy who is in no position to reply and is the clear victim.
Melbourne's response has been the ugly, ugly face of self interest and refusing to take responsibility for their actions.
This whole thing should be behind us now, but not because it was glossed over and minimised by people like you, but because adult and ethical people should have owned their guilt and atoned by now.