There are quite a few variables when judging tackles like the one of McKinnon I would imagine. No doubt one argument put forward would be that the player was not in a position where his head or neck were likely to make first contact with the ground until McKinnon ducked his head.

If I'm not mistaken a penalty was given for the incident so the referee did have the bottle to enforce the above rule on this occasion. When it comes to the disciplinary it might be difficult to agree exactly how culpable Jordan McLean is in the tackle. He does lift McKinnon but not in a way that would generally be viewed as dangerous. He didn't lift the player between the legs or bring both legs above the horizontal and the two other players tackling above the waist were perhaps more responsible for the way that McKinnon was pushed downwards.

I think it would be pretty harsh for Jordan McLean to pick up too severe a ban despite the consequences. It wasn't a malicious tackle and other players contributed just as much. It was all three players who had a part to play in the injury.

The injury probably highlights the need to look into when lifting in tackles should or shouldn't be allowed. In many cases lifting in two or three man tackles is generally unnecessary. The ref should be calling held as soon as the player is lifted anyway but teams still lift to slow the play the ball down. Problems can sometimes come with the fact that the players involved might not be certain exactly what the other tackler is doing. A player might be held up by a tackler who has wrapped up the ball and another tackler might come in to lift the attacking players legs to stop him moving. If the original tackler decided to try to bring the player down at the same time then it could lead to a dangerous tackle despite neither player attempting anything malicious.

Some might say that it would be a knee-jerk reaction to start looking into banning something else but the most important thing is that injuries like the one suffered by McKinnon are as rare as possible without removing anything that makes the sport what it is.

The NRL has been absolutely brutal this year. Massive hit after massive hit. Every game is hugely competitive. Its no wonder we never catch up when the intensity is like that every week. Cant get enough, im watching pretty much every match each week and have more interest in that than Super League with the exception of Wigan games.

Agree with the rest of your post, & I wasn't decrying the ref in this case. What I meant was that potentially dangerous throws aren't being clamped down on, or "on-report" is used all too often which simply allows the ref to abrogate responsibility & nothing really gets done. If the rules we have were applied more rigorously , it might force the tackling coaches to look again at how things are done to be more efficient instead of simply thuggish or dishonest.
Allowing the risk management consultants in on the act only leads to stupid decisions like banning shoulder charges: there are ways of making such a contact that isn't dangerous and only the lazy or incompetent player would likely routinely cause problems, which can be solved with either a talking to or a P45.

I'm all for designing the rules to allow fast play the balls but that needs to be evened out with a 5m defensive line otherwise it just becomes the Higham/Roby/Burrow show.

A 5m set might actually make coaches of all ages actually bring through a halfback and not just a good athlete with a good long pass.

wasn't 5m brought in (back) a couple of years ago for the lower leagues? how did that work? (or did i just dream that somewhere)

Taken from todays Sydney Morning Herald.



Alex McKinnon wakes to tragic news

Newcastle Knights forward has been roused from an induced coma and told he may never walk again after an on-field accident. Nine News.


'Jordan McLean will serve a seven-game suspension after he was found guilty of a dangerous throw charge on Newcastle's Alex McKinnon that has left him in hospital with a spinal injury.

A clearly distraught McLean was handed the 725-point suspension on Wednesday night, however the judiciary panel comprising of former players Bob Lindner, Mal Cochrane and Chris McKenna wouldn't provide a breakdown of what part the injury to McKinnon played in the suspension.

Given it was referred straight to the judiciary, it's unknown whether McLean was handed a grade one suspension (125 points) with 600 point loading, a grade two suspension (325 points) with a 400 point loading, a grade three suspension (525 points) with a 200 point loading or a grade four suspension (725 points).'

A seven game suspension is probably the last thing on Mclean's mind now as he contemplates the results of his actions.

7 games is reactionary, the tackle wasn't a bad one, if McKinnon doesn't tuck in, nothing would happen and the tackle is legit and not even looked at. I feel bad for McKinnon and I wouldn't wish it on my worse enemy but poor Jordan has to live with that and all the guilt that comes with it, this just reinforces that it was his fault and piles it on even more. I feel for both of them and the 7 weeks ban is just so the NRL can feel superior and shift any criticism from themselves to Jordan.

Did the NRL pick him up ilegally, and drop him on his head? I'm sorry but the fact that he ducked is head is irrelevant, he should've never been put in that position in the first place.

and to head off those who would ban all contact sports as a matter of course. 7 games is ott, 3 would have been more proportionate in the circumstances.

Rubbish, have you seen the tackle? it goes on in every game and it always goes unpunished and rightly so, it was an accident and the tackle wasn't illegal.

McKinnon is just as culpable.

It's only a ban because of the injury, we might as well just turn it into tag and be done.

We've all played or at least most of us have knowing there's a chance of injury, this game [RL] has effected me, i now walk with a limp that will hinder me until i die. This ban is BS deflection of the highest. If not then i expect every tackle of this kind to be retrospectively punished...which it won't.

It's simple, if a tackler lifts a player above the horizontal, the player will obviously be travelling down head first and will be in danger of head injury. In this case the tackler who does the lifting should be sent off.

Would reducing the tackling line stop lifting????

Maybe it's a re-education of referees that is needed. Something along the lines of once the feet leave the ground, it starts to be come akin to tackling in the air, and regardless of players attempts to wriggle, offload or force back, held should be called.

From any tackles I can recall where players go above the horizontal, it all happens so quickly that I find it hard to believe that a ref could call held quick enough to stop it.

I've not watched the tackle as I really don't want to see someone's neck broke. But for those who have watched it, how long is there between feet of the ground and head on the floor??? If it's less than a second then there is little that can be done.

One of his feet doesn't even really leave the floor he just hops a bit and he only goes over the horizontal as he falls to the ground and the tackler has hold of one of his legs. It's not like he was picked up and tipped on his head more that he fell in an awkward position. It looks innocuous and similar tackles do go unpunished all the time. The ban is an over the top reaction.

At least a glimmer of light in the unrelenting doomINJURED Newcastle Knights star Alex McKinnon has spoken publicly for the first time since his horrific neck injury, revealing he is experiencing further movement in his arms and has feeling in his legs.'"

Praise the Lord, this is my biggest issue in rule changes, followed by 12 subs. The way these 2 changes pushed the game has never been for the better. It promoted athletes and not skill.