McKinnon sues NRL - implications across the game.

[Lowdesert]

How many times have we heard 'are we going to wait until.......'. In Alex McKinnons case, unfortunately, it did.

RFL approach, Referees approach, Coaches approach?

Is it going to be another case of waiting to see what the verdict is?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrls-public-statements-on-lifting-tackle-to-be-scrutinised-as-part-of-alex-mckinnon-compensation-case-20161219-gtdx4a.html

[steef]

I'd say the rfl should have something like 10 match bans for any kind of Spear tackle as a minimum. Referees need to be told that as soon as a tackled players feet are of the ground then the tackle must be called held. Head tackles need to penalised more stringently and punishments made more severe. Unfortunately a sport like RL will always have the potential for life changing injury but the above would hopefully make all players think twice about the way they tackle. And would

Show that the RFL takes the risk seriously. I'd suggest players having some kind of education/course about spinal injuries so that they are fully aware of the damage they could potentially do if they get things wrong.

I'd imagine that if the lawsuit is a success especially against the players who tackled him then that will focus all the players minds to not make such tackles.

[roughyedspud]

Alex needs to be careful because his action of tucking his head under was a deciding factor in his injury...cam smith said it at the time to the ref "if he did tuck his head in that wouldn't have happened"..

Alex should absolutely be looked after for the rest of his life by the knights & the NRL...but i don't think suing people will get the results he wants..cos its entirely possible he could be found complicate in the actions that caused the injury...then what???

Its sad either way

[Lowdesert]

I'd say the rfl should have something like 10 match bans for any kind of Spear tackle as a minimum. Referees need to be told that as soon as a tackled players feet are of the ground then the tackle must be called held. Head tackles need to penalised more stringently and punishments made more severe. Unfortunately a sport like RL will always have the potential for life changing injury but the above would hopefully make all players think twice about the way they tackle. And would

Show that the RFL takes the risk seriously. I'd suggest players having some kind of education/course about spinal injuries so that they are fully aware of the damage they could potentially do if they get things wrong.

I'd imagine that if the lawsuit is a success especially against the players who tackled him then that will focus all the players minds to not make such tackles.

I think the RFL do take this seriously and long bans are given, but the McKinnon incident, unfortunate as it was to Alex, split opinion in Australia. Many thought it didn't even warrant a ban, some, the opposite.

Opinion was also divided on referee decisions going on report, decisions being based on the level of injury and also the never ending discussions on Coaches complaining of the length of bans. I could go on.

Then we have the ultimate goal. How to prevent career and life threatening injury.

[The Future is League]

If Mckinnon loses this case against the NRL his court costs will be huge, and from what i know about the case i would say its odds against him winning the case, and he might never work again within Rugby League due to his court actions.

[MZH]

I think the RFL do take this seriously and long bans are given, but the McKinnon incident, unfortunate as it was to Alex, split opinion in

Australia. Many thought it didn't even warrant a ban, some, the opposite.

It was a really difficult one. By RL standards it was a pretty innocuous tackle, and I certainly felt some sympathy for the guys involved in the tackle. Alex was incredibly unlucky.

I'm not sure punishing spear tackles more severely will really solve the problem. They are already illegal and carry a ban. Players also know what the potential consequences of being dropped on your head can be, and no one wants to be responsible for putting someone in a wheelchair (or worse). It's a fast paced and physical game and sometimes accidents will happen (as they did to Alex). Are we really going to penalise every tackle where a leg is lifted? Because its those tackles that can lead to spears where players are struggling and there are numerous people in the tackle. What we can do about this I'm not really sure.

[Tonka]

Alex needs to be careful because his action of tucking his head under was a deciding factor in his injury...cam smith said it at the time to the ref "if he did tuck his head in that wouldn't have happened"..

Alex should absolutely be looked after for the rest of his life by the knights & the NRL...but i don't think suing people will get the results he wants..cos its entirely possible he could be found complicate in the actions that caused the injury...then what???

Its sad either way 

Depending on the extent to which they find his own actions caused it then he would either have contributed to the negligence or, at worst (for him), broken the chain of causation that would make the tacklers liable.

 

This is one of those situations where nobody wins.

 

But I think it's terrible those people who are calling him a money-grabber and a grub etc. 

[longboard]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38360342

 

Alex's lawyer has sent a letter to the authorities, rather than a writ, or such like. No doubt the insurance companies involved will have their lawyers scrutinising  the letter's contents.

[The 4 of Us]

roughyedspud, on 19 Dec 2016 - 1:10 PM, said:

Alex needs to be careful because his action of tucking his head under was a deciding factor in his injury...cam smith said it at the time to the ref "if he did tuck his head in that wouldn't have happened"..

Alex should absolutely be looked after for the rest of his life by the knights & the NRL...but i don't think suing people will get the results he wants..cos its entirely possible he could be found complicate in the actions that caused the injury...then what???

Its sad either way

Depending on the extent to which they find his own actions caused it then he would either have contributed to the negligence or, at worst (for him), broken the chain of causation that would make the tacklers liable.

This is one of those situations where nobody wins.

But I think it's terrible those people who are calling him a money-grabber and a grub etc.

Agree with both these sentiments. Suspect there'll be a compromise on a cost/benefit analysis taking into account the publicity and cost of proceedings without admission of liability that avoids opening the floodgates.

[The Future is League]

roughyedspud, on 19 Dec 2016 - 1:10 PM, said:

Alex needs to be careful because his action of tucking his head under was a deciding factor in his injury...cam smith said it at the time to the ref "if he did tuck his head in that wouldn't have happened"..

Alex should absolutely be looked after for the rest of his life by the knights & the NRL...but i don't think suing people will get the results he wants..cos its entirely possible he could be found complicate in the actions that caused the injury...then what???

Its sad either way

Depending on the extent to which they find his own actions caused it then he would either have contributed to the negligence or, at worst (for him), broken the chain of causation that would make the tacklers liable.

This is one of those situations where nobody wins.

But I think it's terrible those people who are calling him a money-grabber and a grub etc.

Agree with both these sentiments. Suspect there'll be a compromise on a cost/benefit analysis taking into account the publicity and cost of proceedings without admission of liability that avoids opening the floodgates.

If the NRL think they have a good chance of winning the case if it went to court they wont compromise.

They won't want to set a precedent.

[Lowdesert]

Depending on the extent to which they find his own actions caused it then he would either have contributed to the negligence or, at worst (for him), broken the chain of causation that would make the tacklers liable.

 

This is one of those situations where nobody wins.

 

But I think it's terrible those people who are calling him a money-grabber and a grub etc.

And those actions could be as simple as his speed or position. I know he is engaged with the Knights, but maybe not for the bucks he was on.

Will the disciplinary panels now hit the offender hard dependant on these severity of the injury? Last year was hit and miss.

[The 4 of Us]

If the NRL think they have a good chance of winning the case if it went to court they wont compromise.

They won't want to set a precedent.

They would also spend as much, if not more, on legal costs as they would like need to fork out in a settlement and the reality is, regardless of a "win" they wouldn't want to be seen to pursuing McKinnon for the costs.

As for precedent, thank goodness this type of incident is very rare. What's the likelihood of it happening again?

In the 60's there were incidents of the bean counters reckoning it was better sending out defective cars because it was cheaper paying out if something happened than paying out to get them all fixed.

Here the NRL can't really fix anything because a lot of what happened was chance, a once in a generation unfortunate event, not helped by what's already been pointed out about the player's own role in "tucking" his head in.

For me it doesn't pay to litigate, especially McKinnon, how and how does he allege negligence? and the risk of precedent is limited.

[DeadShotKeen]

I tend to agree with roughyedspud's analysis. My own view of the appalling incident - and only McKinnon himself will know if this is true or not - is that he felt contact to his feet and misguidedly tried to flip himself over to win a pen. McLean's hand no sooner touches his foot than it's removed and poor McKinnon is left with life-changing results from a bad (and brave, perhaps foolish depending on where you stand) decision made in a split second. It was truly horrifying and when I saw the replay from the opposite side (I was watching the game "as live" the following night without knowing the score or any of the events) my instant reaction was that the lad must surely be paralysed. I haven't seen it again (I had to look away even from the still shot that did the rounds in the press in the following days) and have no desire to ever see it again so I'm relying on my single viewing once in real time there and admit I may be wrong. But I think a few things came together - a side being well beaten, a brave lad taking a tough hit up, another lad getting the wrong side and thinking about a flip (then thinking better of it) and the brave lad misreading the other lad and seeing an opportunity to get his side back in the game, with fateful results. Just the worst possible set of circumstances and McKinnon is so unlucky, bad decision or not. The bottom line is that whatever else we say RL is a dangerous sport and these lads take their lives in their hands in so many ways in order to entertain us (and of course to earn themselves a good living but still).

 

I thus think that Cam Smith was in many ways correct with his assessment. I was a little shocked by his comment given the gravity of the situation but I half wonder if he wasn't just trying to introduce a little "normalisation" into the situation....almost like "If I say something of a throwaway, semi-competitive nature will it just make this a normal injury in a tough combat sport like any other?" I certainly don't think there was any malice in it and Smith is the last RL player I would ever throw mud at. That bit's by the by anyway in this analysis but I think it's worth reinforcing.

 

I do recall the widespread defence of McLean when he got his long ban and I supported it 100%. It sounds insensitive to say maybe given the gravity of McKinnon's injuries but I really do feel for the lad. I don't think he's a remotely dirty player - it was just the horrible coming together of a few ingredients in a 3 man tackle and it could have happened to anyone. As many said at the time, let's not destroy the careers of 2 young lads. McLean's progression seems to have slowed a bit since the incident but he had a good year last year. He deserves the continued support of the RL world in what will now be a tough time for him.

 

I don't think McKinnon is right to go after NRL but then who the hell am I to say that? I wish him all the best whatever he does; he's a true warrior. This is the first I'd heard that he won't walk again, which is really sad - I had followed his progress to some extent for a year or so and saw that he was upright at the Dally Ms (last year maybe?) but then like all of these things you tend to forget don't you? I think it was perhaps hope against hope that he would walk again but I'm glad he seems to look in otherwise good nick in the shots on that piece. 

 

I don't really know what would constitute a positive outcome for all involved here but let's just pray that those freakish set of circumstances never come together again and that McKinnon is still able to live an active and rewarding life. His comments and actions since the accident certainly suggest so. I agree with Wayne Bennett's comment in the immediate aftermath: "He is an outstanding young man".

[Dave T]

Is there an issue here around the fact that the NRL handed out a severe ban, therefore making a clear statement that this was a serious illegal tackle?

Doesn't that put McLean in a tight spot?

[Lowdesert]

Is there an issue here around the fact that the NRL handed out a severe ban, therefore making a clear statement that this was a serious illegal tackle?

Doesn't that put McLean in a tight spot?

I think McKinnons lawyers are saying the NRL making that statement (long ban) is the basis of their case.

[Lowdesert]

I tend to agree with roughyedspud's analysis. My own view of the appalling incident - and only McKinnon himself will know if this is true or not - is that he felt contact to his feet and misguidedly tried to flip himself over to win a pen. McLean's hand no sooner touches his foot than it's removed and poor McKinnon is left with life-changing results from a bad (and brave, perhaps foolish depending on where you stand) decision made in a split second. It was truly horrifying and when I saw the replay from the opposite side (I was watching the game "as live" the following night without knowing the score or any of the events) my instant reaction was that the lad must surely be paralysed. I haven't seen it again (I had to look away even from the still shot that did the rounds in the press in the following days) and have no desire to ever see it again so I'm relying on my single viewing once in real time there and admit I may be wrong. But I think a few things came together - a side being well beaten, a brave lad taking a tough hit up, another lad getting the wrong side and thinking about a flip (then thinking better of it) and the brave lad misreading the other lad and seeing an opportunity to get his side back in the game, with fateful results. Just the worst possible set of circumstances and McKinnon is so unlucky, bad decision or not. The bottom line is that whatever else we say RL is a dangerous sport and these lads take their lives in their hands in so many ways in order to entertain us (and of course to earn themselves a good living but still).

 

I thus think that Cam Smith was in many ways correct with his assessment. I was a little shocked by his comment given the gravity of the situation but I half wonder if he wasn't just trying to introduce a little "normalisation" into the situation....almost like "If I say something of a throwaway, semi-competitive nature will it just make this a normal injury in a tough combat sport like any other?" I certainly don't think there was any malice in it and Smith is the last RL player I would ever throw mud at. That bit's by the by anyway in this analysis but I think it's worth reinforcing.

 

I do recall the widespread defence of McLean when he got his long ban and I supported it 100%. It sounds insensitive to say maybe given the gravity of McKinnon's injuries but I really do feel for the lad. I don't think he's a remotely dirty player - it was just the horrible coming together of a few ingredients in a 3 man tackle and it could have happened to anyone. As many said at the time, let's not destroy the careers of 2 young lads. McLean's progression seems to have slowed a bit since the incident but he had a good year last year. He deserves the continued support of the RL world in what will now be a tough time for him.

 

I don't think McKinnon is right to go after NRL but then who the hell am I to say that? I wish him all the best whatever he does; he's a true warrior. This is the first I'd heard that he won't walk again, which is really sad - I had followed his progress to some extent for a year or so and saw that he was upright at the Dally Ms (last year maybe?) but then like all of these things you tend to forget don't you? I think it was perhaps hope against hope that he would walk again but I'm glad he seems to look in otherwise good nick in the shots on that piece. 

 

I don't really know what would constitute a positive outcome for all involved here but let's just pray that those freakish set of circumstances never come together again and that McKinnon is still able to live an active and rewarding life. His comments and actions since the accident certainly suggest so. I agree with Wayne Bennett's comment in the immediate aftermath: "He is an outstanding young man".

Whether it's right or not to go after the NRL will be biased after the lawyers have got into him. IMO I think he should. As far as I know he is working for a wage, but not a big wage. A large amount of money would make a difference to him, no dissimilar than a critical illness policy - and maybe this is the way the results will go, with the insurances adding such a clause. If I remember my insurance for playing wasn't exactly comprehensive by a long way!

[Dave T]

Whether it's right or not to go after the NRL will be biased after the lawyers have got into him. IMO I think he should. As far as I know he is working for a wage, but not a big wage. A large amount of money would make a difference to him, no dissimilar than a critical illness policy - and maybe this is the way the results will go, with the insurances adding such a clause. If I remember my insurance for playing wasn't exactly comprehensive by a long way!

I tend to agree. It is a shame that he is having to go through this process, but we shouldn't understate what the lad is going through. 

 

The lad was at work, and I think he should be getting a very healthy payout to help his substantial costs and compensate for the impact on his life - it is harsh that it has to be done by 'suing' the NRL and the player, but if this is how it needs to happen, then it is unfortunate.

 

I can't help but feel that he should have been getting a major payout from the game anyway - not being given an average job so he doesn't sue.

[Dave T]

Looking at some of the comments on Facebook about this is sickening - some idiots saying he doesn't deserve to walk again.

[Lowdesert]

I tend to agree. It is a shame that he is having to go through this process, but we shouldn't understate what the lad is going through. 

 

The lad was at work, and I think he should be getting a very healthy payout to help his substantial costs and compensate for the impact on his life - it is harsh that it has to be done by 'suing' the NRL and the player, but if this is how it needs to happen, then it is unfortunate.

 

I can't help but feel that he should have been getting a major payout from the game anyway - not being given an average job so he doesn't sue.

He cant be offered a job with the Knights if one doesn't exist, but at least he has one. Guessing he has disability benefits and caters allowances, but how do you quantify mental anguish for him or for McLean? There will be insurers calculators.

It will be interesting to see how disciplinary panels perform in 2017 regarding head related offences.

[DeadShotKeen]

Is there an issue here around the fact that the NRL handed out a severe ban, therefore making a clear statement that this was a serious illegal tackle?

Doesn't that put McLean in a tight spot?

 

I was going to mention that (but my post was quite long enough!)

 

Emotions were clearly running high at that time and NRL clearly wanted to send the right message of support but you're right that legally that might now come back to haunt NRL (and McLean by association).

[Allora]

I tend to agree. It is a shame that he is having to go through this process, but we shouldn't understate what the lad is going through. 

 

The lad was at work, and I think he should be getting a very healthy payout to help his substantial costs and compensate for the impact on his life - it is harsh that it has to be done by 'suing' the NRL and the player, but if this is how it needs to happen, then it is unfortunate.

 

I can't help but feel that he should have been getting a major payout from the game anyway - not being given an average job so he doesn't sue.

I feel really sorry for him.

He has received 2-2.25 million dollars to this point, Newcastle knights paid out his contract $750k and the fundraising raised 1.25-1.5 million.

Its a sad situation either way, my nephew dived into a pool because he thought his Daughter was drowning hit the bottom and broke his neck, quadriplegic and battles on the best he can.

Life can be cruel.

[The 4 of Us]

I was going to mention that (but my post was quite long enough!)

Emotions were clearly running high at that time and NRL clearly wanted to send the right message of support but you're right that legally that might now come back to haunt NRL (and McLean by association).

My feelings precisely. The NRL banned on basis of severity of injury rather than the actual tackle. Take away the injury and in the cold light of day, how many times a game does the same tackle occur. How do stop it happening again. Ban any tackle where an arm goes on the inside of a single leg? But then lifting could happen but more obviously where both legs are wrapped?

[redjonn]

I would have thought that legal counsel will be looking at how NRL handles dangerous plays as distinct from just this incident. That is whether NRL are in some way complicit in not doing enough to minimize chances of accidents and that it applies in this case that sufficient actions haven't been taken in the past to minimize likelihood of injury in playing the sport. That is what disciplinary actions and education programmes have been taken previous for similar offences, irrespective of how a player reacts to the specific. 

 

That is accidents do happen but also circumstances can make accidents more likely to happen than not. In this case how a sports organisation does all it can to stamp out any factors that can potentially cause injury to happen more likely than not. That is of course within the nature of a physical sport.