I did post a short blurb at the end of the article on McLean's suspension however, I do not believe that accurately demonstrates my view point, nor does it provide any evidence to support my stance. So I've written an article below.
When Jordan McLean joined into that tackle on Alex McKinnon, few realised how the two men's careers would change forever. One in hospital and may never walk again.
The other, handed a seven week suspension and lumped with the sole responsibility for that tackle.
The judiciary and match review committee were both handed the unenviable task of grading and then hearing the defence of McLean. He was going to be suspended, of that there was no doubt.
However, the severity of that suspension was not foreseen. Personally I had assumed he'd either be handed a grade one or grade two dangerous throw charge, served one week and be back playing.
In my honest opinion, the judiciary has made an highly emotional judgement, based primarily on the result of the tackle, rather than the tackle itself.
I saw the tackle as it happened, there was no malice; no intent to cause harm. In fact, it looked as though the Melbourne players were trying to get McKinnon to ground as soon as they realised they had him in an awkward position.
I have seen many worse spear tackles handed lesser suspensions. Richie Fa'aoso's dual tackles on Greg Inglis netted him less, Luke O'Donnell's tackle on Darius Boyd in State of Origin was also deemed less malicious.
I would also like to add that Jordan McLean was not the only player involved in the tackle. The Bromwich brothers were both involved and not charged. Essentially, the NRL has singled out McLean as the only factor involved that created the dangerous position.
I am neither a Storm or Newcastle fan, I am a fan of rugby league. I do not believe that McLean has been given a fair hearing in this case. There was a range of factors that led to McKinnon's injury and Jordan McLean has been singled out for it.
The game has let McLean down in this instance and the judiciary has made a judgement, more on emotion and subjectivity, rather than the objectivity and transparency that they are supposed to represent.
O'Donnell spear tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyGIPcGH0iY
Fa'aoso spear tackles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1KXaVKswks
Replies
This tackle was given 5 weeks:
and that was a dive onto his head by GI too
"I saw the tackle as it happened, there was no malice; no intent to cause harm.
You are making too much of intent. Illegal play does not need intent. Careless high tackle, for example appears to imply lack of intent. No part of the 7-week penalty was for intent. So you are left arguing against the penalty for the consequences of the illegal tackle. While the panel did not break down the 7 week penalty, I think it would be reasonable to surmise the penalty was one week for the illegal act and six weeks for the consequences. Personally I am okay with that decision.
http://www.nrl.com/mclean-cops-7-weeks-for-lifting-tackle/tabid/108...
I do not dispute that the tackle was illegal, once McKinnon's legs were above the horizontal the tackle became illegal. My point is though, watching the replays, once they took him above the horizontal it appeared that they panicked and tried to put him on the ground as quickly as possible which is when the injury occurred. Contrast that with O'Donnell's, Fa'aoso's and Inu's tackles, where in every one of those instances they virtually drove their opponents' heads into the turf.
Are we to ignore that there were another two players involved in that tackle yet they were not called before the judiciary despite the fact that their involvement contributed in someway to the incident?
Michael, I recall reading in the paper that the prosecutor dismissed part of the Storm defense where the Storm suggested McKinnon contributed to the severity of his injury by ducking his head. The prosecutor replied that the severity of the injury to McKinnon was no at issue, so whether McKinnon contributed to his injury was a moot point. Hence it seems the consequences of the tackle were not a factor in the ruling, and that seems to leave just issues of intent and compliance with the rules, and obviously the ruling suggests McLean was not in compliance with the rules.
There was no malice, but there does not need to be. It's very hard NOT to be emotionally affected by the RESULT of the tackle - and I am sure this factored in, as well. The judiciary HAD to send a message with this suspension, how could they NOT........and McLean couldn't possibly care less, he has enough on his mind anyway - and probably welcomes the break to get out of the spotlight
7 weeks sounds about right, not season or career ending as there was no malice - yet long enough to emphasise the seriousness of being "careless" when "lifting" (not that anybody needs reminding anyhow) - but they just couldn't hand out an inconsequential sentence either - then the press and fans would have been over this like a rash - making an already awful situation worse again
disagree super - the penalty fits the severity of the tackle - we can only hope that a barrister has contacted the family and begun preparing subpoenas to send to the storm to gather all the dirty wrestling techniques they have implemented over the last 8 yrs and all the training programs around tackle techniques - i hope mckinnons legal team sue, the storm and bellamey for deliberate instigation of dangerous play
just look at the crusher, chicken wing et al
you cant tell me the 3rd man in the tackles involvement isnt a flop pure and simple, he had no contact with mkinnon as they went to ground and was just adding weight and slowing down the play by being involved - im personally dissappointed he wasnt charged!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next