A tackle gone sadly wrong

[RobLev]

If that is the case go back to the first post showing the video & tell me how likely it was that McKinnon's head or neck would be the first part of his body that would hit the ground.

(Law quote completed)

70%, unless McKinnon twists his head or neck away.

On the basis of the definition of a Dangerous Throw, tragic as the outcome was, McLean was not guilty of that offence

McLean lifted McKinnon's leg, and kept on lifting it while bearing down on his side with his head/neck/shoulder. The weight of the fellow tacklers didn't help. McKinnon had no prospect of landing otherwise than on his upper body and very little of landing otherwise than on his head or neck.

I could see good reason for charging all three, although Mclean takes prime responsibility. He lifted the leg, after all.

 

[RobLev]

I suppose he's confused that a lifting tackle is being referred to as a dangerous THROW - when there is in fact no "throw". However, as per the law book:
[LAWS]Section 15: Notes: Dangerous Throw: If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck ("the dangerous position"), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the exercise of reasonable care, the dangerous position could not have been avoided.[/LAWS]

A list of offences which may be charged by the judiciary are at the bottom of the page - http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/judiciary/tabid/10435/default.aspx

Dangerous throw is obviously the correct charge and the Storm's boss is just a bit of a twit.

That was my conclusion, but I know RL laws even less well than RU.

 

[4eyesbetter]

The real problem here is that international laws haven't sufficiently changed in the last ~15 years (because politics) to still be properly fit for purpose in the modern game. C'est la vie.

 

[Browner]

Is it ever possible to write Law in order to meet the " understood by a rugby league supporter" request ......sarc

 

[OB..]

Is it ever possible to write Law in order to meet the " understood by a rugby league supporter" request ......sarc

"The opposition is always wrong"
(Not limited to any one sport)

 

[Dixpat]

70%, unless McKinnon twists his head or neck away.

Thanks for your opinion RobLev but do you not regard the hand and arm as part of the body?

There were two tackles [highlighted on NRL360, an Australian RL show] in last weeks NRL which were "tip tackles" but neither tackle drew sanction because the first part of the BC's body that hit the ground was the shoulder.

In the McKinnon tackle the first part of the body that touched the ground was his hand on an outstretched arm with his head & neck still approx. 1m away from the ground

Whilst accepting that any tip tackle can be potentially dangerous in not charging the players involved in last weekend's tackles the NRL review committee in my opinion have shown that their decision in the McKinnon tackle to be incorrect

 

[RobLev]

Thanks for your opinion RobLev but do you not regard the hand and arm as part of the body?

They probably are, but the question is irrelevant - see below.

There were two tackles [highlighted on NRL360, an Australian RL show] in last weeks NRL which were "tip tackles" but neither tackle drew sanction because the first part of the BC's body that hit the ground was the shoulder.

Then these are the tackles that were wrongly adjudicated - see below.

In the McKinnon tackle the first part of the body that touched the ground was his hand on an outstretched arm with his head & neck still approx. 1m away from the ground

Whilst accepting that any tip tackle can be potentially dangerous in not charging the players involved in last weekend's tackles the NRL review committee in my opinion have shown that their decision in the McKinnon tackle to be incorrect

The definition of a dangerous throw does not require the head or neck to be the first part of the body to touch the ground. It requires it to be likely that the head or neck will be the first part of the body to touch the ground. In making that judgment, what is considered is the position that the tackler puts the BC in; and any attempt the BC may subsequently make to extricate himself from that dangerous position must, as a matter of commonsense, be ignored.

Union Law refers to the head or upper body actually contacting the ground first; the IRB memo therefore had to deal with the eventuality of the BC getting an arm underneath him. The relevant League provision is as above, therefore doesn't need reference to the BC's avoidance attempts.

It sounds as if the two other tackles you mention were the ones decided incorrectly.

 

[Dixpat]

As the two tackles referred to above occurred after the McKinnon tackle one would have thought that the review committee would have been more attuned to what was or was not a dangerous tackle and they decided they were not which could have only been because the head and/or neck did not contact the ground first even though before there was any contact it was likely that either might

 

[RobLev]

As the two tackles referred to above occurred after the McKinnon tackle one would have thought that the review committee would have been more attuned to what was or was not a dangerous tackle and they decided they were not which could have only been because the head and/or neck did not contact the ground first even though before there was any contact it was likely that either might

Without seeing the tackles concerned I can't comment; but the Mclean/McKinnon decision was well-supported by the laws.

 

[Dixpat]

... but the Mclean/McKinnon decision was well-supported by the laws.

We will have to disagree Rob as in my view the laws did not support the decision to charge McLean with a dangerous throw

 

[RobLev]

We will have to disagree Rob as in my view the laws did not support the decision to charge McLean with a dangerous throw

My only further comment would be that your interpretation - taking account of any evasive action the BC may possibly take and not the danger of the position he is trying to evade - firstly puts the onus of the BC's safety on the BC and not where it belongs, on the tackler who has lifted him, and secondly makes it virtually impossible to charge a dangerous throw, because the tackler will always say that the BC could/should have done more to protect himself. It also ignores the plain wording of the note to the rule, which does not require the head or neck actually to hit the ground either first or indeed at all.

 

[4eyesbetter]

We will have to disagree Rob as in my view the laws did not support the decision to charge McLean with a dangerous throw

Dude, I will pay for your train ticket to go to Keighley/Leigh/Workington (your choice), and you can explain your argument to the blokes in the club bar, as long as I can bring a camera to film their reactions. Fair deal?

 

[Browner]

On a slight tangent, if a Player is driven into the ground at say..45° then its often the wedging of the shoulder and then head that puts sideways pressure on the neck. Yet the dangerous throw law seems to make no reference to landing on the top of the shoulder.

Could someone explain why RL is a better game for being able to upend a standing/stopped player and drive him into the ground with x3 opposition on top of him?

PS. .
(Or even bend him over backwards whilst his shins are clamped together ( as was little bruv burgess recently , can't remember the match, but Sam burgess took exception to it)

 

[Dixpat]

Dude, I will pay for your train ticket to go to Keighley/Leigh/Workington (your choice), and you can explain your argument to the blokes in the club bar, as long as I can bring a camera to film their reactions. Fair deal?

I don't have to explain my argument to anyone - I am merely parroting that which has been in the media in this part of the world after this tragic event and been the topic of discussion.

The laws of the NRL as they have been outlined after this event are such that McLean should not have been charged. Period.

Whether I agree is mute.

And unless you are going to stump up for an air ticket you will be able to save your money on the train ticket!

 

[RobLev]

I don't have to explain my argument to anyone - I am merely parroting that which has been in the media in this part of the world after this tragic event and been the topic of discussion.

The laws of the NRL as they have been outlined after this event are such that McLean should not have been charged. Period.

...

And he will no doubt therefore win his appeal - oh, wait...

 

[leaguerefaus]

"A player who lifts an opponent into a dangerous position, that being, above the horizontal, or a position where the player's head or neck could contact the ground first, will be charged by the match review committee regardless of the outcome of the tackle." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DHF0H5oMYo

 

[Browner]

"A player who lifts an opponent into a dangerous position, that being, above the horizontal, or a position where the player's head or neck could contact the ground first, will be charged by the match review committee regardless of the outcome of the tackle." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DHF0H5oMYo

There were some interesting comments

"Data - spent two weeks analysing" .... which means enough data existed already, or they've had to search some out 'post McKinnon'

"Lifting tackles are here to stay" and '3 player' tackles are also ' part of the game'

Moreover these changes are

" nothing to do with any legal ramifications". .....hmmmnn, I'm unconvinced by that claim.

Will worldwide RL follow the NRL lead on this subject ?

 

[4eyesbetter]

The trouble is that they have money and the rest of us, by and large, don't. There's an entire novel in the twists and turns of trying to get title sponsorship for Super League.

 

[leaguerefaus]

NRL has done the right thing and has offered Alex McKinnon a job for life, among other things discussed in the story.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

NRL has done the right thing and has offered Alex McKinnon a job for life, among other things discussed in the story.

Good for them.

I was interested to see that Richard Silverwood PKed Brett Delany (Leeds Rhinos) but no more for a similar tackle (as the AMK one ie lifter after at least one other had a hold on the BC) on a St Helens player in the RLCC 5th round match at the weekend.

Unlike AMK the Saints player got his arm down before his head and got up and played on none the worse.

Only a matter of time? (Gulp!)