Alex Mckinnion Incident

Remove this Banner Ad

LightTower4 said:
Doesn't the NRL have to shoulder some of the blame here? Lifting has always looked ugly in terms of what can happen. If two players tackle the ball carrier and he is stopped, rather than another player come in to assist tackling to the ground, why doesn't the ref call the tackle when the third tackler makes contact? It's not like the ball carrier is going to break the tackle.
Also, the venom spitting by a lot of league followers on social media against Storm is typical of their anti Melbourne mentality.
I hope he recovers.
Click to expand...
Lifting should be banned in a tackle, I've never seen the need for it.

If players can't effectively tackle without lifting, then too bad.

I don't see anything particularly courageous or tough in lifting a player and slamming him into the ground. Especially when he is already held by a couple of other players and is in effect defenceless against being lifted.

And you have the risk of lifting him too far past the horizontal, which we see too often, which can result in the head taking the brunt of the contact with the ground.

Hell, even the WWE has banned the piledriver, because of the risks involved.
 
bombersno1 said:
It was nowhere near the maximum grading, it was really a 'middle grading' on both offences. He could have got a lot worse imo.
Click to expand...
Grade 2 is not middle grading, it is at the top end of the grading system.

Receiving 6 extra weeks on the sideline because of the outcome is outrageous, that rule was designed to punish players who had deliberately injured their opponent (such as with a punch to the jaw, etc) and it was abused by the NRL in order to make a 22 year old a scapegoat for community outage over lifting tackles.

Yes, he COULD have gotten worse, but if he had been given 11 weeks, the Storm would have immediately appealed, causing a media circus. Seven is obviously the number the NRL thinks is enough of a penalty to discourage the tackle, but not long enough to warrant extra coverage via the appeals process.
 
sherb said:
Lifting should be banned in a tackle, I've never seen the need for it.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you. But I think they lift to slow the play the ball so the defense can set.

Then something like this happens....something needs to change.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

4evablues said:
Totally agree with you. But I they lift to slow the play the ball so the defense can set.

Then something like this happens....something needs to change.
Click to expand...
It's also not an uncommon tactic on the attacking side, not going to ground as quickly in order to catch the defenders who may infringe while trying to get you to ground or creeping up into an off side position by moving up too quickly.
 
Riccardo11 said:
Grade 2 is not middle grading, it is at the top end of the grading system.

Receiving 6 extra weeks on the sideline because of the outcome is outrageous, that rule was designed to punish players who had deliberately injured their opponent (such as with a punch to the jaw, etc) and it was abused by the NRL in order to make a 22 year old a scapegoat for community outage over lifting tackles.

Yes, he COULD have gotten worse, but if he had been given 11 weeks, the Storm would have immediately appealed, causing a media circus. Seven is obviously the number the NRL thinks is enough of a penalty to discourage the tackle, but not long enough to warrant extra coverage via the appeals process.
Click to expand...

It goes up to a grade 4, grade 2 is a middle grading. Even the injury part is a middle grading, where they only put 4 weeks on top of it. It wasn't 6 weeks, it was 4, most people think that it is very fair in comparison to what he could have got (12+). It was a middle sentence.
 
bombersno1 said:
It goes up to a grade 4, grade 2 is a middle grading. Even the injury part is a middle grading, where they only put 4 weeks on top of it. It wasn't 6 weeks, it was 4, most people think that it is very fair in comparison to what he could have got (12+). It was a middle sentence.
Click to expand...
The NRL asked for a minimum of 7 and a max of 11 the Storm wanted up to 3, with a one week minimum.

In fact, "most people" think 7 is very harsh, the result of polls and comments on social media go to prove this. I have seen very few comments (outside of the hysterical "ban him for life" nonsense, which any reasonable person would discount) in support of the decision.

If you honestly think anything about this is fair, I would check my priorities. There is no need to ruin two careers here, the motivation smacks of anti-Melbourne revenge rather than punishment.
 
Riccardo11 said:
The NRL asked for a minimum of 7 and a max of 11 the Storm wanted up to 3, with a one week minimum.

In fact, "most people" think 7 is very harsh, the result of polls and comments on social media go to prove this. I have seen very few comments (outside of the hysterical "ban him for life" nonsense, which any reasonable person would discount) in support of the decision.

If you honestly think anything about this is fair, I would check my priorities. There is no need to ruin two careers here, the motivation smacks of anti-Melbourne revenge rather than punishment.
Click to expand...

Well forget what the Storm wanted, was never ever going to happen, not after a plea of NOT GUILTY. May have only got 4-5 if he pleaded guilty. The NRL asked for 7-11, he got the LOWEST possible, the equivalent of a grade 2 dangerous throw + 4 weeks for injury. That is more than fair, and it protects the game first and foremost. Can you imagine the outcry (and rightly so) if he only got 2-3 weeks in the media...would be the definition of hell!

Most people realise according to the guidelines the sentence was spot on, it could have been in the 9-10 range so he should be happy. Unfortunately the ship has sailed with wrecking careers, that happened on the field. The NRL can't win, however personally I'm glad they have taken a stance on lifting tackles!
 
bombersno1 said:
The NRL can't win, however personally I'm glad they have taken a stance on lifting tackles!
Click to expand...

They took a stance on two and let the others go. The real test starts tonight to see if the message got through.
 
AuckMel said:
They took a stance on two and let the others go. The real test starts tonight to see if the message got through.
Click to expand...

That is fine, they have punished the worst ones recently, good. I agree the test is consistency though.
 
AuckMel said:
That's debatable. They let some which looked far worse in the same game go unpunished.
Click to expand...

Only a Storm fan would say that, the impact of one tackle was substancially worse. That said, I have always hated and seen no need for dangerous throws. They should be AUTOMATIC send offs, that will stamp them out in 2 weeks.
 
bombersno1 said:
Only a Storm fan would say that,
Click to expand...

I'm a Warriors fan and plenty of them share the same view.

bombersno1 said:
That said, I have always hated and seen no need for dangerous throws. They should be AUTOMATIC send offs, that will stamp them out in 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

Yep. Would have no argument from me.
 
AuckMel said:
I'm a Warriors fan and plenty of them share the same view.



Yep. Would have no argument from me.
Click to expand...

No way you're defending the Storm you must go for them!!!!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's disappointing that Newcastle have reacted the way they have. It seems barbaric; an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What did the other two do wrong, just because Alex is in such an unfortunate way it doesn't mean that an independent judiciary should ignore the fact that he ducked his neck. It's so tragic, this young man is in such a bad situation and now his club are going to drag it on to make sure somebody pays for it.
 
Show Some Fight said:
It's disappointing that Newcastle have reacted the way they have. It seems barbaric; an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What did the other two do wrong, just because Alex is in such an unfortunate way it doesn't mean that an independent judiciary should ignore the fact that he ducked his neck. It's so tragic, this young man is in such a bad situation and now his club are going to drag it on to make sure somebody pays for it.
Click to expand...
It's bogantown, no suprises there.
 
Alex Mckinnion

I feel for your situation and can't even begin to imagine what you must have gone through, having said that going on national TV and having a crack at Cameron Smith was disgraceful. He tried to visit you in hospital and was refused. There is a difference between saying that you ducked your head and that its your fault. Yes he said you ducked your head which from the vision clearly happened and many experts have said exactly the same thing. Cameron Smith did not say it was your fault though and it was just a tradgic accident, Alex I think you are the one who owes Cam Smith an apology.

60 Minutes

Any chance of giving Cam the right of reply?
 
mikey127 said:
Alex Mckinnion

I feel for your situation and can't even begin to imagine what you must have gone through, having said that going on national TV and having a crack at Cameron Smith was disgraceful. He tried to visit you in hospital and was refused. There is a difference between saying that you ducked your head and that its your fault. Yes he said you ducked your head which from the vision clearly happened and many experts have said exactly the same thing. Cameron Smith did not say it was your fault though and it was just a tradgic accident, Alex I think you are the one who owes Cam Smith an apology.

60 Minutes

Any chance of giving Cam the right of reply?
Click to expand...

Hopefully Smith doesn't respond at all, Storm already did the right thing with the media release.

Loved Gallens support of Smith and calling the media grubs.
 
Was a bit awkward that.

Seems like misplaced anger to me. Having said that, it would have sucked to hear Smith going on for 10 mins while you're lying there unable to move.

It's easy for us to criticize either guy but unless you've been through it, I doubt you'd understand how either felt through the ordeal.
 
Jatz said:
Was a bit awkward that.

Seems like misplaced anger to me. Having said that, it would have sucked to hear Smith going on for 10 mins while you're lying there unable to move.

It's easy for us to criticize either guy but unless you've been through it, I doubt you'd understand how either felt through the ordeal.
Click to expand...

Smith's job is to question the refs, he isn't the only captain to do it nor will he be the last.

Smith himself did as much as he could for the RiseforAlex stuff. Maybe he regrets going on about it but he wasn't to know the extent of the injury and he is correct, Alex ducked his head, he should probably accept that he did. Everyone else knows it.

To s**t on Smith on air is pathetic. I'm glad the Storm were quick in pointing out that Smith tried to see him in the hospital but was turned away.
 
pantskyle said:
Smith's job is to question the refs, he isn't the only captain to do it nor will he be the last.

Smith himself did as much as he could for the RiseforAlex stuff. Maybe he regrets going on about it but he wasn't to know the extent of the injury and he is correct, Alex ducked his head, he should probably accept that he did. Everyone else knows it.

To s**t on Smith on air is pathetic. I'm glad the Storm were quick in pointing out that Smith tried to see him in the hospital but was turned away.
Click to expand...
No question.

However, there's a guy laying on the ground saying he can't feel anything and Smith goes on for several mins. Surely at some point he should have realised it was more important than a penalty. That's my only gripe with him. Not that he questioned it, the fact he kept questioning it for an extended period of time.

Why? I'd prefer him to be honest than be another yes man. As I said above, it's probably misplaced anger but if that's how he feels, why shouldn't he say it?

As if Alex would've wanted to see anyone from the Storm in the week after the incident. The storm mentioned as such.
 
Jatz said:
No question.

However, there's a guy laying on the ground saying he can't feel anything and Smith goes on for several mins. Surely at some point he should have realised it was more important than a penalty. That's my only gripe with him. Not that he questioned it, the fact he kept questioning it for an extended period of time.

Why? I'd prefer him to be honest than be another yes man. As I said above, it's probably misplaced anger but if that's how he feels, why shouldn't he say it?

As if Alex would've wanted to see anyone from the Storm in the week after the incident. The storm mentioned as such.
Click to expand...

The point is they tried to make contact after the events that counters what was said by McKinnon.

Also Smith is under no obligation to make contact at all. Smiths actions after the events should be commended, he raised money and wore his number as a tribute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top