Agree. Very callous of Smith to bring up something as trivial as being put on report, when McKinnon is being carried off with a severe neck injury.silvertail said:All 3 tacklers should get a minimum 6 weeks each.
wedgetail eagle said:Agree. Very callous of Smith to bring up something as trivial as being put on report, when McKinnon is being carried off with a severe neck injury.silvertail said:All 3 tacklers should get a minimum 6 weeks each.
I know Smith wasn't aware of the severity of it but it was obvious it wasn't good. Poor form indeed.
wombatgc said:wedgetail eagle said:Agree. Very callous of Smith to bring up something as trivial as being put on report, when McKinnon is being carried off with a severe neck injury.silvertail said:All 3 tacklers should get a minimum 6 weeks each.
I know Smith wasn't aware of the severity of it but it was obvious it wasn't good. Poor form indeed.
I'm filthy on Smith. He didn't just winge about being put on report but alleges Mc Kinnon contributed to his injury. It's one thing to soften up the refs for your player at fault with some crap, but to go on with it while the player is being strapped down FFS is disgusting.😡
Chip and Chase said:Tragic result for young McKinnon. The likely fallout from this is the eventual banning of any lifting tackle at all. Once your reach in between the legs and lift you surrender control of the outcome in a gang tackle. It's too easy for loss of balance to occur and by removing the opponents contact with the ground you significantly reduce their ability to protect themselves. The NRL talk duty of care with shoulder charges....these type of tackles are far worse.
We haven't always had gang tackles. I watched a 1997 match on fox yesterday and was struck by the large number of one-on-one tackles by both teams. There were also plenty where a second player was involved, but only a couple had more than that. Still potential for spearing of course, but less danger of being accidentally crushed under a mountain of defenders, which may have played a part in McKinnon's injury?Chip and Chase said:The likely fallout from this is the eventual banning of any lifting tackle at all. Once your reach in between the legs and lift you surrender control of the outcome in a gang tackle
SeaEagleRock8 said:There are many incidents each year which could result in serious injury (but don't, thankfully), and I didn't see anything specifically Storm-like about this one. Don't forget we've had players done for lifting, even Jamie Lyon was suspended once from memory.
It can happen in the game, it is dangerous, which is why it is outlawed.
Smith's comments have naturally attracted criticism, and it's easy to see why, but in his defence he was probably just trying to make his own player feel a bit better. If he knew McKinnon would be in a coma right now I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything at all.
bones said:If the NRL rewarded low tackles with more time to get off the player, rather than 'dominant' higher tackles, this would have been avoided.
Tackles that are made low around the legs by one tackler alone should be rewarded by ADVANCING THE TACKLE COUNT BY 2 TACKLES NOT 1. :idea:Snake said:I agree that low tackles should rewarded; a player can be held around the legs for the same amount of time as it takes for tacklers to "peel off" what is now a traditional rugby league tackle.
Accidents may still happen, but it's about minimising the risk.
Team | P | W | D | L | PD | Pts | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Bulldogs | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 98 | 14 |
2 | Storm | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 70 | 10 |
3 | Raiders | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 46 | 10 |
4 | Warriors | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | -18 | 10 |
5 | Broncos | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 54 | 8 |
6 | Sharks | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 41 | 8 |
7 | Dragons | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 8 |
8 | Rabbitohs | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | -36 | 8 |
9 | Cowboys | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | -42 | 8 |
10 | Dolphins | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 28 | 6 |
11 | Sea Eagles | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 6 |
12 | Tigers | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 6 |
13 | Titans | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | -36 | 6 |
14 | Knights | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | -60 | 6 |
15 | Panthers | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -10 | 4 |
16 | Roosters | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -80 | 4 |
17 | Eels | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -107 | 4 |