The players’ union has defended Alex McKinnon’s right to sue over the tackle which left him paralysed and called on the NRL to provide greater cover for players who suffer catastrophic injuries.
McKinnon is preparing to launch legal proceedings against the NRL and Melbourne forward Jordan McLean over the 2014 tackle which left him wheelchair bound.
An NRL spokesman said while no claim had been received, McKinnon’s lawyers had notified them of their intentions.
The 24-year-old former Newcastle second-rower’s career ended after a three-man tackle involving McLean, who was suspended for seven weeks, and Jesse and Kenny Bromwich.
Rugby League Players Association chief executive Ian Prendergast said McKinnon’s injury had been life-altering and people should consider his position before judging him.
“We all need to respect the situation Alex is in, no one can understand what he’s going through,” he said.
“He’s got independent legal representation, he’s entitled to pursue his legal rights and it’s important to let that play out without pre-judging the outcome.”
Prendergast said the players’ union had also reached out to McLean and offered him their support.
Following his retirement, McKinnon received the maximum $500,000 compensation payout from the NRL and around $1.2 million through fundraising efforts including the Rise for Alex round.
He was also paid out the final two years of his contract, estimated to be around $500,000, from the Knights.
He was also guaranteed a job for life by the NRL and works with the club in recruitment and development.
However he estimated it will cost him $20 million to lead a normal existence for the rest of his life and has spoken about his fears of being unable to support himself.
“I had no idea how much this injury was going to cost,” he told the Nine Network in July last year.
“I didn’t know until two weeks ago it cost $100,000 for me to get out of bed in the morning.
“I just need to know how much it is going to cost me, how much money I have and where I (am) going to get that money from.”
In July last year, the NRL launched its whole of game foundation which offers additional support, outside insurance schemes, to players who suffer catastrophic injuries such as spinal problems or brain damage.
The RLPA also put a separate insurance scheme in place for players whose career is cut short by injuries with the costs shared between the NRL, clubs and players.
Prendergast said more needed to be done to protect players given the often physical and brutal nature of the game and hoped to have that included in the collective bargaining agreement which is currently being negotiated and set to come into force in 2018.
“Some of the things that have improved since Alex’s injury include compensation but more needs to be done in that space,” Prendergast said.
“If you think about rugby league, it was born out of players seeking to protect their rights to injuries that were suffering. From the player’s association perspective, there’s still work that needs to be done.”
Shane
Guest
Sorry to go on a rant here Jacko as I realise you were asking northerner a question no myself but I am TOTALLY frustrated that this issue isn't getting the airtime across general media that it deserves. I won't comment on what northerner meant when he made his comment jacko but I will comment on how I interpreted his comments. Absolutely the compensation is because Alex was injured as a result of an ILLEGAL tackle. It will be proven that the NRL was negligent in policing illegal lifting tackles over a period of several seasons prior to the McKinnon injury. Unfortunately there has been no measurable improvement after the injury either. If Jordan McLean doesn't lift Alex above the horizontal than there is no injury. So by default McKinnon cannot sue the NRL for negligence (not policing a rule consistently and effectively) without sueing Jordan McLean. If you read through the comments on this thread (ignoring the idiotic ones) you will find that most people are accepting of the fact that the injury was a result of an illegal tackle - which in effect opens the NRL up to accusations of negligence. The issue it seems that most people have on their minds however is whether Jordan Mclean should be targeted when effectively his tackle was no more obviously dangerous than countless others. Most are ignorant to the fact that McKinnon's case needs to sue both parties (and possibly others in due course) to ensure that all avenues are explored and placed under scrutiny in an appropriate setting. I myself am empathetic to feel that Jordan McLean and strongly feel that to place the blame on him as an individual would be unfair, as he would effectively be made the 'scapegoat' and used as a distraction from the real issue here. LIFTING TACKLES... and negligence from the NRL- sustained and deliberate use of lifting tackles, grappling and wrestling within the ruck employed by the bulk of NRL teams which the NRL has failed to address over several seasons.
Jacko
Guest
So based on what you have said, the compensation is because he was injured in league rather than because he is injured?
Chook
Guest
What does the J in BigJ stand for? I have suggestions....
Chook
Guest
Sleiman, absolutely.....But just to add, This is the sort of issue that the NRL should be really focussed on. COMPENSATION. And Alex isn't the only victim not by a long shot
BigJ
Roar Guru
I'm an Aussie mate
no one in particular
Roar Guru
Accident = sued http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/the-300000-coles-slip-and-fall-20160221-gmzh8x.html Accident = sued https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/miner-suing-for-millions-over-brain-damage-incident/ Accident = sued http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/ben-ross-suing-channel-9-over-arm-wrestling-injury-sustained-on-the-nrl-footy-show/news-story/aa81b0ef637b0aca44d336856c22f697 Accident = sued http://finance.nine.com.au/2016/10/26/12/21/dreamworld-parent-could-face-millions-in-damages I can go on, there are countless examples. Being careless in a tackle doesn't absolve McLean of any fault, no matter how "special" he is
new guy
Guest
but he was in the military and thus has moral high ground
new guy
Guest
congrats on being a military hero (us marines?)
The Barry
Roar Guru
So you're admitting that you don't understand why the NRL is being sued...that's pretty central to this whole story. You've been making comments for three days about this without understanding the main issue.
BigJ
Roar Guru
I agree with the out of court statement. And how is this the nrl"s fault?? they didn't tackle him, storm did, but seriously it's time to move on nothing more can be done about this incident
Shane
Guest
Firstly this is a league conversation so I don't want to get dragged into the Phillip Hughes arguments. But my understanding is that helmets have been redesigned and made compulsory- therefor is there not an argument that CA had a responsibility to better protect players and should have taken these measures much sooner?? Lots of grey area methinks... But back to footy and in particular my point that Alex's injury was not 100% accident. Lifting/grappling and so forth has had plenty of discussion by all concerned - increasingly so over the last 5 years. It is unnecessary- unsafe and not within the rules of the game. Alex's injury is a direct result of an illegal lifting tackle that the NRL has failed to police correctly. How then may I ask is it 1. 100% accidental 2. Not the responsibility of the NRL I also have been spear tackled in the past and was fortunate enough to get up and play on. But seriously folks - a fair bit has changed since the 90's -do we want to pull out the old "the game has gone soft lines" when the players of today's game are bigger, stronger, faster and fitter then we ever were? Add to that that they are now being placed under so much more scrutiny and pressure than ever before- with some very smart and ruthless coaching setups all trying to give there team the edge (even if it means placing the neck/head and spines of supposing players under unnecessary risk) I am simply stating that there was and is continued negligence on the part of the NRL and by definition that means that Alex's injury cannot be classified as 100% accident. I realise that Scott was simply showing some support for McLean and to be honest I sincerely hope he doesn't get hung out to dry on this. That said - I had to latch onto the 100% accident phrase because that is totally untrue and this case would ultimately support my statement. But my suspicions are that an out of court settlement brokered behind closed doors is how this will end.
The Barry
Roar Guru
It's still on topic. What do you mean the military does things differently? In what way?
BigJ
Roar Guru
Shane I have to disagree this is the first injury ( that I know of) like this. Plenty of people have been spear tackle before including myself plenty of times and we all walked away from it. I suffered a broken collar bone in 96 from one, it is just one of those freak things that happen. This is similar to the Phillip Hughes incident in cricket, the cricket board tried to find negligence on the bowlers part but everybody knew from the get go like this it is nothing more than a freak tragic accident and no one is at fault
Alex L
Roar Rookie
I don't see Scott saying anything about the NRL there Shane, just that McLean doesn't deserve to be put under the blowtorch a second time.
Shane
Guest
Johnno- have a good read of some of the comments above- particularly from The Barry and Sleiman. This is a really significant opportunity for you to engage in some serious self reflection, reset your moral compass and become a better person. Trust me when I say this- it will improve your life in more ways than you could imagine.
Shane
Guest
Scott- I agree that Jordan McLean is no more guilty than dozens of other players in almost any game. Both Beau Scott and Dane Gagai for example made far more obviously dangerous tackles in the same game without being penalised. But are you seriously suggesting by saying that this was 100% accident that the NRL has no case to answer? That lifting tackles are not unnecessary, dangerous or preventable? Therefor by definition increasing the probability of injury serious or otherwise? The fact is that the NRL has failed to address lifting tackles and wrestling/grappling which has lead to this outcome.
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
What type of tackle? There's no way that I can class it as a lifting tackle. McKinnon was simply being driven sideways, whilst McLean was holding one of his legs to prevent him from running. McKinnons left leg remains planted on the ground until a few microseconds prior when his neck makes contact with the turf. It was not a spear tackle, and as regular tackles go it cannot be even deemed dangerous until the point that McKinnon ducks his neck in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YERQQAOyE70
BigJ
Roar Guru
this is off topic Barry. The military does things different. McKinnon wants to sue fine, but i don't think he get the result he wants
The Barry
Roar Guru
"McKinnons solicitors will be attempting to persuade the court that Jordan McLean, The Storm, and its coaching staff, willfully and intentionally injured Alex outside of the rules and/or spirit of the game." That will only play a minor part. The meat will be around whether the NRL knew that type of tackle could be dangerous amd whether they could / should have done more to prevent it taking place. That will determine negligence and if it does McKinnon will get some sort of settlement.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I must have missed the point. You said "And they don’t get to sue the defence force because of that" which was the main sentence I was responding to. What did you mean? No, I don't know any more about consumer law than anyone else. I remember the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company from somewhere? I think that's contract law...? So BJ when you were in the military, if you'd have been seriously injured would you have pursued your legal entitlements? Would you see a lawyer if you felt you weren't getting adequate compensation?