General Buderus

Kiwi League_old

Guest
Why do guys like Johns & Buderus conduct a media campaign every time they get charged with something? Buderus should cop 6 weeks like a man, and thank his lucky stars it's not 14.

Clean record means nothing
By Barry Toohey and Dean Ritchie
September 12, 2006 AN EMOTIONAL Danny Buderus last night spoke for the first time about an NRL judiciary charge that could end his season and potentially destroy Newcastle's premiership charge.

The Knights hooker was yesterday hit with a grade-three dangerous throw charge and could be suspended for up to six matches.

Newcastle management has until midday to decide whether to fight the charge at the judiciary tomorrow night.

But Buderus is adamant his unblemished judiciary record over a decade should be taken into consideration.

He also maintains there was no malice on his part. "In 10 years of footy I've never been suspended so to have this levelled at me now during the finals series is shattering," Buderus said.

He spent at least an hour in the Knights' office yesterday looking at replays of the tackle and continued to maintain there was absolutely no intent on his part.

"In my mind, I've made the same sort of tackle thousands of times throughout my career," he said.

It is understood the Knights may argue if they go to the judiciary as expected that Robertson played a role in how the tackle finished up.

They may call biomechanic experts in a bid to support their argument.

The club was also poring over replays of up to 30 previous dangerous throw incidents over the past two seasons in a bid to support their case that Buderus's grading is harsh.

Asked was the charge excessive, Knights coach Michael Hagan said: "Probably. We think there could be a number of factors in how the tackle was completed and that there could be some mitigating circumstances.

"I think it is too high. We need to support Danny."

The tackle last night drew a mixed response from two ex-league legends.

"Technically it wasn't a bad tackle," David Gillespie said.

"It only happened because of Robertson's speed. That's why Robertson is up so high.

"It would be a shame to put Buderus out of the finals."

But Max Krilich said: "To be realistic, I think he should get six weeks.

"It's a shame because Danny is a good bloke but that's the way it is.

"I think he should have been sent off.

"No one gets hurt with a smack in the mouth but being dropped on your head could result in a broken neck."

Knights operations manager Steve Crowe was giving little away yesterday, confirming a decision on whether the club will fight the charge or the grading has yet to be finalised.
 

MiXmasterreece_old

Guest
Kiwi League said:
Why do guys like Johns & Buderus conduct a media campaign every time they get charged with something?

Simply put, because they are blinded from public opinions about their drama queen behaviour by their delusions of grandeur
 

Kiwi League_old

Guest
I think it's because they hope to put pressure on the judiciary and the NRL to get them a nice sweet reduction in their suspension, just like happened to Johns recently.
But if you're a Warrior and you drop someone on their head or give an official a gobfull....brother, you are going down.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Kiwi League said:
I think it's because they hope to put pressure on the judiciary and the NRL to get them a nice sweet reduction in their suspension, just like happened to Johns recently.

That's exactly why they make public pleas. I can't blame them for trying anything and everything possible to lessen the sentence, (such as conetsting the charge, bringing in experts, and analysing video evidence of similar incidents, etc), but playing the pity card doesn't get much traction with me.
 

westie stylz_old

Guest
If these guys ever get let off with less than they should get then it really opens the way for all future players to use those cases to get their own punishments downgraded.

It sets bad precedents.

For example if they only gave Buderus 2 weeks or something like that then every player who dumps a guy on his head next year can simply rock up to the judicial hearing with that footage and it's punishment and demand the same treatment.

For that reason I think they will hit him with the book and he will be wiped out of finals reckoning.

If not then they are making a rod for their own back.
 

bigstuboy_old

Guest
Worst of the year

was that the worst atckle of the year or what what ever he gets it won't be enough.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Re: Worst of the year

bigstuboy said:
was that the worst atckle of the year or what what ever he gets it won't be enough.

Even if it's the full six weeks? I think missing out on the finals race and international duties would be punishment enough.

I still think he should have been sent to the sin bin alongside Ben Kennedy, though. Interesting to learn that Bill Harrigan advised the ref not to do so.
 

sliphgrrl_old

Guest
Re: Worst of the year

Jesbass said:
I still think he should have been sent to the sin bin alongside Ben Kennedy, though. Interesting to learn that Bill Harrigan advised the ref not to do so.

I totally agree that Buderus should've been sin binned. Apparently the current rules do not allow for a sin binning:

As the NRL guidelines stand, a player cannot be sin-binned for foul play, although Finch admitted yesterday the laws might be revisited when he meets the coaches on November 8.

"There's an anomaly there," Finch said yesterday. "At this point in time, he sends him off or puts him on report. He doesn't have the luxury of putting him in the bin for that. But we'll have a chat about that.
(from https://www.smh.com.au/news/league/...o-sinbin-system/2006/09/11/1157826876848.html)

I think the rule should be changed.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Re: Worst of the year

sliphgrrl said:
Jesbass said:
I still think he should have been sent to the sin bin alongside Ben Kennedy, though. Interesting to learn that Bill Harrigan advised the ref not to do so.

I totally agree that Buderus should've been sin binned. Apparently the current rules do not allow for a sin binning:

As the NRL guidelines stand, a player cannot be sin-binned for foul play, although Finch admitted yesterday the laws might be revisited when he meets the coaches on November 8.

"There's an anomaly there," Finch said yesterday. "At this point in time, he sends him off or puts him on report. He doesn't have the luxury of putting him in the bin for that. But we'll have a chat about that.
(from https://www.smh.com.au/news/league/...o-sinbin-system/2006/09/11/1157826876848.html)

I think the rule should be changed.

Yeah, it definitely needs to be changed. Having three grades of punishment, and only being able to use the least severe and most severe is bewildering at the very best.
 

PB_old

Guest
The crux of this seems to be suspension over a finals series or an international is a bigger penalty than a normal match because of it's importance. What I don't see is those same people in favour arguing that committing that foul play must thus be worse if committed during a finals series, or rep' match, and so should be a one for one in the higher tier, and double or more when transferred to the lower tiers.

If reaching a GF is a once in a lifetime event, and foul-play decides the outcome, but can't be acted on till after, shouldn't they be wiped from next season, or out of that match since if the opposing player can't come back? Similarly, if an act removes someone from the game permanently - think: Kearney/Bai on McCracken - shouldn't they receive a life ban?

Like for like, since they are so in need of the judicial result being equitable with the stage it is set on, and presumably the severity of outcome, not just action?

Nah. They want their hand held like everyone else 'cause they can't deal with their own actions.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
Jesbass said:
Kiwi League said:
I think it's because they hope to put pressure on the judiciary and the NRL to get them a nice sweet reduction in their suspension, just like happened to Johns recently.

That's exactly why they make public pleas. I can't blame them for trying anything and everything possible to lessen the sentence, (such as conetsting the charge, bringing in experts, and analysing video evidence of similar incidents, etc), but playing the pity card doesn't get much traction with me.

Me neither; taking the pity is just wrong but to do whatever they can to reduce the charge is worth a go. In Joey's case of 'threatning' to leave was plainly stupid, but Bedsey is just looking to play out the finals.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
polar bob said:
The crux of this seems to be suspension over a finals series or an international is a bigger penalty than a normal match because of it's importance. What I don't see is those same people in favour arguing that committing that foul play must thus be worse if committed during a finals series, or rep' match, and so should be a one for one in the higher tier, and double or more when transferred to the lower tiers.

If reaching a GF is a once in a lifetime event, and foul-play decides the outcome, but can't be acted on till after, shouldn't they be wiped from next season, or out of that match since if the opposing player can't come back? Similarly, if an act removes someone from the game permanently - think: Kearney/Bai on McCracken - shouldn't they receive a life ban?

Like for like, since they are so in need of the judicial result being equitable with the stage it is set on, and presumably the severity of outcome, not just action?

Nah. They want their hand held like everyone else 'cause they can't deal with their own actions.

I think I missed your point there, PB. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' policy, whereby a career ending injury results in the end of the career for the offending player, regardless of malice and intent? Sounds like a pandora's box, to me.

Nice to see you posting, PB. :)
 

PB_old

Guest
Jesbass said:
I think I missed your point there, PB. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' policy, whereby a career ending injury results in the end of the career for the offending player, regardless of malice and intent? Sounds like a pandora's box, to me.

Nice to see you posting, PB. :)

Essentially, my points are posted to encourage discussion, and seeing the subject of the article (Buderus) seems to give weight to the finals in his favour, it's only fair that it applies in the reverse as well.

In regards to the eye for an eye thing, yes, if you are found guilty of an illegal act in a league game that directly results in a career ending injury to said opponent, then you should be banned for life from that sport. They do it for drugs as it skews the field, even though others careers aren't ended by it, only harmed due to their lower performance in comparison.

Likewise, a high tackle breaks a jaw. Player out for 8 weeks = offender out for 8. Keep the grading system to ensure a minimum punishment is meted, but the rest is real-time.

It isn't so much a Pandora's box as it only applies to a small number of cases.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
polar bob said:
Jesbass said:
I think I missed your point there, PB. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' policy, whereby a career ending injury results in the end of the career for the offending player, regardless of malice and intent? Sounds like a pandora's box, to me.

Nice to see you posting, PB. :)

Essentially, my points are posted to encourage discussion, and seeing the subject of the article (Buderus) seems to give weight to the finals in his favour, it's only fair that it applies in the reverse as well.

In regards to the eye for an eye thing, yes, if you are found guilty of an illegal act in a league game that directly results in a career ending injury to said opponent, then you should be banned for life from that sport. They do it for drugs as it skews the field, even though others careers aren't ended by it, only harmed due to their lower performance in comparison.

Likewise, a high tackle breaks a jaw. Player out for 8 weeks = offender out for 8. Keep the grading system to ensure a minimum punishment is meted, but the rest is real-time.

It isn't so much a Pandora's box as it only applies to a small number of cases.

It becomes a Pandora's box, I feel, when intent comes into play. What of the player who accidentally injures another player? Or the player who gets injured when no offence has occurred, such as getting injured in a perfectly legitimate tackle? That's when the box opens, for mine.
 

PB_old

Guest
Jesbass said:
It becomes a Pandora's box, I feel, when intent comes into play. What of the player who accidentally injures another player? Or the player who gets injured when no offence has occurred, such as getting injured in a perfectly legitimate tackle? That's when the box opens, for mine.

Which kind of ignores the whole, "if you are found guilty of an illegal act which directly causes etc" caveat, but... meh.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
polar bob said:
Jesbass said:
It becomes a Pandora's box, I feel, when intent comes into play. What of the player who accidentally injures another player? Or the player who gets injured when no offence has occurred, such as getting injured in a perfectly legitimate tackle? That's when the box opens, for mine.

Which kind of ignores the whole, "if you are found guilty of an illegal act which directly causes etc" caveat, but... meh.

The accidental example didn't.

What about the opposite end of the scale? What about a player who commits an illegal act on the field, but the recipient of the act doesn't miss any matches through injury? Should the offender still be banned for the same length of time that the 'victim' missed? (In this example, no matches.)
 

PB_old

Guest
Jesbass said:
The accidental example didn't.

What about the opposite end of the scale? What about a player who commits an illegal act on the field, but the recipient of the act doesn't miss any matches through injury? Should the offender still be banned for the same length of time that the 'victim' missed? (In this example, no matches.)

Other post said "Keep the grading system to ensure a minimum punishment is meted... "

Judiciary business as usual with a heavier value placed on fianls/rep matches, and offences that occur in them, with the injury clause through illegal acts added in to ensure punishment in line with the victims suffering - if necessary.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
It was bound to happen some how; there was no way they'd let him off lightly on this. If they've given severe punishment in the past then no way in the world they'd let this slide. The judiciary is already a joke at times. Not that this makes up for it in anyway possible.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
749
Kid-Dynamite_old