Buderus should have been sent off

[Razor]

Well as I've said before Spear tackles should get at least 10 weeks, and ones like this around 15 weeks. However precedent this year has shown great lenancy to spear tackles. Mick Crocker whilst he got 9 weeks, would have only received 4 weeks if he didn't have all the loadings. So if that tackle, which was much worse, deserved only 4, then Buderus shouldn't get more than 1, if they are consistant. Also several weeks ago another player only recieved 1 week for a similar tackle.

Lets see if the NRL is consistant.

And hope next year, they treat spear tackles the way they should. Dont' change the rule mid-year.

 

[Mr_Raditch]

Buderus' tackle deserves a couple of weeks, but a sendoffable offence?
no-way. He didnt lift the ball carrier between the legs & drive him head first. He landed on his back, though it was past the horizontal, momentum had a lot do with it.

 

[fridge]

What a f**king joke u moron, you did not watch the game I watched.

Manly were all over the Knights players in every single tackle from the beginning of the match. They should of had a player sin binned when the Knights made that break right before halftime. Get a clue. :roll:

that's pretty rude mate, esp when parra-matter's observations seem correct.

we're both eels fans so we're pretty objective, generally eels fans hate manly.

it was pretty obvious hampstead was bias towards newcastle tonight. yes, both sides were guilty of holding down. but there were a lot of dubious penalties given in favour of newcastle tonight. a lot of double knock ons that went newcastle's way. newcastle were guilty of attempting to strip the ball several times with 2 or more players in the tackle.

but the absolute worst thing hampstead did, imo, the first 2 tackles of many of the sets newcastle were defending he didn't make sure newcastle were back the 10. instead of controlling the line and making sure the players weren't offside, he stood right next to the ruck pretending he was checking the tackle.

that was absolutely blatant imo, and he shouldn't ref first grade next week.

 

[Raider_69]

Buderus shouldnt play again untill about round 2 next season
thats assuming the knights make the GF and included the 2 trials games

6-8 weeks imo
shocking tackle

 

[mattyg]

Whats the bet that if Buderus cops a 6-8 week ban he will declare himself available for the Tri Nations and use them as matches to serve his suspension

 

[Sean7]

the difference is Paea isnt Buderus, and Buderus needs to be there to make Joey look good.

Yeah. Right on man. Johns is nothing.

Johns is so good he's s#$t. You're so cool dude.

 

[Ewan McGrady's Lovechild]

Reports in this morning's newspapers indicate that Hampstead was talking to the third referee, Bill Harrigan, about possibly sending him off.

Not sure how the refs can approach this but lets say he gets 4 weeks off. Ive seen highshots where people have been sent off and got around the same length on the sidelines as this. Why can't it be a sending off offence ?

 

[slippersnz]

Heres the tackle for those who havnt seen it.

 

[Raider Ultra]

Not a send off offence, but should be. Most dangerous thing that can happen in the game.

 

[Winston Smith]

It will be interesting to see what Buderus gets. I suspect he'll magically get a charge that gives him 1-2 weeks off (hard to avoid that because he has carryover points). He deserves probably 4-6 weeks, but as he's high profile and its the finals he'll get preferential treatment.

As for the refereeing, I didn't notice S Hampstead on the team sheet for Newcastle. He should have been. It should be of huge concern for the NRL that all the refs except maybe Simpkins are completely out of form at the moment. There's been more than the usual number of shockers in the last few rounds.

 

[ledzep]

if a very bad spear tackle like that isn't a send-off offence, then what is?

 

[ShadesOfTheSun]

As a neutral observer (Newcastle and Manly are _both_ favourites of mine), the ref made some pretty shocking calls against both teams. As far as I'm concerned, the decisions that went against Manly were roughly even with those that went against Newcastle - Quinn being held down after making a bust so the Manly defense could get back in position, for example, not to mention the woeful inconsistency when it came to the offside ruling that allowed the Manly defense to repeatedly tackle Buderus from an offside position yet gave Orford the chance to win the game when the Newcastle defense wasn't square. It wasn't a biased performance - just a bad one.

Carney's try at the end was Manly's own fault. The ref hadn't called held, so they should have gotten at least another defender in the tackle to keep Carney out. As it was, it hardly mattered because by that point, the game was already over.

Roosterbooster: It isn't a send-off offense because it wasn't deliberate and its severity is debatable. Also, it didn't lead to any substantial injury to the player tackled.

 

[spider]

nothing in it, good solid tackle, that barely went above the horizontal, it was a very soft spear tackle, if it is one2 weeks absolute max

You have watched the wrong game my friend - surely you have.

He is lifted and lands on his neck - im suprised his neck is ok TBH.

Barley over the horizontal - pffft - if it was not for the ground he would have completed a 360 degree spin.

 

[Raider Ultra]

Why should it matter if the player is injured or not? We should move away from whether things are 'intentional' or not, and make it outcome based. How can you tell if a player means to do something? Only one person knows that...

 

[ShadesOfTheSun]

Because if the player is injured, the action has caused the opposing team more significant disadvantage, and deserves to be reacted to accordingly. If Player A ends up having to sit out the rest of the match because of an illegal act by Player B, so should Player B.

As for intent - the judiciary attempts to prove it all the time, and bases its rulings in accordance with their demonstration of its presence or absence. Something that is purposeful, and malicious is always going to be treated more harshly than something that is accidental. Not just the NRL judiciary, but Australia's entire legal system is built around that principle. Carelessness is pardonable, maliciousness isn't.

 

[Holla if ya hear me]

momentum carried him along way..sure buderus lifted..2 weeks at best...tho dunleys off the ball tackle last week..hmmm

 

[Mr Saab]

nothing in it, good solid tackle, that barely went above the horizontal, it was a very soft spear tackle, if it is one

2 weeks absolute max

Watching souths over the past 5 seasons has really affected your state of mind hasnt it?
Danny was installing fence posts the way that tackle went.
As horizontal as they come

 

[cyborg]

i reckon he will get one week

 

[MKEB...]

The linesman had it in for manly all night. How about a hit on Johns by matai (a little late I agree), Johns milked it for all it was worth, feigning grogginess and giving a penalty from touchies call. Matai pinged for a chest high tackle.

I agree with the refs call at the time on binning Kennedy and not Buderrus, I dont think his was malicious

But i remember a game a few years ago where Steve Kearney sparetackled Jared McCrackon, and I believe he was marched from it.

Buderrus Should get IMO 6 weeks. But Because of the NRL's Feel the Lovin feel for Buderrus and he is a SOO and current test player (although not for this trinations) he will get grade one careless tackle rather than a higher grading and get 1-2 weeks. He will be suspended though.

 

[MKEB...]

momentum carried him along way..sure buderus lifted..

Does momentum make you jump upside down? I bet physics and biophysics disagree with that.:sarcasm: