Danny gets no downgrade.

[Gene Krupa]

Just on NRL on fox. Up to 6 games.

What BS!

 

[ArturiusX]

No surprises. It deserves 4-5 weeks IMO with or without loading points.

 

[~bedsy~]

I'm not surprised, but a part of me was hoping.

 

[roopy]

yeah - the tackle deserved it - just bad luck for Danny and the team.

 

[Kazaf]

Poor Danny

 

[PrideKnight]

Chin up folks, Quigley just needs to bust a nut...hopefully not literally this time...

 

[knights9]

Not really surprised. But i was hoping it would get downgraded.

 

[sneaky_is_here]

yeah... luke can do it. THE FORCE IS WITH HIM!

 

[The_Joey_Show]

We will beat Brisbane without him. No doubt in my mind.

 

[Rod]

Damn. I feel for Danny he will be devastated. But now we just have to get on with it without him.

 

[General Knight]

The positive thing I can see from this is that the boys will lift their games even more knowing that bedsy won't be there. The forwards will be fired up the backs will me more alert. I can really see the boys coming out on Saturday night will all guns firing. Get ready for a big performance from Newcastle.

 

[pennywisealfie]

Just on NRL on fox. Up to 6 games.

What BS!

BS? ohhh Brilliant Sentencing, right, gotcha. Yeah good on ya Judiciary, lets stamp out dirty players like Danny Buderus!

 

[Jobdog]

This just further highlights the farce which is the NRL judiciary. First of all let me say this - the tackle wasn't a good one, you will get no argument from me. HOWEVER, it seems to me that a good record means absolutely sh*t all to those jokers at NRL headquarters. A six week suspension to a bloke who has never been to the judiciary before in his ten year career, let alone suspended is a joke. He was never going to play again this season, but a three week suspension considering his good record would have been a fair outcome. Just out of curiosity, how many weeks did Michael Crocker get for his dangerous throw on the South Sydney bloke?

 

[skeepe]

Come on Jobdog mate, he was charged with a grade 3, which it was when you consider what has been charged with grade 2 in the past.

A grade 3 has a base penalty of 525 points or thereabouts, so it's an automatic 5 weeks suspension, 6 if you count the carry over points from his high hit on Matt Bowen a few weeks back. It was that hit on Bowen, which Buderus felt he could have beaten but chose not to fight it, which has made this sentence so much higher that it would have been. If Buderus did not hit Bowen high, or had contested the charge and won, he would be looking at 2-3 matches at the moment.

Crocker got something like 10 weeks from memory.

 

[Master Vippo]

Its not really BS. Its disappointing, but understandable.

 

[antonius]

This just further highlights the farce which is the NRL judiciary. First of all let me say this - the tackle wasn't a good one, you will get no argument from me. HOWEVER, it seems to me that a good record means absolutely sh*t all to those jokers at NRL headquarters. A six week suspension to a bloke who has never been to the judiciary before in his ten year career, let alone suspended is a joke. He was never going to play again this season, but a three week suspension considering his good record would have been a fair outcome. Just out of curiosity, how many weeks did Michael Crocker get for his dangerous throw on the South Sydney bloke?

Pretty sure it was 10 weeks. I don't think he was ever a chance of a downgrade, it was a bad tackle and really 5 weeks (6 if contested) was about right i reckon. I feel sorry for the bloke, but he isn't the first guy to miss the finals because of suspension and he wont be the last. The tackle he was charged on is prob the worst type of tackle in the game, clean record or not, they are going to send the message that it wont be tollerated.

 

[Snoop]

This just further highlights the farce which is the NRL judiciary. First of all let me say this - the tackle wasn't a good one, you will get no argument from me. HOWEVER, it seems to me that a good record means absolutely sh*t all to those jokers at NRL headquarters. A six week suspension to a bloke who has never been to the judiciary before in his ten year career, let alone suspended is a joke. He was never going to play again this season, but a three week suspension considering his good record would have been a fair outcome. Just out of curiosity, how many weeks did Michael Crocker get for his dangerous throw on the South Sydney bloke?

A good record doesn't make the tackle any less dangerous. The grading was correct and the judiciary agreed with the match review committee. Perhaps if it was a different charge (some accidental high shot kind of charge) then a clean record would have counted for something but you can't blame the judiciary for playing hardball on dangerous throws. They are simply not on.

 

[the ref]

Please explain how the grading was correct. I thought grade two as he didint land on his head and he wasnt flipped over. I think Ben Kennedy could have done more damage to Robertson by diving in there like a goose and esculating the situation.
How can anyone justify 6 weeks for that when Adrian Morley gets only 5 weeks for a deliberate knee with a Judiciary record a mile long?

 

[antonius]

Please explain how the grading was correct. I thought grade two as he didint land on his head and he wasnt flipped over. I think Ben Kennedy could have done more damage to Robertson by diving in there like a goose and esculating the situation.
How can anyone justify 6 weeks for that when Adrian Morley gets only 5 weeks for a deliberate knee with a Judiciary record a mile long?

He was flipped over, he landed on the back of his neck, It was more good luck that he didn't land on his head, Buderus didn't pull out of the tackle either, nor did he try to lower him gently when he realised what had happened, all easy for me to say I know, and yes it all happened quickly but dangerous throws/spear tackles more than any other tackle including Knees etc, have the capacity to paralyse someone

 

[Jobdog]

RE: Adrian Morley, that is precisely my point. Danny would have to be one of the cleanest players in the game. Morley gets 5 weeks for racing out of the line and kneeing a bloke, while Danny gets into a little bit of strife for a "dangerous tackle" and gets six weeks. It doesn't seem to add up. The NRL's excuse will probably be "dangerous tackles look far worse than kneeing someone and we need to stamp them out." To an extent they're onto something, however, it doesn't appear matter whether you have a clean record or not these days. Six weeks is extremely steep, and perhaps over the top. A two-three week suspension would have been a far better result.

The verdict has been handed down, I spose there is no use crying over spilt milk, its just up to the boys to do the job for the rest of the year now.