Danny gets no downgrade.

[Jobdog]

He was flipped over, he landed on the back of his neck, Dangerous throws more than any other tackle have the capacity to paralyse someone including Knees etc.

Point taken there Tony, however, I would think that we are trying to stamp out any deliberate acts of foul play. Racing out of the line and kneeing someone to me is more of a deliberate act of foul play than a dangerous throw (in particular Bedsy's one). So, in conclusion, the penalties should be around about the same (not taking into account previous offences). Morely gets five weeks of which I'm sure there would have been previous carry over points attributed to it. So in effect, Morley, if he was a clean skin would have only been looking at probably 2-3 weeks, which is exactly what Bedsy should have been looking at.

 

[antonius]

Point taken there Tony, however, I would think that we are trying to stamp out any deliberate acts of foul play. Racing out of the line and kneeing someone to me is more of a deliberate act of foul play than a dangerous throw (in particular Bedsy's one). So, in conclusion, the penalties should be around about the same (not taking into account previous offences). Morely gets five weeks of which I'm sure there would have been previous carry over points attributed to it. So in effect, Morley, if he was a clean skin would have only been looking at probably 2-3 weeks, which is exactly what Bedsy should have been looking at.

I actually edited that post you're refering to Jobdog while you were posting this. I tried to explain why I thought a spear tackle was more dangerous than Kneeing. When it comes to that sort of thing I don't think a clean record comes into it. Also I think you'll find Morleys residual points were all used up, and he didn't have any carry over points, (one of the things that is good reason to do away with loadings/early pleas etc), which IMO only confuse the general public more when things like this come up.

 

[El Diablo]

Point taken there Tony, however, I would think that we are trying to stamp out any deliberate acts of foul play. Racing out of the line and kneeing someone to me is more of a deliberate act of foul play than a dangerous throw (in particular Bedsy's one). So, in conclusion, the penalties should be around about the same (not taking into account previous offences). Morely gets five weeks of which I'm sure there would have been previous carry over points attributed to it. So in effect, Morley, if he was a clean skin would have only been looking at probably 2-3 weeks, which is exactly what Bedsy should have been looking at.

Buderus isn't a clean skin. He had a 20% loading for a prior offence in the last 12 months plus 37 carry over points. He also chose to risk not getting a 25% reduction by contesting the grading.

A dangerous throw is far more dangerous than what Morley did regardless if it wasn't deliberate.

 

[Jobdog]

So what you're saying is anyone can race out of the line and deliberately knee a bloke, but as long as we stamp out dangerous throws, everything is all fine? Foul play is foul play regardless of whether or not it is a deliberate knee or a dangerous throw.

 

[the ref]

As morley was referred straight to the judiciary then shouldnt his penalty have been higher than bedsy's grade 3 d/t.
I was always of the opinion from my refereeing days that a spear tackle was one which was droped on there head or has the INTERPRETATION of that changed.

 

[roopy]

As morley was referred straight to the judiciary then shouldnt his penalty have been higher than bedsy's grade 3 d/t.
I was always of the opinion from my refereeing days that a spear tackle was one which was droped on there head or has the INTERPRETATION of that changed.

I think the definition has changed - it is now called a lifting tackle and any tackle where the legs go above the body is in the mix - doesn't matter if they land on their head - just the chance that they might have is enough.

 

[antonius]

So what you're saying is anyone can race out of the line and deliberately knee a bloke, but as long as we stamp out dangerous throws, everything is all fine? Foul play is foul play regardless of whether or not it is a deliberate knee or a dangerous throw.

I'm certainly not saying that, What I'm saying is that lifting has the potential to do a lot more damage than the example you're using JD.

As morley was referred straight to the judiciary then shouldnt his penalty have been higher than bedsy's grade 3 d/t.
I was always of the opinion from my refereeing days that a spear tackle was one which was droped on there head or has the INTERPRETATION of that changed.

Weather or not the player is cited straight away without a grading or not Ref, the ultimate charge and penalty is taken on the merits of the indiscreation. Again Lifting is seen as more dangerous than kneeing, weather that's right or not I don't know neither are good for the game, but I'd take a broken jaw as against being paralysed any day.

 

[B-dos]

I can see where Jobdog is coming from regarding Dannys good record.

I fully agree the tackle was a shocker, the NRL rightly wants to come down hard on such tackles but I, like Danny himself, and many others think that surely his good record should come into account when sentencing.

Its obvious and widely known that a bad record is taken into account during sentencing so its fair to ask why a good record is not??

 

[lockyno1]

He DOES NOT have a clean record guys. He chose to not contest the high shot on Matt Bowen. It was his fault that he could not be bothered driving 2 hours to contest that charge. That is his fault. He has carry over points and loading as a result. That was his decision. As for this decision I feel they got it right. About 5-6 weeks is adequate for what is a pretty ordinary tackle.

 

[Frederick]

Locky :arrow: LA

 

[Burwood]

He DOES NOT have a clean record guys. He chose to not contest the high shot on Matt Bowen.

No arguments there. But surely a system where a grade 1 careless tackle in a career spanning 10 years means the difference between 2 and 6 weeks can be seen as having a flaw?

 

[lockyno1]

No arguments there. But surely a system where a grade 1 careless tackle in a career spanning 10 years means the difference between 2 and 6 weeks can be seen as having a flaw?

Well that was Danny's decision. He was the one that chose not to contest that charge, which he would have got off by the way. Its a shame he misses the finals but he'll learn from this. Is it a flaw in the system, no. He would still be looking at 4 weeks with a clean record if i am not wrong (base penalty for a grade 3 is 525 points). The system has its flaws, every system does but the current model is fine.

 

[skeepe]

No arguments there. But surely a system where a grade 1 careless tackle in a career spanning 10 years means the difference between 2 and 6 weeks can be seen as having a flaw?

The rule is there's a 25% discount for having 7 years incident-free, not 25% discount for having 7 years with only 1 charge. He got his 25% discount for a good record when he pled guilty to the Bowen charge. Had he fought it and won, he would still have that discount in play.

 

[El Diablo]

No arguments there. But surely a system where a grade 1 careless tackle in a career spanning 10 years means the difference between 2 and 6 weeks can be seen as having a flaw?

why say 6 when it would've been 5 if he'd plead guilty?

 

[Burwood]

Is it a flaw in the system, no. He would still be looking at 4 weeks with a clean record if i am not wrong (base penalty for a grade 3 is 525 points).

yes, you are wrong. A base penalty of 525 points would be reduced by 25% points for a clean record, and then further reduced another 25% for taking the early quilty plea- this would have moved him down to somewhere between 200-300 points and only looking at a 2 week suspension.

It has all been well documented in the papers this week.

 

[Burwood]

The rule is there's a 25% discount for having 7 years incident-free, not 25% discount for having 7 years with only 1 charge. He got his 25% discount for a good record when he pled guilty to the Bowen charge. Had he fought it and won, he would still have that discount in play.

What part of my post didn't you understand? I said "no argument here" to lockyno1's comments because based on the current system Buderus has absolutely no case to argue against his penalty.

But the part that you seem to fail to understand is that I was not questioning the penalty that Buderus received, but rather the validity of the judiciary system. I'm unsure how a player who has played the game for 10 years with only one minor incident against their name can be put into the same category as players who are proven habitual offenders.

 

[Burwood]

why say 6 when it would've been 5 if he'd plead guilty?

Because they were the two extremes in the example that I was giving.

Why did you say that Danny didn't plead guilty when he did?

 

[lockyno1]

But the part that you seem to fail to understand is that I was not questioning the penalty that Buderus received, but rather the validity of the judiciary system. I'm unsure how a player who has played the game for 10 years with only one minor incident against their name can be put into the same category as players who are proven habitual offenders.

Do you agree that it was a bit silly by Danny not contesting the Bowen "slap". That is where he failed. That is why he is looking at 6 weeks now. The other issue I have is should finals matches be weighted. Look most people realise that a finals match is a important match, so could we have a argument to "weight" a finals match. So a normal 2 week suspension= 1 finals match, etc. What do you think of that?

 

[~bedsy~]

This comes up everytime something like this happens, because there is no consistancy in the NRL Judicary. It will be an on-going probelem until it's fixed, it's been yrs since I started following leauge.... let me think, 10 yrs. It hasn't changed yet. So I'm not holding my breath.

 

[El Diablo]

Because they were the two extremes in the example that I was giving.

Why did you say that Danny didn't plead guilty when he did?

by fighting the gradng you don't get the 25% reduction if you lose.

had he fought the grading with a 7 year clean record and lost he would've got 3 weeks