How many weeks?

[Razor]

Whats his previous record at the Judicary like?

Unlike Woolford he has no loading. So if he recieves the same charge as Woolford, Buderus will get 3 weeks

 

[strewth_mate]

Suggestion - *takes deep breath* read the whole farkin thread before jumping on a single quote you eagotistical infantile. But to do this extract the digit from your ass to clear your train of thought.

But to paraphrase a moronic ass clown - "be careful when you speak though, because coming from literacy studies" findings prove that you
(a) are an illiterate imbecile
(b) dont read thouroughly - hear but does not listen
(c) either dont have spell check or are too lazy to use it.

1. 'Egotistical' spelt incorrectly
2. 'Infantile' is an adjective, not a noun
3. 'Don't' has an apostrophe
4. 'Thoroughly' spelt incorrectly
5. Improper tense: 'does' used in place of 'do' e.g. "you hear but do not listen". If you were to use 'does', it would have to follow 'hears', not 'hear', i.e. "hears but does not listen". Either way, you referred to Gene in the second person, not third, so 'does' would be wrong in the first place

god these arguments are stupid...

 

[Medievalknight]

Now can you explain how the referee was all Manly in the first half. The 10 metres was non-existant for both teams.

So was laying all over players in the tackle.................If the hampster showed intestinal fortitude early on and PENALISED for not GETTING OFF the tackled player then it would not have generated into what it did.

 

[parra pete]

Hmmmmmm this is becoming more crazy PP.

Let me get this right..

* Rounds 1-26 suspensions are in force
* Semi finals...there is the option to "pay" for the suspension

That proposal will be put in the bin.

The option to pay for suspensions in the finals to ensure the players are all available, if that is the option they adopt.... You are getting my drift...

 

[Mr Saab]

Yep, i thought so...garbage bin

 

[spider]

1. 'Egotistical' spelt incorrectly
2. 'Infantile' is an adjective, not a noun
3. 'Don't' has an apostrophe
4. 'Thoroughly' spelt incorrectly
5. Improper tense: 'does' used in place of 'do' e.g. "you hear but do not listen". If you were to use 'does', it would have to follow 'hears', not 'hear', i.e. "hears but does not listen". Either way, you referred to Gene in the second person, not third, so 'does' would be wrong in the first placehese arguments are stupid...

:lol:

Dead set pathetic - you idiot. Run off to another one of your mates defence.

FTR - i was returning serve, but you would have known that.

Can't they hold their own without you.

Dead set hilarious :lol: :lol:

So you will sleep better, why do you think i referred to him in the second person hey?

:lol: :lol: You deadset dickhead - but remember, "stupid is what stupid does".

 

[caylo]

My response was to the "arc" that was created once he was lifted from the ground - you know, top heavy.

But thankyou because you have reiterated the point i was making - see bold quotation.

read the rest of my post to, if u continue to read i state that danny was responsible for the position the players body got into, it was your incorrect use of the word momentum... you said danny created momentum of the player, if anything he slowed down his momentum....
good day ;-)

 

[strewth_mate]

Dead set pathetic - you idiot. Run off to another one of your mates defence.

FTR - i was returning serve, but you would have known that.

Can't they hold their own without you.

Dead set hilarious

So you will sleep better, why do you think i referred to him in the second person hey?

You deadset dickhead - but remember, "stupid is what stupid does".

FTR I was taking the piss, I'm sick of arguments over spelling or grammar, hence why I said 'god these arguments are stupid'.

Can't they hold their own without you.

Very easily.
(Plus that question should be followed by a question mark.)

 

[spider]

read the rest of my post to, if u continue to read i state that danny was responsible for the position the players body got into, it was your incorrect use of the word momentum... you said danny created momentum of the player, if anything he slowed down his momentum....
good day ;-)

I agreed it was Buderus at fault - never insinuated otherwise except for the sarcasm that was not understood by a few. As soon as he lifted the player and he went into a dangerous position its all over. Does not matter how he arrives there (regarding the facts in this incident), its still a breach which he will face at the judiciary.

 

[spider]

FTR I was taking the piss, I'm sick of arguments over spelling or grammar, hence why I said 'god these arguments are stupid'.Very easily.

Nicely selected font colour for that statement too - the chosen colour of Casper IMO.

I agree, but personal attacks with no relevance to the topic on hand just get grubby - who has the best snipe, it can be done in a better way that is still funny.

 

[parra pete]

Yep, i thought so...garbage bin

Lucky then that you are not the person to convince. Good not to have to address ostriches - it is 2006...not 1956...
Those who say it can't be done are getting run over by those doing it....

 

[Mr Saab]

Pete, if the NRL accept that proposal i will walk to Freemantle

 

[t-ba]

Honestly, AFAIC, It's Robbo Who should be suspended.

Danny Buderus is a great of this game and a National Treasure of Newcastle, and the thought of somebody running at him at full pace is enough to make me weep. He was clearly defending himself from a deranged and dangerous individual.

Forget about the Judiciary, Robertson should be charged with Assault!

 

[parra pete]

Pete, if the NRL accept that proposal i will walk to Freemantle

Drop in and see me in Perth...:lol:

 

[strewth_mate]

Nicely selected font colour for that statement too - the chosen colour of Casper IMO.

Well I would have chosen yellow but it's easier to see.

I agree, but personal attacks with no relevance to the topic on hand just get grubby - who has the best snipe, it can be done in a better way that is still funny.

Indeed, just felt like having some fun ;-)

I'm not defending Buderus' tackle, he should serve time for it.

This is interesting though, nobody will be happy unless he gets similar time to Crocker or Woolford. Yet there were those who thought the sentences for those two were harsh at the time. If Buderus cops a hefty suspension, I'd be interested to see what happens the next time someone makes a similar tackle. The fact that this one is being compared to Crocker's and Woolford's shows that they have set a precedent, and this tackle will form part of it for the future.

Either way I don't see the outcome satisfying many people. We'll see outrage towards the NRL from different groups if the sentence is too long or too short. As a Knights fan I obviously want to see Buderus back on the field, I can't avoid that bias, but I also want a fair system. With the way the judiciary has been going in some cases this year, the rulings are becoming a bit strange.

IMO, I don't care if it's this one or the next one, but at some point they've got to step back a bit and judge an offense on its own merit. The pressure is on to promote consistency, and this is a bit difficult when the view of a lot of fans is 'tit for tat' for outrageous decisions. The moment a regulation high tackle goes for 12 weeks there'll be some wanting every high tackle thereafter to have a minimum of 12 weeks so their team wasn't hard done by </generalisation>.

Grade 2 for mine. I don't think there was malice, and it was very awkward, but he shouldn't have been lifting someone and pitching them forwards at high speed.

 

[spider]

At the end of the day as you said - consistency is what's needed. If i was a Knights fan i would be bleeding as Buderus is a great player and is needed in their side at this time of the year.

Its easy for me to make judgement - i thought about it and considered it without colours on the players - but not everyone perceives the same incident in the same way.

They won a couple without Joey so they can continue. I actually picked them from the final 8 to win it.

 

[parra-matters]

I am a believer in a system that to suspend players in a final series punishes not the Club but the supporters who follow the team with passion during a season. A suspension means loss of a key player and, in most cases, the end of premiership chances.
I would prefer to see an optional clause of $25,000 per week fine..with the Club to decide what it is to take. For example if player cops 4 weeks the Club can pay $100,000 fine to wipe it..with the money to go into promotion of the code at grass roots level. That way it punishes the player in his pocket and not the fans.
If they don't (the players or the Club) want to pay the fine, they can cop the suspension instead. The choice is theirs. Win win all around......

Thats the biggest load of rubbish I have read since I read the Telecrap the other day.
So in your world you could send a Mick crocker or Adrian Morley out to de head a the opposing teams play maker and then pay the fine so he can do it again next week.
Your on some good chemicals there mate!
So Storm play Newcastle in the GF, Knights lead 18-14 with 15mins to go so you would send Crocker out to take out Johns with the backing of the club to pay the fine so he doesn't miss any off season rep games or starting games next year? Johns gets taken out high in back play, carried off all of a sudden Newcastle fall apart and Storm win 24-18.
You think thats fair?

 

[Mr Saab]

In PP's world that is fair Parra Matters.
I would love to be a fly on the wall IF he ever proposed that system to Gallop and Rodwell.
Nominee for most idiotic idea for 2006 on LU

 

[parra pete]

Thats the biggest load of rubbish I have read since I read the Telecrap the other day.
So in your world you could send a Mick crocker or Adrian Morley out to de head a the opposing teams play maker and then pay the fine so he can do it again next week.
Your on some good chemicals there mate!
So Storm play Newcastle in the GF, Knights lead 18-14 with 15mins to go so you would send Crocker out to take out Johns with the backing of the club to pay the fine so he doesn't miss any off season rep games or starting games next year? Johns gets taken out high in back play, carried off all of a sudden Newcastle fall apart and Storm win 24-18.
You think thats fair?

That can still happen!!!!!! under the present system. If the threat of a $25,000 fine in lieu of a match suspension is not a deterrent I don't know what is.....

Read what I wrote...or better still get someone to read it for you.....

 

[parra pete]

In PP's world that is fair Parra Matters.
I would love to be a fly on the wall IF he ever proposed that system to Gallop and Rodwell.
Nominee for most idiotic idea for 2006 on LU

You should add "In your opinion, Nominee for most idiotic idea for 2006 on LU".
Dare to dream...'Some people see things that never were and say why not'

In professional sport, fans want to see the best go around...