Thaiday wasn't even in contact with Newton when Newton hit the ground. He had let go ... and that is the key. The Broncos do a lot of training where they learn to let go if a player who is past the horizontal.
On the other hand, Buderus never let go of Robertson throughout the tackle and, in fact, followed him to the ground ... driving it's called. Big difference. There should be no suspension for Thaiday.
I haven't gone to lengths to defend Buderus' tackle but I would hesitate to say he drove him into the ground. Had his hands around Robertson's legs and he was continuing to rotate him as momentum continued forwards, but it doesn't look much to me like he was forcing him headfirst into the ground.
Usually I thought they penalised something that looked dangerous, typically past the horizontal, the ref usually says that even though it turned out alright, you can't lift that way and awards the penalty.
Now, Thaiday did turn him past horizontal, but took his hands off because he knew he was doing the wrong thing, and Newton dropped to the ground. Therefore I would assume there was no malice in the tackle, which may be where the training comes in and it's probably good. However, that is not the point. If the tackle looked dangerous, it doesn't matter if there is malice, it is normally penalised. Malice comes into it for the judiciary.
If Buderus had let go of Robertson, he still would have landed awkwardly, but not dangerously on his upper back. It's not a matter of whether he lets go though, the damage was done in the actual tackle, as with Thaiday's, and Buderus' was rather worse. Otherwise you could almost rationalise throwing a player as long as you let go of him. Dangerous tackle, and he knew it, should have been penalised, might face a bit of strife at the judiciary, but I hope this isn't compared to Buderus' any more because not everything is a square up.
