 |  |  | |
 | |||
 | |||
 | |||
 | |||
Robertson, Michael |
  Michael ROBERTSON [Player Stats] + Submit additional information or a correction to this player 
Credit where credit's due - NRL got it right with Buderus Fri September 15, 2006 by Chris Riediger The NRL judiciary has been criticised a number of times over the course of 2006, so I think it is only fair to give credit where credit is due. The Danny Buderus suspension is an example where the NRL could have gotten it very wrong, but didn't. I feel a little sorry for Danny Buderus. As he said himself, you "bust your ass" all season for one reason, to play Finals footy and have a shot at the title. After slugging it out for 26 rounds, it is an almost unjust end to a season. However, when I think about how very, very wrong it could have all gone for Michael Robertson, I stop feeling sorry for "Bedsy" and think about how incredibly lucky he was to avoid causing a serious injury to the Manly back. I think even more about Robertson himself, and what must've flashed through his mind as he was driven head-first into the EnergyAustralia Stadium turf by the Knights rake. Whilst I can't relate personally to it, a few of my friends most certainly can - two of them had promising Rugby League careers ended by head injuries caused by reckless and dangerous actions on the football field. One of these guys has a metal plate in his head and the other has had to undergo extensive rehabilitation; he has had to re-learn how to do some of the most basic human things like tying a shoelace and writing his name. The NRL came under fire, mostly by Buderus and his supporters, in the lead up to the hearing. Things like "clean record", "Finals games mean more" and calls for the judiciary system to be overhauled were replayed ad nauseum and there were some real concerns from fans here on rleague.com and in the general Rugby League community that the NRL would roll over and succumb to the pressure on them. The concerns had some valid foundation too; the NRL are notorious for their mystifying of the public with decisions that appear to be under-suspending or over-suspending players in the court of public opinion. Worst still, I think there is a feeling that a level of hidden bias tends to coincide with these decisions - however there is no actual proof this is the case. There are three decisions that come to mind in 2006 that mystified me and generated much discussion - the Michael Crocker suspension, the Adrian Morley suspension and the Andrew Johns suspension. Without going through a detailed recap, most people seemed to think Crocker got more than he deserved (which is common in many of his recent suspensions), Adrian Morley got less than he deserved (also common in many of his recent suspensions) and Andrew Johns was shown leniency in order to get the right suspension for the offence in isolation (however, some people forget the 96 carryover points for earlier leniency allowing him to avoid a week off). Buderus was vocal when it came to his relatively clean record being a factor, commenting: "Obviously a good record counts for nothing in the end, I'm pretty disappointed," "I think it has to be looked at." Buderus hadn't been suspended in 10 seasons; however he had been found guilty of a minor offence and avoided suspension meaning that his record wasn't completely clean. The judiciary was asked to treat the case without a "clean record" consideration, which it duly did. The outcome was to uphold the original grading, ensuring consistency and reinforcing the duty of care players must take on the field - something Judiciary counsel Peter Kite felt was paramount. "The objective is to achieve consistency for the offence," Kite said. "You can't put a player's future at risk to make a tackle." Consistency is something the NRL clubs, players and fans have been vocal about in recent years, particular since the introduction of the current system. Whilst the NRL strive to achieve this, many of the interested parties in Rugby League have a cynical view about the NRL's level of achievement. In this case, the NRL should be given credit for demonstrating consistency and fairness in a high-profile case. Based on past offences and suspensions and a degree of common sense being applied, I believe that the NRL got this one right and deserve a few pats on the back for it. It's unfortunate for the Knights and Danny Buderus, but I'd like to leave you with a few thoughts. Imagine some time in 2007 a similar tackle happens but the tackled player is not so lucky and ends up like one of my friends because he's not so lucky. People will call for a massive suspension and probably rightfully so. However, lets say Danny Buderus got his tackle downgraded to a Grade 1 or 2 Dangerous Throw; how could the NRL judiciary then turn around a suspend our hypothetical tackler for anything more than a few weeks? They couldn't without compromising consistency, fairness and the system as a whole. I think Danny should consider himself lucky. Because it was only luck that saved this from being much, much worse. Playing in a Grand Final should not be the foremost thought in his mind ... buying a lottery ticket should be.
|
Privacy Policy | Legals | Terminology | Credits Recommended Screen Resolution 1024 x 768 or higher | All times are Australian Eastern time unless otherwise specified
Rleague.com PTY LTD, operated by Rugby League fans James Stewart (Content, Technical development and implementation), Matthew O'Neill (Content) & Chris Riediger (Content)
Rleague powered by Packer's spare change
Rleague.com PTY LTD, operated by Rugby League fans James Stewart (Content, Technical development and implementation), Matthew O'Neill (Content) & Chris Riediger (Content)
Rleague powered by Packer's spare change
