For the record they did not uphold the appeal, he was still guilty but they readdressed the punishment to fine only.

Which actually just makes it worse.


Yes, Danny we know you're guilty but we wouldn't like you to miss an important playoff game. Please forgive us, the original footage we saw was in black and white so we didn't realise what colour shirt you were wearing. Having now seen it is blue and yellow we are reducing your punishment to a fine only.

It seems to me that whatever punnishment a player is given, if he appeals it gets reduced which seems to make a mockery of the whole system.

inho i think the decision has been made to reverse it due to mcguire being ruled out of the rest of season or i'm i being cynical

Its a joke, it didn't deserve a ban in the first place.

Imo, they should scrap the people that come in (I.E - the ex wiganers from Tuesday) and have some of the younger referees take a view on the matter (NL standard refs)

Bedsy??????????????????????????????????????
Is he in fact a small puppy then whos surname no doubt is wedsy and needs his belly ruffled and told hes a good boy every now and again?

is he friends with Webbsy? who fetches the ball back when kicked to him?
and gregsy who seems to have sex for cakes (or non cakes)?

Or you could take the opposite cynical view, which many have, that the reason the appeals panel reduced the sentence to a fine only was that the original disciplinary panel had two ex-Wigan coaches sitting on it and it could be Wigan (or hopefully Hull KR) who would benefit from a one match banned Buderus?

I just think the three blokes on the appeals panel didn't think it was worth a one match suspension like the three blokes on the originally disciplinary panel did... that is why there is an appeals system!

I think all these people that keep saying that bans keep getting overturned, so why can't the original disciplinary panel get it right are missing the point! Just because we have seen two recent suspension be reversed to fine only (Radford & Buderus) people are assuming the system is broken, most never actually go to appeal in the first place as they also run risk of the suspension being increased and often the clubs involved don't think they have good grounds on which to appeal. You can't not have an appeals system and sometimes they will reduce the punishment of find someone not guilty, sometimes they will keep things the same, sometimes they will increase the punishment... err, that is how it is supposed to work isn't it?

With Radford last week Hull said that they felt a one match ban was harsh given that he spent 70 minutes off the field... fair enough argument to me, and the appeals panel agreed. With Buderus we understand that Leeds reviewed the DVD from Sky and found one of the angles the original panel didn't view showed that it was maybe not with malicious intent... the appeals panel agreed and reduced the punishment.

Also remember, this is the play-off's now, in mid-season you might just accept the verdict and not take the risk of appealing! The reason Leeds did is they felt that it was only one match, it was maybe not likely to get increased in this case and it was worth having a go at the appeal.

Does there have to be intent? If a tackle is dangerous, it is dangerous. And his act in lifting the legs was an intentional act. I accept that maybe he didn't expect Lulu to let go of his head, but it was still very dangerous tackle, and it became dangerous because Buderus intentionally lifted his legs high up.

It looks like the disciplinary rules don't apply in the play-offs.

Not at any other level of the game, just SL play offs by the look of it.

Yes and No! The guidelines have three definitions of classifying offences, that is (from worst to best, if you get my meaning) Intentional, Reckless or Careless, so no you don't have to have intent to be found guilty but often offence that are classed as Careless by definition don't have any intent but the action of the player was still against the laws of the game.

You should read them actually, not a long read and give a great insight into how the system works. If more people actual understood the guidelines maybe they would not be so quick to think they are biased against them or favour anyone else.

rlhttps://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/On%20Field%20Compliance%20Sentencing%20Guidelines%202010%20-%20Final.pdfrl

Like I said, the more obvious criticism being made by many is that the original decision could be the 'incorrect' one, given that two of the three disciplinary panel members were ex-Wigan coaches!

That all said, at the end of the day the three blokes on the disciplinary panel had a different view than the three blokes on the appeal panel! That does not mean that the opinion of one panel or person on that panel is less valid than the others, just that they have a different view. As all the available members of the committees rotate around both the discpilianry & appeal panels on a rota produced in advance it could quite easily have been the other way around and the appeals panel could have been the three same blokes on the original panel and they could have up'ed Buderus ban from a fine to a suspension! Would this be viewed by Wakey fans differently then? Or would you say the exact opposite, clearly the disciplinary panel got it wrong and the appeals panels got it right.... because that fits with your opinion???

It is just the system we have and I don't think there is much wrong with it... you are allowed to have a different opinion to them and they often have different opinions amongst themselves but they sit on the panels and you don't... that is about it really!

that's the way I saw it, he paid a high price being sent off earlier, I would of had them both cooling off in the sin bin,
their excuse was that only one punch landed which is laughable as the intent was there to take his head clean off,

I would love to see the different camera angle in which shows Buderus hadn't lifted him above the horizontal position intentionally or not

there is one thing you cant have star players missing in the high profile games

so a spear didn't deserve a ban..clown..looks like mcguire got devine retribution for his professional foul then!
at least wigan layed your "want to go home boy" down after moving him above the horizontal!
why defend a spear????

Which is precisely what makes this whole incident such a farce.

The game was televised. How many camera angles can there be to review? How the hell can you miss one? If the disciplinary panel are in a position to fine a man part of his wages, or suspend him from performing his job, they should at least have the courtesy to review all the available evidence at the time before coming to a decision on the case. And yes, thankfully there is an appeals panel, but for them to have to offer the explanation that they viewed the incident from another angle in order to amend the original decision makes the whole process appear ridiculous, or at best sloppy.