He should appeal and it should be over turned.

It was no worse that our attemted spear. Carless but not malicious

Every bit as bad as Coley's IMO.

Actually I don't think it was harsh. Take a look again and you'll see Buderus has his arms between Prescot's legs when he tips him up. He then DRIVES him into the ground with no attempt to pull out of the action. Malice or not, intention to injure or not, this is a VERY dangerous and illegal tackle. As the commentary team point out, it was lucky that Prescott survived serious injury. I can't see any grounds for an appeal to be honest unless we only issue bans on intent alone. That's never been the case as long as I've been watching the game.

he should of kicked him on the way down then he would not of been banned.rfl just trying to get a saints wigan final.they are now stating that its ok to kick and punch and you wont be banned

he would have only needed to if Prescot elbowed him in the tackle...

2 players in the eastwood spear tackle so why did coley get a caution? buderus not that type of player if its not overturned then its clear that they want leeds out of the final

No-one's arguing he's that type of player...he clearly isn't! But bans aren't onl issued for intent or whether someone "is that type of player or not"! It was clearly a dangerous and illegal tackle that could quite easily have resulted in serious injury. The 1 match ban is a fair reflection of that. Had there been intent then it would have been worthy of a much longer longer one!

As for the supposed spear tackle on Eastwood; firstly it wasn't a spear tackle but merely lifting the legs over hoizontal and, as such, the penalty was the right decision and secondly, Coley didn't get a warning as he wasn't even involved in the tackle! You really do need to take a look at the incidents you're posting about before going off on a rant as you just end up looking like an idiot otherwise! Unless that's your intention, of course...

he had to do a somersault to land on his back. haven't viewed it back yet but thought it was coley, i can't understand how tomkins cannot get punished, prescott was not hurt in the tackle by buderus neither was mcguire from the kick but if ther banning buderus for that then surely tomkins should of got more than a slap on the wrist.make the leeds team as weak as possible is what the rfl will be doing. it will be leeds v wigan in the semi im sure of that which is why i think he is banned, like webb for example got 2 game ban to miss the challenge cup game against you. its clear to see they want you in the final

Who can blame them?

Mate, you're completely missing the point! It's not decided by whether someone was injured or not! Neither is it decided soley on intent (although this can be a factor, certainly in terms of length of ban). The fact is Buderus puts his hands between Prescott's legs and drives him into the ground. That is the definition of a spear tackle (for which bans are handed out). In Eastwood's case McIllorum lifts his legs above the horizontal, but at no time is his head/neck driven towards the ground. Therefore it ISN'T a spear tackle but a different offence of 'lifting the legs above the horizontal' for which the correct decision is a penalty. This was given. The kick, although stupid and, in my opinion if not the referee's worthy of a sin-binning, was never going to result in a ban unless you argue that the force is irrelevant. If you're going to take this line then I suggest you go and check the Webb kick out at Sam Tomkins. You can't have it both ways!

Stop with the conspiracy theories. Leeds can have no complaints about the RFL and, in particular its disciplinary as Leeds seem to come off better than most! It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in this instance the ban is lifted and Leeds get the better of this decision. It won't alter the fact that this WAS a spear tackle and worthy of the 1 match it brought.

it was a deliberate kick mate not accidental which should result in a ban if hes banning petty things

Off the hook.

Ban lifted, fine stands.

Shocked and stunned...no really.....

cue the bleating...............................













Justice.

Correct decision.

God knows why they even gave him a ban. I mean:
a) It didn't warrant a ban
b) Leeds were always going to appeal, and it was always going to be lifted

What a waste of time.

oh ffs. whats the point in even issuing a ban for what is classed as a DANGEROUS TACKLE if its gonna get overturned?

The number of appeals that are successful shows that the current disciplinary system is complete crapola. The sooner the RFL sort the system out and get a dedicated panel who sit every week the better.

What's the point in having refs if players can knee/kick an opponent when he's on the ground?

Deep down, you know damn well the ban was not justified. Not one bit.

All eyes will be on Wigan in this weeks game IMO...... and rightly so. Especially those Tomkins boys. Proper Cheats

All eyes are always on Wigan.

genuine question, did the kick connect with Mcguire?
the one thing i dont understand is how can the tackle be dangerous one day and not the next day?
Im not just saying this for Buderus now, but in general, but the rfl is a total joke, always has been and always will be!

Watching Leeds beat you when it matters the most

"But the suspension has been lifted after DVD evidence showed the challenge from a different camera angle."

"To a panel missing any members of Phil Clarke's family"

I think that's the full quote.

Quite right. They don't seem to realise one panel overturning the decision of another basically says the are saying the first panel was incompetent.

This was overturned because of a DVD showing it from a new angle. Really? Well why wasn't that available first time around? If they have not got all the evidence how the hell can they sit and make a ruling in the first place?

Bunch of idiots.

Dave