that isnt what madunit was saying, hrundi. did he say at all that "ian roberts is gay so he deserved to get sledged" ? i didnt see that written anywhere in his post. what madunit was saying ( and i agree) was that ian roberts KNEW he was going to cop insults on the field when he announced his sexual tendencies. would you be so naive as to suggest otherwise?hrundi99 said:madunit said:Ian Roberts took that risk of telling the world of his sexuality. He couldn't be as nieve as to assume that players wouldn't use it against him on the field. Thats a ridiculous suggestion that he was provoked. He brought it on himself by announcing he was gay.
So because he's gay he deserved to cop sh*t?
madunit said:The point being, how can it be just to have Roberts ajudicating on the Williams issue, when Roberts was never punished for an offence similar in nature. Isn't this kind of hypocritical?
Its like asking Ivan Milat to be a member of the jury for a murder case.
Kaz said:Forum Idiot said:Ian Roberts being on the judiciary that gave danny williams an 18 week ban is even more pathetic than MG bad-mouthing willie mason about behaviour. it is the ultimate in hypocrisy! Ian Roberts committed one of the most cowardly acts i have ever seen when he beat the living hell out of gary jack in 1991 and that was completely unprovoked aswell!.
It wasn't unprovoked, Jack was using Roberts sexuality all through the game & he was taunting him about it.
So Roberts beat the sh!t out of him.
Jack took him to court, but Jack said it wasn't for the money. :roll:
Yeah right, well why did he take civil action then.
madunit said:Hrundi, I didn't say he deserved anything, I said he would be nieve to think that he wouldn't cop some sledging.
Forum Idiot said:...leave your politically correct agendas at the door...
it isnt paranoia. i think political correctness is pathetic. say what you think not you you think you should think.hrundi99 said:Forum Idiot said:...leave your politically correct agendas at the door...
Leave your anti-PC paranoia at the door.
It went deeper than that Roberts and Jack were buisness partners and were involved in a deal that went bad .
Biscuits said:A couple of points;
1.Roberts had not come out yet when the incident with Jack occurred
2.Jack threw first punch at Ridge. Roberts dfended his teammate as props had been expected to do for the previous 85 odd years.
4. Jack was in Roberts ear all game. Saying that his coach wanted to get together with Roberts etc. You dont mess with a guy and then cry about him coming out on top.
So what's the real issue here?Forum Idiot said:i just dont see how ian roberts can have an objecttive veiw on the issue at hand after he got off for something worse IMO. how can he say " danny williams shoud get 18 weeks" when he got ) weeks for something more violent. forget about gary jack for a minute and forget about off field sh*t and sledging. Ian roberts beat the brains out of another player in an incredibly one sided encounter and didnt get any sort of suspension so how can he now rule on what danny williams shoud get?
So what's the real issue here?
Are you against the decision made regarding Williams. Or do you just have a dislike for Ian Roberts? Which is it?
If it's the latter, you should have just started a thread called 'The things I don't like about Ian Roberts' because imo, it has SFA to do with the decision made by the judiciary panel.
i must be thinking out alloud again willow. i dont hate ian roberts. i never intended for the thread to turn into an ian roberts bash fest but thats the way some people saw it. this thread wasnt about the decision that the judiciary made it was about having a former league bad boy on the panel. Ian roberts had to review medical evidence and all sorts of medical and law documents. does he have a law degree? is he a doctor? i dont see the value in having ian roberts on the judiciary panel especially for a case like this one.Willow said:So what's the real issue here?Forum Idiot said:i just dont see how ian roberts can have an objecttive veiw on the issue at hand after he got off for something worse IMO. how can he say " danny williams shoud get 18 weeks" when he got ) weeks for something more violent. forget about gary jack for a minute and forget about off field sh*t and sledging. Ian roberts beat the brains out of another player in an incredibly one sided encounter and didnt get any sort of suspension so how can he now rule on what danny williams shoud get?
Are you against the decision made regarding Williams. Or do you just have a dislike for Ian Roberts? Which is it?
If it's the latter, you should have just started a thread called 'The things I don't like about Ian Roberts' because imo, it has SFA to do with the decision made by the judiciary panel.
Forum Idiot said:Ian roberts had to review medical evidence and all sorts of medical and law documents. does he have a law degree? is he a doctor? i dont see the value in having ian roberts on the judiciary panel especially for a case like this one.