Ian Roberts was on the judiciary? give me a break!

[Anonymous]

I know the point of the thread. But imo, it's not relevant to today.

 

[Forum Idiot]

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?

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?
sledging is a part of every sport. it helps you gain a mental edge over your opponent. with the right sledge you can take a player out of the game. gary jack achieved this but he also took himself out of the game.
And anyway - Ian Roberts' defense for his actions was that he was "defending a team mate" and not " he called me gay" so leave your politically correct agendas at the door. i didnt know that "defending" a team mate included running in to a brawl from a mile away and throwing an innumerable amount of uppercuts at a man half your size. did jack even see the 1st uppercut coming???

 

[innsaneink]

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.

And I suppose you think all judges and magistrates are angels and squeaky clean.

 

[Disco Tiger]

What has not been said is that Jack's arms were being held by Manly players (Ridge was on of them) whilst Roberts used him as a punching bag. That's the act of a coward no matter what his sexual preferences are!

 

[uuem]

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.

It went deeper than that Roberts and Jack were buisness partners and were involved in a deal that went bad .

 

[Briza]

The point of the matter is, williams incident was unprovoked (even though he was tackled high) the incident was 1 or 2 tackles previous.

If Gary Jack or anyone wants to take cheap shots about a persons sexuality/Race/Religion/ Colour, whatever - they better be prepared to cop retaliation what ever it may be.

 

[hrundi99]

Hrundi, I didn't say he deserved anything, I said he would be nieve to think that he wouldn't cop some sledging.

The way your last sentence in the original post I referred to is worded tends to imply that he deserved sledging and that he should have stayed "in the closet".

If I've misinterpreted your tone then I'm sorry.

I still think that if you sledge to that extent then you had better be ready for a fist coming your way. Doesn't make it right, but it should be expected.

 

[hrundi99]

...leave your politically correct agendas at the door...

Leave your anti-PC paranoia at the door.

 

[Biscuits]

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.
3.The settlement was due to a memorabillia enterprise between the 2 had gone sour. Why did Jack enter into this venture with a man who had beaten him so bad. Because money is the only thing that has ever mattered to Jack. When things went bad he saw another way to get money. Through litigation. I am not saying he didnt deserve the settlement though. I dont know the finer points and he may have received what he was entitled to.
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.

 

[Forum Idiot]

...leave your politically correct agendas at the door...

Leave your anti-PC paranoia at the door.

it isnt paranoia. i think political correctness is pathetic. say what you think not you you think you should think.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

It went deeper than that Roberts and Jack were buisness partners and were involved in a deal that went bad .

Can you prove the accuracy of this statement?

It wasn't Roberts exclusive decision. Roberts has two other ex players on the panel and they receive legal advice from a top lawyer.

 

[Anonymous]

Must have missed that.
uuem, can you provide a source? Otherwise it will have to go.

 

[reladith]

I say anyone that beats the shit out of Gary Jack deserves a pat on the back, not a suspension!

Oh no, Gary might hear this, dont take me to court please Gary, dont start civil procedures against me and say its not for money! :lol: :lol:

 

[mightybears]

roberts wasn't "out" at the time he beat the crap out of jack
if you can't do the walking, don't start talking, garry
considering all the stuff roberts copped from players and the crowd i'm suprised he didn't visit the judiciary more often
jack is a cheap low life who went for the money when his career ended

 

[CouldaBeenAnything]

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.

This guy has tripped over a huge pile of the correct here.

Whether past indiscretions mean a guy shouldn't be on a judiciary now is a different issue, but as long as the penalties that come down are fair and even handed (hahaahahaha), then there should be no issue

 

[Forum Idiot]

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 shit 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?

 

[Anonymous]

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.

 

[fish]

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.

He speaketh much sence.

 

[Forum Idiot]

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.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

He is not the only person on the panel.

It was because of the medical evidence that they adjourned the meeting... that is, to seek clarification.

The judiciary has legal people involved in the decision making as well as former players. Thats the whole idea.