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

[Grantwhy]

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.

It just goes to show that footballers really are judged by a 'jury of their peers" ?

:lol:

 

[Anonymous]

I can't believe the BS people are talking about if you can't do the walking don't do the talking.

Jimmy Jack Shouldn't have said what he said, but he did. Doesn't mean he should have had the crap belted out of him. I could rip on a guy half my size. I won't be able to walk the walk if there's 2 cats pinning my arms behind me.