Jack vs Roberts
Mullos
here? Even if a slightly wealthier one.
If he was held for Roberts to smash then why hasn't he brought Cliffy
Lyons etc. before the judge as well; they'd be just about as culpable.
If ever he wanted to go down in RL history for this incident , he's
found a bloody good way of doing it.
If the case succeeds, I'd like to know where the hell it will all end...
Less serious tackling all round? I mean it could get expensive, eh?
Mullos
Mick
>
>It was Roberts who did all the damage while Jack was being held. It's
>Roberts who was the real villain in the piece. More power to Gary
>jack, and God help us if he loses. The game really will be back in
>the hands of the knuckledraggers.
Although I certainly do not condone what Roberts did, and having been awhile
since I've seen a clip of the fight, didn't Jack instigate it all by
throwing the first punch, albeit at Ridge?
Personally I think Jack has a hide taking it to court. He wasn't known for
being the cleanest player getting around. Didn't he tag some players head
once whilst he was laying on the ground?
Mick
>
>Once again, what Jack is or was is irrelevant. Roberts assaulted him
>and ought to face the music. Same goes for any other thug.
I'm all for anyone who causes someone else serious injury, be it on or off
the footy field, to be charged with GBH, if that injury was caused through
something like this. So I'm all for Roberts getting charged.
My problem is with the other aspect of sueing, which is a different kettle
of fish. I think if someone wants to sue someone else for something that
they've done to them, they should at least live or have lived up to the
ideals he's now so much against. Jack was not a clean player when he was
around. It just seems he was willing to live by the sword, but not willing
to die by it too.
If you want to play dirty as Jack often did (re the tag incident in my
previous post), then if you have dirty play against you, you have to learn
to live with it. You should expect the other player to be charged with GBH
but don't go off crying to your solicitor cause you got a bit hurt.
Also, although the injury looked nasty after the incident, I don't believe
its worth $100,000. Crikey, Roberts can come and punch me in the face a few
times if it will earn me that much.
>This garbage about what happens on the field should stay on the field
>is a throwback to the Coliseum and gladiators. It wasn't acceptable
>then, and it's not acceptable now, except perhaps to the likes of Rex
>Mossop and company.
I agree with you. If an offence is committed on the field, and someone
suffers injuries from a similar incident, they should be civilly charged
with the appropriate offence.
Isimeli
<snip>
>
> I agree with you. If an offence is committed on the field, and someone
> suffers injuries from a similar incident, they should be civilly charged
> with the appropriate offence.
I only caught a glimpse of it in the TV news but I thought I heard the
reporter say that Gary Jack was suing because he was suffering from
post traumatic stress disorder brought about by the fracas with Roberts.
I agree with you about the charges but IMHO there should be the
possibility for criminal charges to be laid.(That'll probably open a
giant sized can of worms though)
Shark
Mick wrote in message <7a2ovh$9f7$1...@perki.connect.com.au>...
>Mike Burke wrote in message <36c4d5cd...@newshost.pcug.org.au>...
>>
>>Once again, what Jack is or was is irrelevant. Roberts assaulted him
>>and ought to face the music. Same goes for any other thug.
>
>
>I'm all for anyone who causes someone else serious injury, be it on or off
>the footy field, to be charged with GBH, if that injury was caused through
>something like this. So I'm all for Roberts getting charged.
>
>My problem is with the other aspect of sueing, which is a different kettle
>of fish. I think if someone wants to sue someone else for something that
>they've done to them, they should at least live or have lived up to the
>ideals he's now so much against. Jack was not a clean player when he was
>around. It just seems he was willing to live by the sword, but not willing
>to die by it too.
>
>If you want to play dirty as Jack often did (re the tag incident in my
>previous post), then if you have dirty play against you, you have to learn
>to live with it. You should expect the other player to be charged with GBH
>but don't go off crying to your solicitor cause you got a bit hurt.
>
>Also, although the injury looked nasty after the incident, I don't believe
>its worth $100,000. Crikey, Roberts can come and punch me in the face a
few
>times if it will earn me that much.
>
>>This garbage about what happens on the field should stay on the field
>>is a throwback to the Coliseum and gladiators. It wasn't acceptable
>>then, and it's not acceptable now, except perhaps to the likes of Rex
>>Mossop and company.
>
>
>suffers injuries from a similar incident, they should be civilly charged
>with the appropriate offence.
As I didn't see the report maybe you could tell me why he has waited this
long to sue him. I know that Jack has reputation for being closer to a buck
than Saddam to his security blanket and wonder if this isn't the main
motive. Do you think Willie Carne might start after all the hits to the head
he took? I think we have to be really careful about lawsuits for incidents
on the field for a number of reasons. One, that you institute double
jeopardy and two, that you open up a can of worms that might return to haunt
you. If the NRL had strong enough penalties and enforced them then you
wouldn't need lawsuits. The offender would be off salary and would be
punished financially that way and with less clubs those positions are
getting mighty rare. What if the time the offender was off the field his
salary was paid to the offendee?
Cheers,
Shark.
>
>
>
Mike Freedman
>
>They showed the clip again last night. Jack threw an ineffectual
>punch at Ridge who was hanging on to him. But that's beside the
>point. He was held and effectively defenceless when Roberts gave him
>a beating. If it had happened off the field, Roberts would have been
>liable for a GBH charge. The pity of it is that the cops didn't
>charge him immediately after the game. Does somebody have to be
>killed or maimed for life before that happens?
Lets hope it doesn't come to that. The NRL would be doing themselves a favour by
instructing referees to come down hard on participants of punchups during the
coming season.
The incident was also shown on NZTV news a day or so ago, and I too was amazed
that the incident was not taken further legally. I somehow doubt Jack will be
sucessful in his pursuit for damages for emotional distress, given the length of
time that has elapsed, but a win for Jack would be a great precedent.
>>Personally I think Jack has a hide taking it to court. He wasn't known for
>>being the cleanest player getting around. Didn't he tag some players head
>>once whilst he was laying on the ground?
>>
>Once again, what Jack is or was is irrelevant. Roberts assaulted him
>and ought to face the music. Same goes for any other thug.
>
>This garbage about what happens on the field should stay on the field
>is a throwback to the Coliseum and gladiators. It wasn't acceptable
>then, and it's not acceptable now, except perhaps to the likes of Rex
>Mossop and company.
Here, here.
Mike Freedman (mike.f...@xtra.co.nz)
Mike Freedman
>As I didn't see the report maybe you could tell me why he has waited this
>long to sue him. I know that Jack has reputation for being closer to a buck
>than Saddam to his security blanket and wonder if this isn't the main
>motive.
Isn't it always?
Do you think Willie Carne might start after all the hits to the head
>he took?
<devil's advocate mode on>
Isn't there a difference between reckless or careless head high tackles, which
probably should be dealt with by the league, and intentional and sustained
battery that results in serious injury?
<devil's advocate mode off>
I think we have to be really careful about lawsuits for incidents
>on the field for a number of reasons. One, that you institute double
>jeopardy
Why? Because the referee has already dealt with the incident?
and two, that you open up a can of worms that might return to haunt
>you. If the NRL had strong enough penalties and enforced them then you
>wouldn't need lawsuits. The offender would be off salary and would be
>punished financially that way and with less clubs those positions are
>getting mighty rare. What if the time the offender was off the field his
>salary was paid to the offendee?
In that case, the victim would want to get hit by a star player instead of a
regular reserve grader, wouldn't he? ;-)
Mike Freedman (mike.f...@xtra.co.nz)
Shark
Mike Freedman wrote in message <7a4r0q$ljg$3...@titan.xtra.co.nz>...
>Shark wrote in message <7a33fc$fi3$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>
>>As I didn't see the report maybe you could tell me why he has waited this
>>long to sue him. I know that Jack has reputation for being closer to a
buck
>>than Saddam to his security blanket and wonder if this isn't the main
>>motive.
>
>Isn't it always?
>
> Do you think Willie Carne might start after all the hits to the head
>>he took?
>
><devil's advocate mode on>
>
>Isn't there a difference between reckless or careless head high tackles,
which
>probably should be dealt with by the league, and intentional and sustained
>battery that results in serious injury?
>
><devil's advocate mode off>
If it's against the law/rules, no. You're a fine devil's advocate.
>
> I think we have to be really careful about lawsuits for incidents
>>on the field for a number of reasons. One, that you institute double
>>jeopardy
>
>Why? Because the referee has already dealt with the incident? In this case
it wasn't dealt with. At least, not adequately. Double jeopardy: If the NRL
give the guy eight weeks out and then the courts also punish him. If the
rules/laws are wrong, change the rules/laws.
>
> and two, that you open up a can of worms that might return to haunt
>>you. If the NRL had strong enough penalties and enforced them then you
>>wouldn't need lawsuits. The offender would be off salary and would be
>>punished financially that way and with less clubs those positions are
>>getting mighty rare. What if the time the offender was off the field his
>>salary was paid to the offendee?
>
>
>In that case, the victim would want to get hit by a star player instead of
a
>regular reserve grader, wouldn't he? ;-)
Aim for the top I always say.
>
>Mike Freedman (mike.f...@xtra.co.nz)
>
>
Cheers,
Shark.
Phil Hobbs
>Once again, what Jack is or was is irrelevant. Roberts assaulted him
>and ought to face the music. Same goes for any other thug.
>
>This garbage about what happens on the field should stay on the field
>is a throwback to the Coliseum and gladiators. It wasn't acceptable
>then, and it's not acceptable now, except perhaps to the likes of Rex
>Mossop and company.
what happens on the field should stay on the field is true as far as
sledging a hooker about where his sister was last night goes...or as
far as two men standing toe to toe and punching it out goes...but when
it comes to the cowardly garbage that happened on that particular field
on that particular day...well they just oughtta lock up the filthy dog.
Phil Hobbs
>If the case succeeds it will be the best thing that has happened to
>Rugby League since Steve Rogers sued whatsisface from Canterbury.
brohman got the ball rolling with boyd...rogers followed suit by suing
bugden (i think it was)
Obadiah
wrote:
>Also, although the injury looked nasty after the incident, I don't believe
>its worth $100,000. Crikey, Roberts can come and punch me in the face a few
>times if it will earn me that much.
>
You can have Roberts hit you a few times for $100,000 and I will let a
photographer photograph me in the shower for $300,000 (as per ET a few
years ago).......certainly beats getting punched in the head.
Obadiah :)
Obadiah
Burke) wrote:
>"Mick" <m...@nospam.orac.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>They showed the clip again last night. Jack threw an ineffectual
>punch at Ridge who was hanging on to him. But that's beside the
>point. He was held and effectively defenceless when Roberts gave him
>a beating. If it had happened off the field, Roberts would have been
>liable for a GBH charge. The pity of it is that the cops didn't
>charge him immediately after the game. Does somebody have to be
>killed or maimed for life before that happens?
>
For what its worth.....
From an article I read in the Telegraph, Jack claims that he was
punched by Ridge in the tackle and his "ineffectual swing" was a
retailiation to that.
Obadiah
Eric
from the old State Of Origins
Phil Hobbs <fil...@backmeup.net.au> wrote in article <36c6c...@rpi.au>...
Tom. H.
I applaud Gary Jack. He was being held by Darryl Williams in a
display of utter bravery as well as a couple of other Manly players.
Roberts came after checking that Jack was securely held and landed a
few cheap and cowardly shots. I hope Jack takes him for all he is
worth. Rugby league doesn't need that sort of out and out cowardice
and maliciousness.
Richard Edlin
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:28:48 +1100, Mullos <mul...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> I applaud Gary Jack. He was being held by Darryl Williams in a
> display of utter bravery as well as a couple of other Manly players.
> Roberts came after checking that Jack was securely held and landed a
> few cheap and cowardly shots. I hope Jack takes him for all he is
> worth. Rugby league doesn't need that sort of out and out cowardice
> and maliciousness.
Just one quick question Tom ... what would you have said had it been
Ricky Stuart held there?
I really feel for you ... it must have been difficult to see him recover
and play again last year.
Richard.
Tom. H.
<ECP9...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>Just one quick question Tom ... what would you have said had it been
>Ricky Stuart held there?
>
>I really feel for you ... it must have been difficult to see him recover
>and play again last year.
>
>Richard.
Richard, I am up front and openly admit a contempt for Ricky Stuart
solely on the basis of his arrogance and disregard for anyone but him.
In spite of this if he was being held so he couldn't move and knowing
this another player had demonstrated his cowardice by belting the
insides out of him, I would be just as dirty on that player. It is
the matter of man on man stuff. Roberts is a coward plain and simple.
Ricky Stuart is pompous and extremely arrogant whereas another player
of the same ability say Alfie Langer is approachable and has the
ability to laugh at himself.
Matthew O'Neill
Tom. H. wrote:
> Richard, I am up front and openly admit a contempt for Ricky Stuart
> solely on the basis of his arrogance and disregard for anyone but him.
I've met Ricky Stuart a few times since joining Canterbury and I have alot of
time for him as a person. Maybe it has been a change of clubs.
He was at Roselands with 8 other players for a launch and was sitting on the
signing table next to Travis at the end. Travis said hello to me and the
asked if I worked here as I had a tie on. When I said no Ricky then asked
what I do for a job and asked how often I watch the Dogs.
Outside the Gillies brothers and certain Hughes members, the people at
Canterbury have always been a very friendly and approachable mob.
Maybe that is having a great affect on Stuart as he has been one of the
people who has spent time talking to the fans.
Smith and Clyde, the other two new buys are simply terrific to the fans.
> In spite of this if he was being held so he couldn't move and knowing
> this another player had demonstrated his cowardice by belting the
> insides out of him, I would be just as dirty on that player. It is
> the matter of man on man stuff. Roberts is a coward plain and simple.
> Ricky Stuart is pompous and extremely arrogant whereas another player
> of the same ability say Alfie Langer is approachable and has the
> ability to laugh at himself.
I met Allan Langer when the Aussies were training at Langlands Park last year
and I've got alot of time for Alfie, Kevvie and Locky.
I walked up to watch the Aussies train in my Bulldogs shirt and hat, see it
visible as, just after the grand final. There were those three in a small
huddle loosening up, I could see a smile on there faces looming large.
Walters said hello with a grin on his face. I then did the talking, said
hello to all three, congratulated them and wished them well on Test selection
and then said they were the best side in 1998 and fully deserve to win the
premiership. Taken back, Langer said "thanks mate, really appreciate it,
you're a good sport and thanked me for coming".
The buzz was after training, I was standing on my own watching them train
away from the kids. Britt and Price just walked up to me and started a convo
after training. That is a trill to be recognised by your own club players
like that.
Most of the players I've come across are terrific. The worst I've ever come
across is Martin Bella. The most rudest and arrogant person ever. One person
Canterbury could not convert unfortunately.
Kind Regards,
Matthew O'Neill,
King Street Computers.
URL - http://www.ksc1.com
Rugby League - http://www.rleague.com
Phil Hobbs
>
>I've met Ricky Stuart a few times since joining Canterbury and I have
alot of
>time for him as a person.
Now if only you get him to have some for you.
>
>He was at Roselands with 8 other players for a launch and was sitting
on the
>signing table next to Travis at the end. Travis said hello to me and
the
>asked if I worked here as I had a tie on. When I said no Ricky then
asked
>what I do for a job and asked how often I watch the Dogs.
Oh ...OK....he does then.
Sorry....couldn't resist. 她)
Bunny
Tom. H. <mickey...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<36d74843...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:50:30 +0000, Richard Edlin
> <ECP9...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Just one quick question Tom ... what would you have said had it been
> >Ricky Stuart held there?
> >
> >I really feel for you ... it must have been difficult to see him recover
> >and play again last year.
> >
> >Richard.
>
> Richard, I am up front and openly admit a contempt for Ricky Stuart
> solely on the basis of his arrogance and disregard for anyone but him.
> In spite of this if he was being held so he couldn't move and knowing
> this another player had demonstrated his cowardice by belting the
> insides out of him, I would be just as dirty on that player. It is
> the matter of man on man stuff. Roberts is a coward plain and simple.
Played RL for Australia. Admitted to being gay while still playing. Not my
idea of a coward.
Phil Hobbs
>
>Played RL for Australia. Admitted to being gay while still playing.
Not my
>idea of a coward.
He committed an incredibly cowardly act...and those that saw it will
remember him as a coward.
Phantom
Bunny wrote in message <01be6240$5e17ce40$6edf868b@signup>...
>
>
><36d74843...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:50:30 +0000, Richard Edlin
>> <ECP9...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>idea of a coward.
>
while playing for Australia doesn't tell us he is brave, it tells us he's a
poofta.
de...@zeta.org.au
wrote:
But what you've said tells us even more about you.
Homophobes are frightened of homosexuals. How "brave" is that?
Cheers,
DebS
RobSm
>
>
>Tom. H. <mickey...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
><36d74843...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:50:30 +0000, Richard Edlin
>> <ECP9...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Just one quick question Tom ... what would you have said had it been
>> >Ricky Stuart held there?
>> >
>> >I really feel for you ... it must have been difficult to see him recover
>> >and play again last year.
>> >
>> >Richard.
>>
>> Richard, I am up front and openly admit a contempt for Ricky Stuart
>> solely on the basis of his arrogance and disregard for anyone but him.
>> In spite of this if he was being held so he couldn't move and knowing
>> this another player had demonstrated his cowardice by belting the
>> insides out of him, I would be just as dirty on that player. It is
>> the matter of man on man stuff. Roberts is a coward plain and simple.
>
>Played RL for Australia. Admitted to being gay while still playing. Not my
>idea of a coward.
>
Used his elbow blatanltly on Jason Smith then invoked a media defence
based on his mum.....
I'm not going to pick 'a name' to call him but I have no sympathy for
him.
RobSm
Richard Edlin
>
> Bunny wrote in message <01be6240$5e17ce40$6edf868b@signup>...
> >
> >idea of a coward.
> >
> while playing for Australia doesn't tell us he is brave, it tells us he's a
> poofta.
And what you've said tells us a lot about you.
Richard.
Mick
>What he did to Jack was the act of a coward. That he owned up to being gay
>while playing for Australia doesn't tell us he is brave, it tells us he's a
>poofta.
Ahhh, a homophobe is outed...........
Isimeli
>
> "Phil Hobbs" <fil...@backmeup.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Bunny wrote in message <01be6240$5e17ce40$6edf868b@signup>...
> >>
> >>Played RL for Australia. Admitted to being gay while still playing.
> >Not my
> >>idea of a coward.
> >
> >
> >remember him as a coward.
> >
> reputation as a 'legend' in sport. It takes just one stupid act to
> wreck it for all time. (See also Ian and Greg Chappell, Warne and
> Waugh.)
>
> Mike
Apologies for going OT but what did Ian Chappell do ?
Bunny
Isimeli <isi...@usa.net> wrote in article <36D8A843...@usa.net>...
He looks more like Trevor than Greg does. Maybe that's it.
>
Shark
Mike Burke wrote in message <36d97cb...@newshost.pcug.org.au>...
>"Phantom" <pha...@deepwoods.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bunny wrote in message <01be6240$5e17ce40$6edf868b@signup>...
>>>
>>>
>>><36d74843...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:50:30 +0000, Richard Edlin
>>>> <ECP9...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
my
>>>idea of a coward.
>>>
>>while playing for Australia doesn't tell us he is brave, it tells us he's
a
>>poofta.
>>
>homophobic ones.
It's alright, he won't reply. He's out buying his frock for the prison
dance. He's probably named himself the Phantom because he likes the way he
looks in purple tights or even because his wit is invisible like his
persona.
Cheers,
Shark.
Cheers,
Shark.
Wade Singleton
<sha...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> because his wit is invisible like his persona.
You should talk, "Shark"???
Wade
Shark
Wade Singleton wrote in message <010319992231238405%wa...@rabbitohs.com>...
That's better, Wade. No offensive language, non-offensive post, keep it up.
How did this posting get through the "all NZ adresses killfile"?
Cheers,
Shark.
Wade Singleton
wrote:
> That's better, Wade. No offensive language, non-offensive post, keep it up.
> How did this posting get through the "all NZ adresses killfile"?
Installed a new version of my news reading software, about the 4th time
in a month actually but this time I trashed my pref file to solve an
annoying minor problem.
So that means my filters are also gone. I'll leave things how they are
at the moment but once the pathetic Warriors start losing again I
suspect I'll have to repeat what I did before.
Now have you got a real name we can know you by? First name even?
Wade
Tom. H.
>But what you've said tells us even more about you.
>Homophobes are frightened of homosexuals. How "brave" is that?
>
>Cheers,
>DebS
>
Deb, I don't classify Ian Roberts as a coward based upon him being
homosexual, the mere fact that he waited until Gary Jack was being
securely held by 2 other Manly players before laying into Gary Jack
demonstrates his extreme and malicious cowardice.
He knew he would have a whole and very vocal section of the wider
community supporting him outing himself and with vilification laws he
had legal recourse with any disparaging remarks that may have
eventuauted. With his act of ' bravery ' with Gary Jack he was simply
a vicious, contemptible, malicious, coward who deserves only scorn and
not respect.
de...@zeta.org.au
wrote:
Tom,
I'm not defending Ian Roberts' actions in the incident involving Jack.
I was merely attacking a poster who was engaging in "gay-bashing"
under the pretence of contributing to this thread.
Please leave the comment that I'm responding to in the edit if you're
going to take issue with my reply.
Cheers,
Deb