Roberts found guilty

Re: Roberts chances at the judiciary?

Personally i think Roberts got what he deserved, it was a dumb act...totally unnecessary.
 
Re: Roberts chances at the judiciary?

I am disappoint.
 
Re: Roberts chances at the judiciary?

Blatant and stupid, regardless of how hard he kicked he got what he deserved. Probably should be out for his public acts of stupidity anyway, so maybe the guy learns at least one lesson this season.
 
Re: Roberts chances at the judiciary?

Oh well, it was worth a crack. If only to take a potshot at how pathetically inconsistent the whole process is.
 
Re: Roberts chances at the judiciary?

Oh and one other thing. If the numpty refs do the right thing and penalise clowns for lying in the ruck, this never happens.
 
Re: Roberts chances at the judiciary?

jarro65 said:
Personally i think Roberts got what he deserved, it was a dumb act...totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It's not about what he deserved. If they had charged him correctly, fine, but they didn't.
 
I think the greater crime here is that the NRL dropped the refs. Roberts did deserve to sit out.
 
While the process was farcical, the ends justified the means.

We see a ton of ruck infringements let go, we rarely see a player lash out like Roberts did.

We just have to cop it sweet. Hopefully Opacic is right and the boys can get the job done.
 
The hearing centred on the charge sheet after the NRL match review committee charged Roberts with contrary conduct, because it didn’t believe there was enough force to charge him with kicking.





Roberts’ legal representative Nick Ghabar argued: “The player has not been charged with kicking. If he hasn’t kicked or made forceful contact, what is contrary and what has he done?
“Roberts pushed his left leg and right leg to get away from the grapple. What is contrary to the true spirit of the game about trying to play-the-ball?
“The grappling went on for some time. It was innocuous and incidental contact. How could a push be contrary conduct?
“He did not kick and he did not lash out with his right foot. All he was doing was trying to play-the-ball. There was no deliberate act that was contrary to the spirit of the game. There was no incident report from the referees, no penalty and play went on.”

NRL counsel Peter McGrath described Roberts’ action as a “deliberate act”.
“It’s not a good look, it’s just not part of rugby league. It’s not an accepted part of the vigorous sporting contest,” McGrath said. “It was contrary to the spirit of the game. It doesn’t matter if he was frustrated at the play-the-ball being delayed. That’s no excuse.”
Roberts did not give evidence. Brisbane football manager Scott Czislowski spoke of the verdict.
Click to expand...

No Cookies | The Courier Mail
This is interesting. An excerpt from Dean Ritchie's column. So the precedent now is that anything that's "not a good look" or "just not a part of rugby league" will incur a charge. And they wonder why they are thought of as a joke.
 
Big Pete said:
While the process was farcical, the ends justified the means.

We see a ton of ruck infringements let go, we rarely see a player lash out like Roberts did.

We just have to cop it sweet. Hopefully Opacic is right and the boys can get the job done.
Click to expand...

If we are good enough we will win. Just a shame players will be moved around again. We have had a hard time keeping a consistent team.
 
Just had a look at the replay to refresh my memory and Roberts intentionally lashed out with his foot so we just have to suck it up and deal with it. At least Opacic will be ready to go.
 
That has to be the most piss poor explanation I've ever heard.... "not a good look for the game" are they f.cking kidding
 
ivanhungryjak said:
No Cookies | The Courier Mail
This is interesting. An excerpt from Dean Ritchie's column. So the precedent now is that anything that's "not a good look" or "just not a part of rugby league" will incur a charge. And they wonder why they are thought of as a joke.
Click to expand...
So shoulder charges, tripping etc all look good for the game. Fair enough.
 
ivanhungryjak said:
No Cookies | The Courier Mail
This is interesting. An excerpt from Dean Ritchie's column. So the precedent now is that anything that's "not a good look" or "just not a part of rugby league" will incur a charge. And they wonder why they are thought of as a joke.
Click to expand...

Good to know. So Gallen, Ennis, Fafita, Reynolds, etc will cop charges every week by this logic? **** me the MRC and judiciary are an absolute laughing stock.
 
Last edited:
BroncsFan said:
That has to be the most **** poor explanation I've ever heard.... "not a good look for the game" are they f.cking kidding
Click to expand...
corey-parker-kick_118582mi3vqk1c6377k8sdkl0.jpg


Wonder if Kasiano was charged with contrary conduct then how long would he have been out?
 
New Posts

Unread

Active Now

No members online now.
Total: 80 (members: 0, guests: 80)
Top