Robbo - Rage incident

[sammy_k]

I wanna c the video!

 

[Fabio421]

What hasn't been mentioned here yet is that Robbo allegedly started the scuffle by head butting Adrian in the left cheek. He also allegedly made a refference to fellatio and made masterbatory motions with his hand prior to Adrian getting in his face. Care to comment on that Mark Toye-Nexus ? I know this site is overwhelmingly european and will most likely side with Robbo no matter what . But I think there a lot more to the story than whats being told here.

 

[duffistuta]

Before anyone kicks off, I expect only people who were there/have seen the video to respond to Fabio's post...I don't care what you think you know, if you weren't there then do not respond to fabio's comments, leave it to those who were.

 

[Furby]

So excercise your media mogul powers and get the video distributed so that we can all make an informed opinion?

 

[duffistuta]

Nope.

Back to the issue at hand...

 

[Furby]

Pity.

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Fabio

Allegedly Robbo walked onto the field and was verbally abused, reacted and the Rage guys made the first aggressive and violent move.

I didnt see that bit - I was at the other end of the field in the box.

But then neither did you.

So I cant comment - but I do believe what i was told by Robbo and others who did see how it started.

So to answer your question - it hasnt been mentioned because what you refer to is second hand allegations. i alluded to only what i saw - an extremely cowardly attack on one man by five - yeah read it 'five' other men.

So regardless what happened before the fact is I saw, with my own eyes what went down after the fight started.

So care to comment on that Fabio??

 

[Collier]

Why the fukc is Robbo's integrity even being bought into question??

If Robbo says it went down a certain way sorry, but as far as I'm concerned that’s exactly how it went down. You might call that naive, I'd disagree!

Paul

 

[knobbs]

Originally posted by Fabio421
I know this site is overwhelmingly european and will most likely side with Robbo no matter what . But I think there a lot more to the story than whats being told here.

Not commenting on what happened because I wasn't there, I will comment on this statement.

I've seen this comment several times. I'm not European and I side overwhelmingly with Robbo. To be honest, it has very little to do with Robbo. Even though I like the guy, I've only met him once. I side this way becaues I've witnessed Rage at several events and I've witnessed Robbo at several events.

Every event I've seen Rage at they've been involved in some form of bullying, cheating, intimidating, threatening, or other questionable act. I've seen them threaten spectators, refs, and other players. Taking everything I know or opinions I've formed about Robbo, THAT is why he gets my benefit of the doubt.

Robbo and the rest of Nexus, however, have never done anything to cast them in this type of unfavorable light.

Biased? Maybe, but I think all reports coming out of Miami support my judgement.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by knobbs
1--It's nice to see you using the same scapegoat argument again. This has nothing to do with Raehl, and everything to do with what is being said.

2--So which is it? Are the refs doing their job or not? Because if they are, then the rules committee has nothing to do but make rules. If they are not doing the job and it's on the rules committee, then why shouldn't Robbo have gotten involved?

3--Coaches in other sports talk to the officials after a game (or even just a play) all the time. This is no different. Being on the rules committee doesn't change that.

4--Why, because you disaggree? How does someone who helps in developing rules that EVERYONE has to abide by, and does not enforce them, have any conflict of interest as a coach and/or player? They can't change the rules for just their team. They can't punish the refs if they don't enforce them correctly. They still have to follow the rules. A union steward still gets to work at the company he negotiates with to set the rules for his co-workers. I don't think that's a conflict of interest.

5--Here is what is written in the rules, other than 1-for-1s and such:
Section 13 lists several infractions and at the end states:

13.06 Any team that fails to adhere to the rules and regulations contained in this Section shall be subject to and pay a $250.00 fine to the promoter, and said team will be prohibited from competing in any future NPPL event until said fine has been fully paid.

Then section 14 states:

EXTREME UN-SPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
14.0 A Player will be eliminated from play and subject to possible suspension of play for a period no less than one game and no more than one year. The Ultimate Judge will assign suspensions for Extreme Un-sportsmanlike conduct cases listed herein:
i. Over shooting another player with intent to injure.
ii. Physical contact
iii. Firing onto a playing field from outside boarders or from dead box.
iv. Abusive language and physical threats directed at an opponent or field judge.

Hmmm....lets see. A $500 fine and being barred from the tournament for the rest of the day. That pretty much falls directly into the rules. So tell me how this judgement was outside the rules laid out by the league?

1--the vast majority of responders have not been arguing the issue, they've been either defending Pete or attacking raehl or both. If you're not one of those then don't take it personally.
2--because he wasn't acting as a Rules Committee member--he was acting as an irate coach for his team. Did he or any other member of the Rules Committee make an effort to observe games and right "wrongs" elsewhere during the event? Of course not, because it isn't their role and all this talk of being a Rules Committee member giving him some right to act in this instance is nonsense.
3--and Pete could just as easily have waited on the sideline or in the ref's tent and offered his views.
4--because it is a no-win situation for Pete and Nexus. How many game results or specific calls get protested during a tourney? Lots of them. How many ever get changed? How many of them ever get changed when the teams or players are nobody? So if Pete had managed to get a reversal of the calls or non-calls on the field, rightly or wrongly, what would have been the consensus opinion? For that matter how would Pete even know if the refs changed their call 'cus they agreed with him or because they were intimidated by him? It simply creates a situation that even if everything is completely above board opens up the league and the individuals for criticism and creates more cynicism about the product and the process.
5--14.0 looks pretty straightforward to me. And 13.0 states the same without the equivocating. There were no suspensions. Both teams were done playing for the day. No one on either side was suspended, period. And 14.06 says you can't continue playing until your fine is paid. Has either team paid up? Did they pay up Saturday morning before they started play again? What do you think?
PB has always used the rules in whatever manner was convenient and this is simply another example of the same.