Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:59 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

I didn't say he should use it.

But you are trying to mitigate his use of it in the same way people justified using those words.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:01 am  

Gotcha wrote:

Well I think there are a lot of knob jockeys posting on here. Just saying like, and I'm quite chilled about it.

you're certainly proving there is at least one gigantic swollen arseh0le. Just saying like, and I'm quite chilled about it.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:09 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But you are trying to mitigate his use of it in the same way people justified using those words.

And you tried to make out that I said it was ok for him to use those words when I never did. Understandable, yes. Ok, no. Their's a difference.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:15 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

And you tried to make out that I said it was ok for him to use those words when I never did. Understandable, yes. Ok, no. Their's a difference.

i didnt. I simply tried to draw that parallel.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:23 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It makes no sense to argue that Hardaker should be using this word to express frustration.

Quite clear there that you thought people were arguing that it was ok for Hardaker to use that word. Not one single person has said he should use that word, more a case that the crime (and context it happened in) isn't level with some of the IMO OTT reactions on here.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:41 am  

Hardaker chose the wrong insult and, hopefully, he chose the wrong sport in which to use it. It's a little tiresome that certain aspects of the game seem mired in the 1970s. Considering we've ditched some of its better traditions, it's a pi$$ing shame we've retained some its the worst.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:44 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i didnt. I simply tried to draw that parallel.

Parallel's are usually thought of as straight....

homophobe alert?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:15 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

you're certainly proving there is at least one gigantic swollen arseh0le. Just saying like, and I'm quite chilled about it.

That's quite ok, I am still chilled. I never mentioned you by name though, so well done for realising which posters I was referring to.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:57 am  

Weyman has received a two match ban for his abuse of the referee, and that was taking into consideration that there was no sound available and the player claimed to have been abusing a fellow player. Apparently the disciplinary would only look at an abuse case if the referee had reported it to the match commissioner. Therefore, I think it can be safely assumed that Child heard what was said by Hardaker, believed it to be directed at him and reported the incident to the match commissioner.

Weyman has received a two match ban for his abuse of the referee, and that was taking into consideration that there was no sound available and the player claimed to have been abusing a fellow player. Apparently the disciplinary would only look at an abuse case if the referee had reported it to the match commissioner. Therefore, I think it can be safely assumed that Child heard what was said by Hardaker, believed it to be directed at him and reported the incident to the match commissioner.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:19 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: Weyman has received a two match ban for his abuse of the referee, and that was taking into consideration that there was no sound available and the player claimed to have been abusing a fellow player. Apparently the disciplinary would only look at an abuse case if the referee had reported it to the match commissioner. Therefore, I think it can be safely assumed that Child heard what was said by Hardaker, believed it to be directed at him and reported the incident to the match commissioner. If Childs did hear it why wasn't Zak sent off then?

SaintsFan wrote: Weyman has received a two match ban for his abuse of the referee, and that was taking into consideration that there was no sound available and the player claimed to have been abusing a fellow player. Apparently the disciplinary would only look at an abuse case if the referee had reported it to the match commissioner. Therefore, I think it can be safely assumed that Child heard what was said by Hardaker, believed it to be directed at him and reported the incident to the match commissioner. If Childs did hear it why wasn't Zak sent off then?