Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:21 pm  

MattyLeeds wrote:

If Childs did hear it why wasn't Zak sent off then?

He did hear it, but he knew it had nothing to do with him and wasn't aimed at him. Knowing as this thread has repeatedly said, the same thing is said over and over again with all players.

The action has not been brought by Child, but by complaints from tv viewers jelous of Leeds success. Whether you agree with the language or not and think it is appropriate, that is still the case.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:23 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

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.

When was the last time we had something like this though, with videos all over the web and lynch mobs out for blood?
Whether Child reported it or not this was going to happen.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:27 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. The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. If Child heard what Hardaker is accused of saying then he either must not believe it was aimed at him, or that he didn't think Hardaker said those particular words. The scenario you safely assume, has no chance of being correct. Child would've sent Hardaker off and also it would've been dealt with now just like the Weyman case. The Leeds game took place two days earlier than the HKR game, if the word of the referee is enough for the disciplinary then Hardaker would've already been given a ban by now.

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. The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. If Child heard what Hardaker is accused of saying then he either must not believe it was aimed at him, or that he didn't think Hardaker said those particular words. The scenario you safely assume, has no chance of being correct. Child would've sent Hardaker off and also it would've been dealt with now just like the Weyman case. The Leeds game took place two days earlier than the HKR game, if the word of the referee is enough for the disciplinary then Hardaker would've already been given a ban by now.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:33 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. If Child heard what Hardaker is accused of saying then he either must not believe it was aimed at him, or that he didn't think Hardaker said those particular words.

Chris Irvine of the Times appears to think Child did hear what was said and included it in his match report. Whether or not Irvine's piece - or indeed Child's match report - has any passing acquaintance with the facts is open to debate.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:39 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Chris Irvine of the Times appears to think Child did hear what was said and included it in his match report. Whether or not Irvine's piece - or indeed Child's match report - has any passing acquaintance with the facts is open to debate.

Roby reffed Cas/HKR on Sunday and with his verbal evidence Weyamn is banned by Tuesday.

Child reffed Leeds on Friday and with his ALLEDGED verbal evidence Hardaker still isn't banned by Wednesday??? Nor did he send him off, or even a telling off?

Hardaker would've been banned on Tuesday like the other players who got bans on that day, simple as that IF the ref heard it.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:39 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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.

no, i thought people were arguing that it was no big deal, that it didnt really matter, that plenty of people use it in everyday language, that it wasnt too bad because it was just a casual throwaway expression, that its ok because he didnt mean it in that way, that its ok because he didnt aim it at a gay person, the same justifications and mitigations we used to hear when people spoke about Pakis, n.iggers, Kikes, ragheads etc.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:42 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

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.

its almost some kind of twee nostalgia, that you think I would be insulted by you insinuating that. I can see why Hardaker would need some kind of education to join the rest of us in the 21st Century, look at the company he (apparently) keeps.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:16 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

no, i thought people were arguing that it was no big deal, that it didnt really matter, that plenty of people use it in everyday language, that it wasnt too bad because it was just a casual throwaway expression, that its ok because he didnt mean it in that way, that its ok because he didnt aim it at a gay person, the same justifications and mitigations we used to hear when people spoke about Pakis, n.iggers, Kikes, ragheads etc.

Lets face it though, however much some on here jump up and down about it, the word he supposedly used isn't thought of by society to be as derogatory as the words in your above post. If all "offensive" words were judged similarly, any swear word would be causing the same outrage.

Whether it should be deemed as offensive is a different argument, but to suggest someone is homophobic for using said word is naïve at the least.

An argument could be made about many words being offensive or prejudice such as has been mentioned already, calling someone a woman which could be construed as sexist. It's not however deemed to be drum-banging offensive by society as a whole because we're not that precious.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:33 pm  

The word used is thought of as that offensive. Ignorance to that is no defence. Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur.

Thankfully, the RFL agrees, thats why he is being investigated for homophobic comments and not for use of foul and abusive language.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:42 pm  

ThePrinter wrote: The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. They appear to be one and the same as the Compliance Manager chairs the Disciplinary Committee. Both League Express and League Weekly this week stated that the complaint would have had to have come from James Child.

ThePrinter wrote: The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. They appear to be one and the same as the Compliance Manager chairs the Disciplinary Committee. Both League Express and League Weekly this week stated that the complaint would have had to have come from James Child.