Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:00 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Because one doesn't justify the other?

If it is a squirrel grip then the words "fu**ing pervert" are more than understandable and justified. Just because you don't think it was a squirrel grip doesn't mean it wasn't, that holds as much weight as any Leeds fan saying Hardaker DEFINATELY DIDN'T say puff (which even I admit is a possibility, but not a certainty)

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

but he's a silly boy for putting himself in the position of being at the mercy of the twitter jury ... Again ...

So players need to watch their actions and language for fear of the twitter mob, oh what this game has come to. Had a London or Wakey player been in the same position this weekend as Hardaker it would barely register a murmur on RLFans even you must admit that. That's where the doubting of peoples true motives come into play.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:10 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

If it is a squirrel grip then the words "fu**ing pervert" are more than understandable and justified. Just because you don't think it was a squirrel grip doesn't mean it wasn't, that holds as much weight as any Leeds fan saying Hardaker DEFINATELY DIDN'T say puff (which even I admit is a possibility, but not a certainty)

So players need to watch their actions and language for fear of the twitter mob, oh what this game has come to. Had a London or Wakey player been in the same position this weekend as Hardaker it would barely register a murmur on RLFans even you must admit that. That's where the doubting of peoples true motives come into play.

But no London or Wakefield player has previously served a 5 game ban for a similar offence.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:21 pm  

curly990 wrote:

But no London or Wakefield player has previously served a 5 game ban for a similar offence.

Neither had Zak before his "first" offence but it still happen

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:59 am  

Doesn't anybody remember Batemen giving JP the verbals then blowing him a kiss? I think it was when JP choked him for insolence.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:01 am  

Fat Boy wrote:

So you're prepared to convict a man based on what YOU think he might have said in relation on his prior actions?

I'm guessing here, and it is just purely a guess here mind, that you don't work in the legal sector?

You are right I don't work in the legal sector but we are talking about rugby league here not the law of the land. And previous offences are taken into account in rugby league were as in a court this is not the case.

Why do you think Gareth Hock got such a lengthy ban for colliding with a referee?

Yes you guessed right again, because of his previous...

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:17 am  

leeds owl wrote:

and the lad who kicked someone senseless with a gang of mates who is still playing out at Hull.

Who's that?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:54 am  

frepneyboy wrote:

Who's that?

Cockyane

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:45 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

Cockyane

The video was truly horrific - he got off because it was allegedly an insult to a family member that caused him to lose his marbles

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:50 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The video was truly horrific - he got off because it was allegedly an insult to a family member that caused him to lose his marbles

Agree, it was attempted murder, but he claimed he "thought he was back in Iraq and had a flashback"

Oddly Rovers sacked him after a few racist outbursts on Facebook.

Then spent £30k on a transfer fee to get him back.

So he deserves all he gets IMO

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:07 am  

terrykelly wrote:

he is still a twaat, doesn't attack any tough buggers, just does the verbals. HE IS A C*&T

whereas you are all class.