Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:10 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

With the obvious sledging that goes on at the play-the-ball area or between players etc, I'm sure much worse has been said. Rugby is a game on the battle ground and you expect certain slurs which get banded about (all in line with physical game, which Terry Newton declared as a 'rough game played by rough people') but have very little meaning once all players leave the pitch.

In this case, in the 2014 environment of the Big Brother 'warts and all' approach Zak has been copped by this technology and the fury and bandwagon has been jumped on by all sorts (opposition fans, really bad rugby journalists etc). So Leeds have issued a 'painting by numbers' statement to go along with things and hopefully to get the matter put to bed. Whatever punishment is handed Leeds will wear to diffuse the situation, rather than possibly object and add fuel to the fire.

Not 'band-wagon jumping by opposition fans' per se. I am a Leeds fan, and other Leeds fans have spoken out on here too. Admittedly, yes, some probably are on here just to try and fan the flames, but a lot of what i have read from those critical of ZH (whether fans of Leeds or anyone else) have been fair enough really.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:25 pm  

So if you call someone a fu**ing c**t as long as they are covered with hair, have a pretty large mouth and smell of fish it`s ok?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:32 pm  

chapylad wrote:

So if you call someone a fu**ing c**t as long as they are covered with hair, have a pretty large mouth and smell of fish it`s ok?

Well, that covers the ladies of Hull, but what about everyone else?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:33 pm  

IMO everything has already been posted on these forums in regards to what Zak has said and to whom so I'm going to leave it there and let the RFL decide the outcome

Sledging is common place in all sports and players regularly dish it out freely and without any penalties or bans being handed out as a result when it is aimed at the opposition's players

I would however like to add that IMO any abusive or foul language whatsoever from players directed towards match day officials should be a sending off offense without hesitation as long as they are 100% certain it was aimed at them

The problem is how are the RFL going to be able to decide who the abuse was aimed at if there are more than one of the "alleged allegations inserted here" are on the field at the same time both on the opposing side and who was refereeing the match ?

Hypothetically speaking here, lets imagine a non televised SL game
IF George Stokes refereed "any SL side" against Hull KR and in the last minute Kris Welham <who's also got ginger hair> scores to win the game after stealing the ball and as a result an opposition player shouted out that he was a "Cheating Ginger c--t

Would that be deemed to be aimed at the referee or the player?
And should he be banned?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:23 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Im not sure Hardaker is clarifying he said it Monaghan as opposed to the Ref. Simply that he was saying it MM and thats why he was apologising to him. Its a good apology and doesnt seek to mitigate or deny the hurt or power in the words he used or his mistake in using them. Good on him

Really? Because what I read seemed to do just that.

He said he was saddened by how the comment was perceived, which implies the issue was with how it was perceived, not the fact that it is blatantly offensive.

He said people should think about the words they use as they can cause unintended offence. You don't call someone an effing fag unluss you intend to offend them.

He said certain words have powerful meanings other than those intended.

He doesn't really seem like he's owning what he has done. I'm not really convinced that he isn't cynically using Monaghan to diminish the severity of it either.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:26 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I think it is you who has the comprehension problems. The word sorry is indeed in the statement but what I said was that sorry was ALL that was needed, and that he was wrong - NOT that he 'made a mistake' (which is opting out of responsibility since a mistake is generally made in ignorance; an insult is NOT made in ignorance).

So, a simple 'Sorry, I was wrong to call Monaghan (or the ref, whichever) an effing fag and I am sorry for the offence my behaviour caused Monaghan and anyone else at the match or watching on TV' would have been a genuine apology. That isn't what was said though. The club put forward mitigating circumstances, spoke about how his words were perceived, talked about a 'mistake'.

Exactly.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:32 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Really? Because what I read seemed to do just that.

He said he was saddened by how the comment was perceived, which implies the issue was with how it was perceived, not the fact that it is blatantly offensive.

No it doesnt, it implies he was saddened that his words were perceived as an attack on homosexuals.

He said people should think about the words they use as they can cause unintended offence. You don't call someone an effing fag unluss you intend to offend them.

When you call someone a d1ckhead you dont actually mean they are literally the tip of a penis. When you call someone an arseh0le you dont literally mean they are a hole in an ar5e

He said certain words have powerful meanings other than those intended.

and that is pretty obvious.

He doesn't really seem like he's owning what he has done. I'm not really convinced that he isn't cynically using Monaghan to diminish the severity of it either.

[/quote]and that just seems mental, and disappointingly simply plays into the hands of those saying a big deal is being made about this because it is a mistake that needs rectifying, but because of sad rival supporters trying to score points.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No it doesnt, it implies he was saddened that his words were perceived as an attack on homosexuals.

His words were perceived as homophobic, which they were. There was really no need to say he was saddened by people's perception.

When you call someone a d1ckhead you dont actually mean they are literally the tip of a penis. When you call someone an arseh0le you dont literally mean they are a hole in an ar5e

What's that got to do with the point I made though? He made a homophobic comment and his intention was to insult someone with it.

and that is pretty obvious.

But again he just looks like he's wriggling.

and that just seems mental, and disappointingly simply plays into the hands of those saying a big deal is being made about this because it is a mistake that needs rectifying, but because of sad rival supporters trying to score points.

I'm definitely not trying to score points mate. I wish Hardaker hadn't said it, he's not the sort of player I've ever had a problem with, he's generally well liked across the board and I'd prefer not to be criticising him right now.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:50 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

His words were perceived as homophobic, which they were. There was really no need to say he was saddened by people's perception.

Why? he was saddened that people perceived his attack as one on homosexuals and were offended by it. That seems a normal thing for a person to be saddened about in this context.

What's that got to do with the point I made though? He made a homophobic comment and his intention was to insult someone with it.

To highlight that in moments of frustration, when we insult people, we dont always mean the literal interpretation of the word. Hardaker was wrong to use the word because it is a homophobic slur, that doesnt necessarily mean it had homophobic intent behind it. That is one of the big issues we as a society face in situations like this, that what some use as a casual insult, is a deeply offensive slur to others. Thats why this investigation is necessary, to help people learn the difference.

But again he just looks like he's wriggling.

i think it is bravely explicit.

I'm definitely not trying to score points mate. I wish Hardaker hadn't said it, he's not the sort of player I've ever had a problem with, he's generally well liked across the board and I'd prefer not to be criticising him right now.

then it seems a strange an unnecessary supposition with no supporting evidence that makes the situation worse.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:56 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Why? he was saddened that people perceived his attack as one on homosexuals and were offended by it. That seems a normal thing for a person to be saddened about in this context.

To highlight that in moments of frustration, when we insult people, we dont always mean the literal interpretation of the word. Hardaker was wrong to use the word because it is a homophobic slur, that doesnt necessarily mean it had homophobic intent behind it. That is one of the big issues we as a society face in situations like this, that what some use as a casual insult, is a deeply offensive slur to others. Thats why this investigation is necessary, to help people learn the difference.

i think it is bravely explicit. then it seems a strange an unnecessary supposition with no supporting evidence that makes the situation worse.

There's nothing strange about it. He's a well liked and well respected player who I'd prefer not to criticise, but he's made a homophobic slur and in his apology appears not to accept that the blame lies squarely with him and only him. Had he left out the comments I highlighted I wouldn't have an issue.