Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:21 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

24 hours is far too long. That should have being issued yesterday. However, a very good a clear response from the club.

I do hope, with all this information to hand, that IF nothing is proven, that Silverwood is himself the subject of an investigation. That does appear, as it has happened too many times now, and issue with Silverwood and Leeds Rhinos.

I would have personally liked to see a statement issued sooner. But with such a strong statement issued I can understand the delay this must have gone through a lot of legal channels

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:22 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

24 hours is far too long. That should have being issued yesterday. However, a very good a clear response from the club.

I do hope, with all this information to hand, that IF nothing is proven, that Silverwood is himself the subject of an investigation. That does appear, as it has happened too many times now, and issue with Silverwood and Leeds Rhinos.

I would imagine quite a lot of legal advice has been sought. I also find it unlikely that people weren't talking to Hardaker outside what was being published, so he will have been aware of the delay.

I think the RFL has got itself in a bit of a mess with this, and regardless of what the outcome of any investigation is, there are very clearly a lot of processes in urgent need of an overhaul.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:25 pm  

Same thing happened last time. James Child took no action at all on the field yet come the guilty verdict apparently he heard it and felt it was aimed at him. This was the same weekend a HKR player was sent off by a referee who thought he swore at him, yet Child did nothing. In that HKR incident the word of the ref was enough and player banned on the Tuesday as normal.....yet the Hardaker incident wasn't settled until the following Wednesday. Why in that other case was the referee's report enough for a straight forward decision yet it took a week longer for the Hardaker verdict even though both refs allegedly heard their accused.

Again if Silverwood has truly heard him then why wasn't it dealt with and him charged on Monday and banned on Tuesday? The HKR player (Weyman I believe) followed that timeline......no reason for this not to be the same.

I found it fishy then that the ref took no on-field action and find it fishy again.

And a getting a lip reader in? Seriously? Does lip reading really hold any legal weight?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:30 pm  

The RFL seem to have put themselves in a very tight situation which makes me think that either they are chancing their arm and will try to wriggle out of this or they have some concrete evidence that they have yet to disclose.

Either way they're not going to come out of this whole episode looking anything but petty or corrupt.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:35 pm  

Surely they're tripping over their own feet.

I mean riddle me this....

IF the referee says he heard it, then why is a lip reader needed at all?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:37 pm  

FB I honestly don't buy this "corrupt" stuff simply because there are too many idiots not fit for purpose involved at Red Hall to even attempt to be "Corrupt"!
For years many of their structures & procedures have been questioned especially around their officials & Disciplinary structures and routines.
I do however think they are inept and whatever the outcome I'd like to see a full review of their operation from top to bottom in the off season.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:43 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

FB I honestly don't buy this "corrupt" stuff simply because there are too many idiots not fit for purpose involved at Red Hall to even attempt to be "Corrupt"!
For years many of their structures & procedures have been questioned especially around their officials & Disciplinary structures and routines.
I do however think they are inept and whatever the outcome I'd like to see a full review of their operation from top to bottom in the off season.

Have to agree with you there mate, the RFL seem to come under constant criticism from all sectors of the game yet they never seem to improve. Top to bottom shake down seems to be the only solution, either that or the top 6 teams break away (which would in turn force the rest of the league to follow suit).

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:43 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Same thing happened last time. James Child took no action at all on the field yet come the guilty verdict apparently he heard it and felt it was aimed at him. This was the same weekend a HKR player was sent off by a referee who thought he swore at him, yet Child did nothing. In that HKR incident the word of the ref was enough and player banned on the Tuesday as normal.....yet the Hardaker incident wasn't settled until the following Wednesday. Why in that other case was the referee's report enough for a straight forward decision yet it took a week longer for the Hardaker verdict even though both refs allegedly heard their accused.

Again if Silverwood has truly heard him then why wasn't it dealt with and him charged on Monday and banned on Tuesday? The HKR player (Weyman I believe) followed that timeline......no reason for this not to be the same.

I found it fishy then that the ref took no on-field action and find it fishy again.

And a getting a lip reader in? Seriously? Does lip reading really hold any legal weight?

Thought it was the the RFL disciplinary not a legal case.

As for the lip reading well it got Suarez banned so it is used. If he did it then he needs to be banned again.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:45 pm  

Leeds Rhinos highlighting the obvious holes and generally throwing question marks everywhere.

Over to you RFL.

Well played Gary.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:48 pm  

RFL will be $hitting it! the press officer needs sacking.