Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:56 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

Their level of incompetence knows no bounds.

And now the RFL have responded to the Leeds statement by "declining to comment on an active investigation".

Precisely the opposite of what they did yesterday.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:09 pm  

illy wrote:

The video ref decisions are now going to have four people making the call. Two refs, one lip reader in case naughty words are spoken by the defense and a psychic in case the lip reader misses something.

Can see it now.....

Square in the air, "I wanna check onside/offside, the grounding of the ball.....and if the FB called the try scorer a puff"

T'is the future I tell thee.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:11 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

And now the RFL have responded to the Leeds statement by "declining to comment on an active investigation".

Precisely the opposite of what they did yesterday.

"declining to comment on an active investigation"

TRANSLATION

"Oh sh*t!"

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:23 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

And now the RFL have responded to the Leeds statement by "declining to comment on an active investigation".

Precisely the opposite of what they did yesterday.

Mugs.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:27 pm  

Leeds witch hunt LATEST - Silverwood is made of wood!

Leeds witch hunt LATEST - Silverwood is made of wood!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:28 pm  

William Eve wrote: Leeds witch hunt LATEST - Silverwood is made of wood! Never get's old.

William Eve wrote: Leeds witch hunt LATEST - Silverwood is made of wood! Never get's old.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:33 pm  

illy wrote:

The people who are slating Silverwood have you ever thought that during the match he heard something and thought rubbish that's not important and hence why he did not report anything.

Then he's not doing his job properly and should be reprimanded.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:36 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

Then he's not doing his job properly and should be reprimanded.

the match commisionner told the press silverwood never heard anything/
silverwood put in his report he did

someones telling fibs

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:47 pm  

A genuine question for you Leeds fans - if Hardaker is found guilty of saying "fu**ing puff," whether that be by his own admission, a lip reader or evidence submitted by Silverwood and/or Saints players, then would anyone have any complaints with a ban?

People seem to be focussing more on the process that the RFL have taken as opposed to what Hardaker is being accused of doing.

The RFL haven't covered themselves in glory with the way they have acted here but it's a means to an end in a way. If Hardaker is guilty of saying "fu**ing puff" then he deserves to be banned, simple as that.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:49 pm  

lionarmour87 wrote:

Some of the obscenities that are now being used on various social media forums FB in particular describing Hardaker is absolutely vile.

Exactly but these type of people can not see the irony in the abuse they are giving out, our game will never be big and does not deserve to be with the hate filled fans the game has. This whole thing is completely turning me and probably many others away from the game.