Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:21 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

The referee's word is enough and ref cam no doubt caught it.

Is his word is enough (which I agree it should be) then try and explain why they've gone and gotten a lip reader in?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:22 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

The parallels with the Luis Suarez situation cannot be ignored here. Leeds have done the wrong thing, no matter if they believe the process hasn't been fair. There is a medium for that complaint, it's during the hearing Hardaker will no doubt have. Doing it beforehand just makes them guilty themselves if Hardaker is found guilty of the allegations. Liverpool did it with Suarez, blindly supporting him over the racism allegations, even though it was quite clear he had said what was alleged.

did Evra say that he didnt hear Suarez say anything, like Flanagan did with this?
did the match officials say they didnt hear anything then the match reports seemingly get changed to say otherwise?
did Hardaker admit that he used the word 'puff' but in a jocular way?

i dont watch much football but i dont get the comparison, so maybe you could help me out

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:23 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

We'll settle now on Hardaker joining Barcelona, because we're jealous of him

Oh and you can't afford Haraker

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:24 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Is his word is enough (which I agree it should be) then try and explain why they've gone and gotten a lip reader in?

Except his word is thrown into doubt by the lack of a complaint from a player, nobody else hearing it, his lack of action (penalising/sending Hardaker off) at the time and the lack of any mention of the incident in his report.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:32 pm  

Him wrote:

Except his word is thrown into doubt by the lack of a complaint from a player, nobody else hearing it, his lack of action (penalising/sending Hardaker off) at the time and the lack of any mention of the incident in his report.

Yes sorry didn't write that previous post fully.

His word should be enough.....if consistent from the start, not one that's come around 72 hours later.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:33 pm  

Neruda wrote:

did Evra say that he didnt hear Suarez say anything, like Flanagan did with this?
did the match officials say they didnt hear anything then the match reports seemingly get changed to say otherwise?
did Hardaker admit that he used the word 'puff' but in a jocular way?

i dont watch much football but i dont get the comparison, so maybe you could help me out

You are focusing too much on the detail. The reality here, stepping back from the emotion, is that an allegation has been made against a player. It doesn't matter who makes the allegation or how fraudulently it comes about, those are things for the hearing. Leeds should step back from the controvery and release a statement saying 'Leeds are aware of the allegation and will cooperate fully with the investigation. Leeds expect all it's players to represent the values of the club and the sport' or something along those lines, potentially not saying anything at all. Once Hardaker's case is thrown out because of the evidence presented in his defense and a complete lack of evidence against him, the open the barrells at the ref. You don't do it beforehand. Fight for him tooth and nail IN the hearing, but don't lay yourself open to the possibility of being seen as publically supporting a player who has used homophobic abuse.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:37 pm  

it is crazy to say that Hardaker (and Leeds) should defend themselves in private and that the RFL should make the accusation in public.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:38 pm  

Him wrote:

Except his word is thrown into doubt by the lack of a complaint from a player

Flanagan is an experienced player and I'm sure 99.99% of players in this situation would prefer to keep it in house. He was laughing with Hardaker in the immediate aftermath on Twitter, but dodging the calls for him to state what Hardaker actually said.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:42 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Flanagan is an experienced player and I'm sure 99.99% of players in this situation would prefer to keep it in house. He was laughing with Hardaker in the immediate aftermath on Twitter, but dodging the calls for him to state what Hardaker actually said.

Could that be because Flanagan used similar language.....just off camera so it hasn't upset the easily scared amongst the RL community.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:43 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

it is crazy to say that Hardaker (and Leeds) should defend themselves in private and that the RFL should make the accusation in public.

Protecting the reputation of the club comes first. Reacting the news the RFL are investigating it with such an emotive response isn't the best way to go.