Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 pm  

sgtwilko wrote:

Don't you think GH is smart enough to say Zak, did you say it? and act from there. GH is arguably the most clinical administrator in the game. Leeds have done what they have done with total forsight of how it would play out.

Well god knows what GH said to Bailey and Senior then

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:55 pm  

frepneyboy wrote:

Well god knows what GH said to Bailey and Senior then

GH said, "Plead guilty, STFU."

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:38 pm  

I have no problem at all with the club coming out to defend Hardaker if they think he's innocent. I also have no problem with them criticising the process. A lip reader if true is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard with respect to a sporting judiciary.

If the RFL have hired a lip reader and end up banning Hardaker, then IMO Leeds should hire one to review every week's games involving other teams, and constantly hand over 'evidence' to the RFL. I'm sure Leeds fans would happily join in the twitter witch hunts.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:42 pm  

frepneyboy wrote:

So cos Suarez didnt mean it as in a bad way cos in his language its ok, thats ok?

Doesn't language rely massively on context and it's intended meaning?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:00 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I have no problem at all with the club coming out to defend Hardaker if they think he's innocent. I also have no problem with them criticising the process. A lip reader if true is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard with respect to a sporting judiciary.

If the RFL have hired a lip reader and end up banning Hardaker, then IMO Leeds should hire one to review every week's games involving other teams, and constantly hand over 'evidence' to the RFL. I'm sure Leeds fans would happily join in the twitter witch hunts.

Yep.
If anyone remembers the behind the scenes dvd's that were brought out for GB in the 2005 and 2006 Tri Nations there was lots of foul and abusive language in that, both on the field and off it.
I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of foul and abusive language picked up by Sky cameras and microphones, indeed occasionally during quiet moments of you're stood near the action you can sometimes hear it at games from in the crowd.
Shaun Wane is well known for his use of industrial language and has been swearing at games live on Sky.
Yet no charge from the RFL.

The first Hardaker one (v Warrington) was different. It was audible, heard by the ref and most importantly, found to be directed at the ref.

This is, frankly, ridiculous.
As you say, if a lip reader has been used by the RFL then they have to review every minute of every piece of footage available to them in every game.

If he's found guilty and he did say it then he's an idiot who needs to pay more attention to the way his captain conducts himself (and I don't mean he should headbutt someone before some smart @rse says). But I don't believe he's homophobic, I think he's a young lad who gets carried away and needs to learn to compose himself more.

But regardless of whether he's found guilty or not I don't like the way it's been investigated or the increasing use of bans given out after games rather than properly penalised at the time.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:27 am  

Him wrote:

Yep.
If anyone remembers the behind the scenes dvd's that were brought out for GB in the 2005 and 2006 Tri Nations there was lots of foul and abusive language in that, both on the field and off it.
I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of foul and abusive language picked up by Sky cameras and microphones, indeed occasionally during quiet moments of you're stood near the action you can sometimes hear it at games from in the crowd.
Shaun Wane is well known for his use of industrial language and has been swearing at games live on Sky.
Yet no charge from the RFL.

Did any of the incidences of abusive/industrial language you've cited above involve homophobic abuse?

If not, then what point are you trying to make?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:24 am  

Les Norton wrote:

Well, that seems to be a mute point to a lot of the accusers/judges/jury on RL.Fans & Twitter.
Despite whatever comment made being directed at him, his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. It's how all the homosexuals watching felt about it that matters.

Actually, no its not. Its about how anybody watching it felt that matters, to which end the complaint could have come from anybody sat at home. Unlikely, but possible. Notwithstanding one's sexual orientation its already been noted the difference between some gentle ribbing (for her pleasure!) and aggressive acts from adversaries or strangers.

Interesting the witch hunt terminology and bias: many happy to state that no-one can know what ZH said but equally happy to believe my mate's dad speaking to or overhearing the match commissioner stating that the referee didn't have 'owt to report. All is open to speculation by us emptyheads and we all have different views on how each party should handle it. Mine is that people, including players, should use social media to stick to '...they're a good side and we had us work cut out, but we dug deep blah, blah, blah'. Once you lose it and then let everyone know, you're shot. Once RFL say they won't comment on active investigation, which seems perfectly reasonable, we do at least know its being looked at. Leeds's statement was a bit strong perhaps but they had to do something....a bit slow though.

Unfortunately for ZH he has already copped a ban (and probably deservedly) for homophobic comments this season and the previous will count against him if he has used the word puff and the powers that be believe so.

As for the incident, I don't think there was much wrong with MF's tackle although ZH did react quickly...probably aggrieved and indignant at being caught in goal to put his side under pressure towards the end of a tense and meaningful game...and just fronting up with a little bravado. I guess its just the fighting spirit necessary in some competitors....or maybe Flanagan whispered to him that he'd tailed Michelle Keegan.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:45 am  

wertyuio wrote:

...or maybe Flanagan whispered to him that he'd tailed Michelle Keegan.

And Zak's never watched Coronation Street and he thought Flanagan was bragging about being with Kevin Keegan?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:50 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

And Zak's never watched Coronation Street and he thought Flanagan was bragging about being with Kevin Keegan?

it was the bubble perm that did it!!!!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:52 am  

The witch hunt point is valid because as far as I'm aware the RFL judiciary has never employed a lip reader to try to prove an offence relating what a player has said. That IMO creates an absolutely ridiculous precedent.

From what I can gather - which isn't a huge amount - it would appear that context and supporting verbal clues are usually a massive help in lip reading, as is context (which raises a very interesting question as to whether the RFL's 'lip reader' would immediately be biased if they knew what words they are looking for), and there are a number of 'sounds' which lip reading simply cannot pick up. It certainly doesn't sound incredibly convincing if used in evidence for anything, nor does its track record in UK courts.

Lets not forget that what Hardaker has been charged with is far more than a high tackle with a 2 match ban. If found guilty of this his reputation will be in tatters (his previous comment will eventually be taken in isolation as a one-off assuming he doesn't do it again), regardless of any ban.