Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:42 am  

So in the 40(ish) hours I was absent off these boards, an extra 27 pages of comments have appeared! Wow! Suffice to say, I have not read them all

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:47 am  

Gotcha wrote:

And you don't seem to be able to separate between someone not using such language, and someone using it.

The word on the street now is that Silverwood is extremely pished at the RFL. Apparently he did see no need for further comment on Friday night, as he did not hear anything homophobic. When pressed by the RFL over the weekend he then agreed he had heard something, but still nothing homophobic, to which he was instructed to put it in the report. Hence why Silverwood said yesterday there is two sides to every story and don't believe everything said, and why Leeds have concentrated their criticism on the RFL and the procedures.

Would appear the RFL were indeed looking for something not there, due to the uproar on social media.

So in that scenario the RFL have left one of their leading refs out to dry for no good reason, as well as one of their leading players. Marvellous.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:04 am  

William Eve wrote:

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?

Not that I know of and highly doubt there was, however foul and abusive language is against the rules too and deserving of a match ban according to the RFL guidelines, yet never investigated.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:08 am  

Him wrote:

Not that I know of and highly doubt there was, however foul and abusive language is against the rules too and deserving of a match ban according to the RFL guidelines, yet never investigated.

Didnt Hock get a red for that

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:42 am  

frepneyboy wrote:

Didnt Hock get a red for that

Wasn't that for swearing at the referee?

A perfect example of the difference between cases.
The ref heard it, it was directed at him so he sent Hock off.

In this case the ref knew it wasn't directed at him and didn't report anything but we now have a lip reader looking over the footage.

If it's the case then why hasn't a lip reader been employed in the past to read what players and coaches have been saying.

As I said swearing, in any capacity, is against the rules according to the RFL.
Why weren't previous cases investigated?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:50 am  

Love how the 'mock outraged' are so worried that the poor homosexual viewers could be offended by what Zak said. However, the only people who could be offended are those that have paused, rewind, played, pause, rewind, played the incident over and over to try any work out what he said - even after replaying the incident several times it's not 100% clear what he said, so why would anybody feel the need to pause, rewind, play (repeat x10) and then be outraged or offended - unless they had an agenda.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:02 am  

Superted wrote:

Love how the 'mock outraged' are so worried that the poor homosexual viewers could be offended by what Zak said. However, the only people who could be offended are those that have paused, rewind, played, pause, rewind, played the incident over and over to try any work out what he said - even after replaying the incident several times it's not 100% clear what he said, so why would anybody feel the need to pause, rewind, play (repeat x10) and then be outraged or offended - unless they had an agenda.

Its not about hearing it on the spot or rewinding to hear it.

If he did it this time, like he DID do it before the games rep is tarnished.

Sponsors will stop being involved with the sport and GH will not have a game to control.

The RFL cannot seen to ignore an allegation of it, no matter how small. If its proved he didnt do it then fine, least they looked into it.

What about the drug allegations in the NRL. They HAD to look at it.

You could almost to the same about a salary cap allegation, do you ignore it cos its in the past?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:21 am  

I'm not saying it should be ignored - I'm saying that nobody would have been offended unless they were looking for it, as on the live viewing, nobody could be sure what was said, so the mock outrage isn't warranted, it's people rewinding and replaying in the hope they can find something that might not even be there and that there is no concrete proof is there - it's ridiculous. We could slow every second of the game down and find thousands of potential issues, seems very sad that people have the time and desire in their lives to do this.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:28 am  

Him wrote:

Wasn't that for swearing at the referee?

A perfect example of the difference between cases.
The ref heard it, it was directed at him so he sent Hock off.

Begs the question why didn't Child send off Hardaker for the Warrington incident if he heard it and believed it was aimed at him.....IF.

Only two cases I can think of regarding gay slurs and neither ref took any on field action. Convenient that the only two reported times a ref has ever heard homophobic language has been from live games where social media has blown it all over the place and within a few days the ref remembers he heard it after all.

Anybody who believes Child heard the previous one and thought it was aimed at him, yet did nothing, is kidding themselves.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:49 am  

Does anyone know what the timings are for match reports etc?
From what has been 'reported' in the media (not tattled on here, facebook or twitter) journos at the post match interview asked the match commissioner whether a report had been made by silverwood about a player making homophobic comments. I'm presuming they had seen a twitter/facebook storm of people making accusations which led to them asking the question. The match commissioner said no report had been made. How long after the match is this interview?
When and how does the ref make his report? is it verbal and/or written? If written it could not be immediately after leaving the field. Does the ref make a verbal report then a detailed written one? Does he go to shower and change first - is it even done the same day?
Would it be conceivable that the commissioner hasn't received a full match report prior to the interview and that actually its journos stirring the pot?
Anyone??