Gotcha wrote:
You really need to wake up and get yourself out of the hole you are digging.
To be fair, had it been the first time this had happened, I kind of understand the situation you are wanting, but that is exactly what happened the first time it did happen. What we have now is different, under different circumstances, following different rules, no microphone pick up of what was said, and because it is happening again in such a short time the public perception is very different. Because of it happening again should be exactly why the RFL in changing their own procedures, should have at the very least have kept things private. Why you seem incapable of understanding all that I do not know.
I have said that the RFL messed up by saying they were investigating it. I believe that they did that under pressure or it was possibly just a press officer messing up. I don't think the RFL want this any more than Leeds do.
What I find so strange about you view, is that can you image had Keith Senior still been playing in what appears this modern game. There were not many who gave cheap shots, sledging, abuse to refs, etc, as much as him. What would his reputation be like today. The main party innocent in this is the player, yet you seem to want to somehow allude to him been the problem.
I don't know whether Zak is innocent or guilty. He is innocent until proven guilty but being declared innocent means there has to actually be a process, a process that Leeds don't seem to want to see.
I think Keith was doing his job. I don't think he was particularly mouthy or dirty, but I definitely think he wasn't going to take anything without giving it back. That to me is just RL. When Keith crossed the line I was more than willing to admit he'd done it.
Leeds haven't gone to war with the RFL, they have defended the position of the player quite clearly (which is something the RFL should also have taken into account), and questioned what the RFL are doing in going against their own systems to answer to a social media campaign, without any proof to warrant such a change. All organisations are there to be questioned, if it's members feel something is not right.
I'm a Leeds fan. I have massive respect for GH. I hope that Zak is found innocent because he didn't do what he is accused of. I can understand why Leeds might want to curtail the process if he did do it because IMO the punishment will be massively harsh considering the crime.
But I'm saying it as I see it. Just because I'm a Leeds fan doesn't mean I should always think what Leeds do is right. Over the statement I feel that Leeds were wrong and I have stated why. I might be completely wrong and if I am then people will be able to judge for themselves. But IMO most of the defence of Zak is purely based on Rhinos tinted glasses.
Like I said, look at the first incident against Wire, and how the player, the club, and the RFL handled it, where the proof was there straight away, not only by a microphone pick up but by the player himself saying exactly what he said straight away. It has been done right before. This time it is not right, and the club not only needed to set the position straight for the player, but for the players family (an area you just completely disregard).
The best thing for Zak is for a thorough investigation and to be declared innocent.
IMO the way Leeds have acted they seem to be wanting to stop an investigation from taking place. Given the nature of Leeds statement to the press oppo fans will then be able to say that the power of Leeds Rhinos managed to get Zak off. I don't think that is in Zak's interest, in Leeds interest of the interest of the sport of RL.
I don't know what Zak's family has to do with anything. I'd imagine that Silverwood's dad is pretty angry over the finger of blame being pointed at him too, but I couldn't care less about that either. If Zak has a nice labrador is that supposed to mean case over, he's a great guy and we don't need to think any further about anything? I just don't get what Zak's family has to do with anything.
