Funniest post of 2015

A written warning generally only lasts for 12 months - I think there's some people massively over reacting here...

I was under the impression that it's been acknowledged by the club that when all the facts were taken into account they were a little harsh on Zak after the England storm in a tea cup.

You may well be correct that his written warning has expired.
I don't remember the club acknowledging they were harsh on Hardaker after his World cup exit but they may have done. I do remember certain posters on here claiming that was the case but nothing official from the Club.

Not guilty of anything...apart from assault, which he found guilty of.

I think people are playing this down a little "just a couple of black eyes", "a bit of bruising", "a couple of punches". I for one wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of even one punch from a rugby player, particularly in my own home.

We obviously don't know the full details, but what we do know is that one man was assaulted by two rugby players in his own home in a "nasty attack" in the words of the police. Yes, he's a young lad, but that doesn't make this acceptable. We can't jump to conclusions because we haven't heard both sides of the story and probably never will, but the facts speak for themselves!

From a Leeds point of view, the coaches and senior players will probably be wondering why he was out until 3am and beyond just days before the start of the new season.

The only question that really matters is whether the silly sod actually starts to learn from these things that "somehow keep happening" to him. If he thinks he's just unlucky, hasn't done much wrong etc then he's an accident waiting to happen. His offences may not be that much individually (although I think some seriously underplay the impact of getting punched in the face) but they are entirely consistent with a young bloke who has yet to grow up.

I suspect Hock a few years ago probably thought the same. Like G1 if I were Hetherington I'd be pressuring BM to get Golding up to speed on the basis that to date there's every chance Zak doesn't change his ways.

Hopefully he'll start to realise that a hell of a lot of the problem is getting into these situations in the first place and change the way he operates. It probably also doesn't help hanging out with younger players if he's daft. Maybe he should go round to Sinfield's house on a Friday night and play board games, discuss Marxism and drink hot chocolate.

I have thought this myself in reading many of the replies here. What proportion of men do get in fights when out drinking, seeing as it is so 'normal' to do so? Am I the exception to the rule for having never punched someone or been punched whilst on a night out, or having ever been with a friend who has while on a night out?

The way it is being spoken about by some as 'the norm as a man in his 20s on a night out' doesn't justify it, it just means that more people have an issue with self control and restraint than making it ok. Otherwise does that mean that there is a problem with me for always having diffused or walked away from potential situations in the past rather than just indiscriminately lamping whoever is there at that time? How many punches become unacceptable when (potentially) just innocently minding your own business? Is it after 3 it becomes unacceptable? If so, please all come find me on Friday night at the game while I am minding my own business, not antagonising those around me and lamp me a couple of times - so long as you only do it twice the PoPo should leave us be because no crime will have taken place..! But as a man in my 20s, if I am not decking people who I pass by myself, I have to accept that people can and will do it to me as it is just what happens in life at that time.

calm your little cotton socks. as you were completely making up things i thought id try help.

you are aware that i knew you said "if" i was just taking the because you based pretty much 95% of your comment on conjecture as such you may have well have not said anything.

ever heard of the saying "if youve nothing nice to say..."

If we haven't heard both sides of the story and we don't know the full details then really the facts aren't really facts.

I love a bit of hyperbole.

To answer this and more of what SRV wrote. No one is actually saying it's fine or acceptable for them to get into the situation they got into. I and others questioned the way it's been described as a "assault". It's all very well portraying the student as some poor innocent lad who was minding his own business sitting in the corner eating some beans on toast whilst wearing his favourite Ramones t-shirt (even though he couldn't name you a single song of their's) and Hardaker and Minchella just randomly set about him. However as the YEP article pointed out, he confronted one of the men.....for all we know he could have done so in a confrontational way, for all we know he could have thrown a punch himself.

What we've been told
1, Hardaker & Minchella and several others enter the shared accommodation at around 3am, it's safe to guess they were probably making a bit of noise.
2, student goes to confront one of the men, seemingly upset/angry at their presence.
3, he ends up with a few bruises.....now I'm not saying it's right he's ended up with some bruises but it hardly sounds like Ronnie and Reggie Kray have just gone to town on him.

Let's face it, he's happy with £400 and a "I'm sorry" letter......doesn't strike me as some "nasty assault", more so a heated argument where he got his backside handed to him.......and again I'm not saying that's right or that it's fine that they punched him, but I'm not naive or PC enough to realise stuff like this can and does happen in the heat of the moment. Futhermore, whilst people are bringing up Hardaker's previous misdemeanours as some sort ot character profile as some sort of further proof of guilt in this episode.....his previous faults were bad language and not understanding he was under a curfew......hardly the crib sheet of the hothead some have come to think of him as, he's hardly been an ill-disciplined player physically on the pitch to suggest he just randomly likes to set about some student.

Who do you think you are..Ronan Keating??

Hardaker's previous faults are all about maturity and self control something that should be inbuilt in a professional sportsman. Surely it is impossible to perform at your very best if you are unable to control your thinking in the moment. Would you as member of the team want to stand next to Zac in the trenches?

Everyone talks about role models yet some posters on here are very hypocritical on that point. Just because its Zac it is not really that bad that he used his fists to conclude an argument and the guy only had a couple of black eyes - he could have killed him!! Hock takes some coke and he presents some distasteful image of RL - yet posters on here are excusing Zac. Which is worse, recreational drugs - which is almost endemic in young kids or violence? So it will be ok to slap somebody around a bit as long as you are good player and you don't do too much damage. If Zac worked for any respectable company he would no longer be employed the fact that Leeds persist with him says much about the culture that pervades at Leeds. The fact that fans are desperate for his return and I have no doubt so is the coach it shows the warped perspective of life that sport brings to some who follow it and those that work in it.

What appears to have happened is the police have agreed a community resolution to avoid the need for taking the issue to court and all the additional work that involves. It should not be seen as minor offence because it hasn't gone to court - if the victim had not accepted the community resolution it would have gone to court.

Having asked a few questions to family who have an idea of "community reseloution" it is apparatly something the police use to deal with "minor" crimes. I would say The Printer way of thinking is correct. A £200 fine each hardly reeks of the kray twins.

That being said and I expect this to happen, the club will take further action in disciplining both players, and rightfully so. Let's hope this is the last we hear of zak in a negative manner in the press, and he kicks on and gets back to playing the high level rugby he does so well for us

Quite so. Hardaker's misdemeanour is barely worse than giving the wife a slap when she gets a bit lippy.

Quite - it would be interesting to see how those siting Hardaker's actions as trivial would react if a work colleague slap them around a bit?

Sport brings out the worst traits in some - the incident in the Bradford v Reading game is a live example - its sports so it somehow transcends acceptable social behaviour.

Sal, considering In the last couple of years you have lambasted Hetherington on his views on Bird and Carney, and that we shouldn't be looking away from these players because of their indiscretions, you don't think you are actually been hypocritical?

Same goes for a couple of others, who talk about legends in the last 15 years, yet a couple of those have far worse records than Mr Hardaker. But no, it appears that was ok. Hypocritical yet again.

Sports fans always make me laugh, only gave him a couple of black eyes... I wonder how some of these posters would feel if they walked to a neighbours to complain about excessive noise at 3am, and got put on their .

But Hardakers a talented player so short of murdering someone, Leeds will stick by him.

if Zak is picked on Friday, I'd expect he will get a lot of support from the vast majority of the crowd.
When the players run out onto the pitch I'd be very surprised if his name is not the first to be chanted

Fans are fickle, and when it's one of 'their own' he will always be innocent to many.

One chant I definatly won't be singing

It all depends what actually happened. Nobody on here actually knows.

If there was provocation from the "victim" then it elicits a big fat "meh" from me.

If not then it's more serious.

The "punishment" suggests, in my opinion, there was at least some provocation. However that's only in my opinion, as we don't know what actually happened.

Had Hardaker been in any other job he likely wouldn't even face disciplinary of any sort. Because no-one would know about it. It wouldn't be in the papers so his bosses would never know and even if they did, unless he was charged nothing would happen.
So let's not pretend there's some kind of moral outrage to be had here, either with Hardaker or the club.

Daft lad does something daft. Happens every night of the week. And worse was regularly committed by some RL legends.

My view on Hetherington on both Bird and Carney was simply that he was trying to protect his own position i.e. under investment in the team by trying to prevent other teams strengthening their squads. He wasn't interested in the quality of SL just saving a few quid at Leeds. That is not the same as what has happened with Hardaker - Carney is an alcoholic - not sure he goes about punching people? - which causes his issues which if they can be sorted he would add massively to the quality of a competition that is suffering from the lack of top quality players. Unlike Zac Carney has performed at the pinnacle of the game - chalk and cheese.

My point about Walker and Bailey was the comparison between them and Woodgate and Bowyer and the variations in sentencing. Don't think either has since transgressed?

I can't think of any players at Leeds with a worse disciplinary record than Hardaker, that is in the public domaine?

All players deserve a second chance but when the don't learn from their mistakes how many chances do you give someone before you say enough is enough. To me Zac is disaster waiting to happen and it is only a question of time.

You claim not to have favourites but you do and Zac is one of them - you are entitled to your opinion we don't agree

Not sure why you always want to make out favourites as a some form of argument? Not sure what the relevance is.

So you are saying that if the player is of a quality that YOU deem good then it is ok to have these indiscretions, but not if you don't deem them of sufficient quality? Yet you say you are not been Hypocritical, and you say talk to me about favourites.

I agree entirely with you on Bird and Carney, hence why my view is consistent. Yours it appears is not.

McDermott and Senior had much worse records than Hardaker by the way. Something conveniently forgotten about by many. And I am talking Barrie, but of course our esteemed coach can be classed as worse also.

My view was clear earlier on this thread, so a bit rich to talk about favourites. I don't believe any player should be out gallivanting and drinking in the middle of the night, regardless of days off or not. It is up to the clubs to have those rules in place, and considering he is not the only one, it would appear those rules are not in place. Therefore what exactly is this problem you are forming this opinion on?

It was the very same thing with the England situation. Out on a day off, no rule in place. When pulled for it he gets the hump and leaves the camp. Quickly forgiven and picked again.

My view again is one where you treat something on the incident alone. If this incident is deemed sufficient for sever punishment then I would back that, so long as that is the same for all players. What I wouldn't back is blowing out of proportion previous issues, and using them along with a current incident. That isn't favouritism that is common sense.

I go back to your initial post, you preach Hypocritical, but you seem to be the one who should be labelled that.

I wondered when the "PC brigade" and "worse in the 70s" quotes would come out.

Right up there with "can't have been that bad if it didn't go to court".

As G1 says - and frankly, I'll take his view on legal matters above everyone else's on here thanks - the community resolution route is one the police would be eager to go down as it's easiest for them. Unless the victim disagrees or there are aggravating factors (such as race in the Woodgate/Bowyer incident for example), they'll try to settle most assaults in this matter rather than drag them through the courts.

It doesn't lessen the severity of the crime, or the inability of Hardaker in particular to control his temper in pressure situations. Who was it that made the comment a while ago about a generation of young players who are more interested in what their latest phone is like or their new tattoo than knuckling down and working hard to become better? Would be a shame to see Hardaker fall into that category and waste the talent he's got by making stupid choices.

Aside from this incident, if I was GH I'd be appalled at the terrible use of English and grammar that pervades Hardaker's Twitter account, and no doubt, several other Leeds and other RL players.

If we want to change the media image of RL players as thick violent northerners then clubs need to start investing in player education. It might sound silly but this is a pretty serious point, as not only would it improve the image of the game and particular players, it would help players adjust to life in different careers when they hang their boots up.

The example of several Leeds players getting degrees from Leeds Met is a great one, and should be followed by all players coming through the ranks at Leeds - obviously at a level appropriate to their previous education. Perhaps something like this is happening already, but with different emphasis. Otherwise I'd simply ban players from Twitter if the manner in which they conduct themselves is detrimental to the image of the club.

In most companies alcohol/homophobic abuse would have resulted in dismissal so let's get some context here when we are talking about moral outrage.

Most companies have clauses in contracts that deals with behaviour outside of company hours - given the police got involved it is very likely his employers would have been aware.