I have a couple of gay friends, so I asked one of them if he would be really offended if someone called him a faggot - he responded by singing the Gloria Gaynor classic 'I am what I am' (true story).

Has anyone really gone out and asked the gay community if they find the word 'faggot' offensive? Because all the gays I know really couldn't give fekk.

Of course you do.

Guffaw.

I'm not homophobic. I like Elton John and everything.

Manly regards

Vladimir Putin

If this ever goes to court, those videos Zak made with Josh Charnley would be the first item for the defence.

Somewhere there will be an episode of Southpark that deals with this scenario.

When pressure and or frustration get the better of a person, they will on occasion lash out verbally (or physically). If the response to the situation is verbal, it quite often takes the form of a word or words designed to shock or distress the intended recipient. It is also common to shout out in a similar manner at ones self, when frustrated. Is this acceptable? IMO it is not. Is it a hanging offence? Again IMO it is not. I do however think that we need to be wary as a society of jumping to take offence at every outburst made in a pressurised situation by a daft individual who failed to check an overspill of emotions. Motive and context need to be factored into the equation. IF Zak did make unacceptable comments, I trust that the RFL will take appropriate action.

Cheers Codhead. I applaud, and respect your straightforward and honest reply, which may just give all those posters who are working themselves up into a self rightous froth, something to ponder on.

I should also like to admitting I collected Golli badges as a kid......

and a lot of those frothing at the mouth are the same ones chanting the refs a cheating c*nt from the terraces

But you are trying to mitigate his use of it in the same way people justified using those words.

you're certainly proving there is at least one gigantic swollen h0le. Just saying like, and I'm quite chilled about it.

And you tried to make out that I said it was ok for him to use those words when I never did. Understandable, yes. Ok, no. Their's a difference.

i didnt. I simply tried to draw that parallel.

Quite clear there that you thought people were arguing that it was ok for Hardaker to use that word. Not one single person has said he should use that word, more a case that the crime (and context it happened in) isn't level with some of the IMO OTT reactions on here.

Hardaker chose the wrong insult and, hopefully, he chose the wrong sport in which to use it. It's a little tiresome that certain aspects of the game seem mired in the 1970s. Considering we've ditched some of its better traditions, it's a pi$$ing shame we've retained some its the worst.

Parallel's are usually thought of as straight....

homophobe alert?

That's quite ok, I am still chilled. I never mentioned you by name though, so well done for realising which posters I was referring to.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5408Weyman has received a two match ban[/url for his abuse of the referee, and that was taking into consideration that there was no sound available and the player claimed to have been abusing a fellow player.

Apparently the disciplinary would only look at an abuse case if the referee had reported it to the match commissioner. Therefore, I think it can be safely assumed that Child heard what was said by Hardaker, believed it to be directed at him and reported the incident to the match commissioner.

If Childs did hear it why wasn't Zak sent off then?

He did hear it, but he knew it had nothing to do with him and wasn't aimed at him. Knowing as this thread has repeatedly said, the same thing is said over and over again with all players.

The action has not been brought by Child, but by complaints from tv viewers jelous of Leeds success. Whether you agree with the language or not and think it is appropriate, that is still the case.

When was the last time we had something like this though, with videos all over the web and lynch mobs out for blood?
Whether Child reported it or not this was going to happen.

The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. If Child heard what Hardaker is accused of saying then he either must not believe it was aimed at him, or that he didn't think Hardaker said those particular words.

The scenario you safely assume, has no chance of being correct. Child would've sent Hardaker off and also it would've been dealt with now just like the Weyman case. The Leeds game took place two days earlier than the HKR game, if the word of the referee is enough for the disciplinary then Hardaker would've already been given a ban by now.

Chris Irvine of the Times appears to think Child did hear what was said and included it in his match report. Whether or not Irvine's piece - or indeed Child's match report - has any passing acquaintance with the facts is open to debate.

Roby reffed Cas/HKR on Sunday and with his verbal evidence Weyamn is banned by Tuesday.

Child reffed Leeds on Friday and with his ALLEDGED verbal evidence Hardaker still isn't banned by Wednesday??? Nor did he send him off, or even a telling off?

Hardaker would've been banned on Tuesday like the other players who got bans on that day, simple as that IF the ref heard it.

no, i thought people were arguing that it was no big deal, that it didnt really matter, that plenty of people use it in everyday language, that it wasnt too bad because it was just a casual throwaway expression, that its ok because he didnt mean it in that way, that its ok because he didnt aim it at a gay person, the same justifications and mitigations we used to hear when people spoke about Pakis, n.iggers, Kikes, ragheads etc.