With the obvious sledging that goes on at the play-the-ball area or between players etc, I'm sure much worse has been said. Rugby is a game on the battle ground and you expect certain slurs which get banded about (all in line with physical game, which Terry Newton declared as a 'rough game played by rough people') but have very little meaning once all players leave the pitch.

In this case, in the 2014 environment of the Big Brother 'warts and all' approach Zak has been copped by this technology and the fury and bandwagon has been jumped on by all sorts (opposition fans, really bad rugby journalists etc). So Leeds have issued a 'painting by numbers' statement to go along with things and hopefully to get the matter put to bed. Whatever punishment is handed Leeds will wear to diffuse the situation, rather than possibly object and add fuel to the fire.

I think it is a good statement and well written. He will take whatever punishment the RFL dish out (the wording in the statement implies there will be one) on the chin and we'll all move on.

The End.

Nope. I would have respected his honesty, and would have said so.

I would still expect him to receive a punishment though. There are consequences to all our actions and this is an important moment IMO, especially given links with Stonewall and the Tackle It project. The RFL cannot be seen to compromise on this and if they do so then their credibility will be up the spout as this story has made national news and will I am sure be followed up.

Did you read the RFL's own guidance on homophobia that I linked to in the other thread? If not then you probably need to as it was just the kind of reasoning you come out with that they are against. So you can call fans and journalists all you want, the RFL has laid out how things are, the law of the land has made it clear that homophobic abuse in the workplace is illegal, and therefore action is needed to make sure this doesn't happen again, regardless of whether it has happened before.

Not 'band-wagon jumping by opposition fans' per se. I am a Leeds fan, and other Leeds fans have spoken out on here too. Admittedly, yes, some probably are on here just to try and fan the flames, but a lot of what i have read from those critical of ZH (whether fans of Leeds or anyone else) have been fair enough really.

So if you call someone a fu**ing c**t as long as they are covered with hair, have a pretty large mouth and smell of fish it`s ok?

Well, that covers the ladies of Hull, but what about everyone else?

IMO everything has already been posted on these forums in regards to what Zak has said and to whom so I'm going to leave it there and let the RFL decide the outcome

Sledging is common place in all sports and players regularly dish it out freely and without any penalties or bans being handed out as a result when it is aimed at the opposition's players

I would however like to add that IMO any abusive or foul language whatsoever from players directed towards match day officials should be a sending off offense without hesitation as long as they are 100% certain it was aimed at them

The problem is how are the RFL going to be able to decide who the abuse was aimed at if there are more than one of the "alleged allegations inserted here" are on the field at the same time both on the opposing side and who was refereeing the match ?

Hypothetically speaking here, lets imagine a non televised SL game
IF George Stokes refereed "any SL side" against Hull KR and in the last minute Kris Welham <who's also got ginger hair> scores to win the game after stealing the ball and as a result an opposition player shouted out that he was a "Cheating Ginger c--t

Would that be deemed to be aimed at the referee or the player?
And should he be banned?

Really? Because what I read seemed to do just that.

He said he was saddened by how the comment was perceived, which implies the issue was with how it was perceived, not the fact that it is blatantly offensive.

He said people should think about the words they use as they can cause unintended offence. You don't call someone an effing fag unluss you intend to offend them.

He said certain words have powerful meanings other than those intended.

He doesn't really seem like he's owning what he has done. I'm not really convinced that he isn't cynically using Monaghan to diminish the severity of it either.

Exactly.

:2t6dlma8 No it doesnt, it implies he was saddened that his words were perceived as an attack on homosexuals.

:2t6dlma8When you call someone a d1ckhead you dont actually mean they are literally the tip of a penis. When you call someone an h0le you dont literally mean they are a hole in an ar5e

:2t6dlma8 and that is pretty obvious.

and that just seems mental, and disappointingly simply plays into the hands of those saying a big deal is being made about this because it is a mistake that needs rectifying, but because of sad rival supporters trying to score points.

His words were perceived as homophobic, which they were. There was really no need to say he was saddened by people's perception.


What's that got to do with the point I made though? He made a homophobic comment and his intention was to insult someone with it.


But again he just looks like he's wriggling.


I'm definitely not trying to score points mate. I wish Hardaker hadn't said it, he's not the sort of player I've ever had a problem with, he's generally well liked across the board and I'd prefer not to be criticising him right now.

Why? he was saddened that people perceived his attack as one on homosexuals and were offended by it. That seems a normal thing for a person to be saddened about in this context.

To highlight that in moments of frustration, when we insult people, we dont always mean the literal interpretation of the word. Hardaker was wrong to use the word because it is a homophobic slur, that doesnt necessarily mean it had homophobic intent behind it. That is one of the big issues we as a society face in situations like this, that what some use as a casual insult, is a deeply offensive slur to others. Thats why this investigation is necessary, to help people learn the difference.

i think it is bravely explicit. then it seems a strange an unnecessary supposition with no supporting evidence that makes the situation worse.

There's nothing strange about it. He's a well liked and well respected player who I'd prefer not to criticise, but he's made a homophobic slur and in his apology appears not to accept that the blame lies squarely with him and only him. Had he left out the comments I highlighted I wouldn't have an issue.

if you read the comments in their context they dont seem to be wriggling in any way shape or form.

Pretty much my view too.

If he does it again ban him for half a season.

Here you have it.

He used a homophobic slur. When you think of all the non-homophobic words he could have used to equal effect he didn't use them. He used a homophobic one. He need not have done. There are plenty of other insults to fling at someone in the heat of the moment but he didn't choose any of them.

I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

You locked the other interesting discussion but chip your two penneth into this one. BTW, he said something offensive, he didn't say something homophobic.

But your final sentence is spot on.

Aye, only because folk were going round in circles (and in some cases personal and abusive) on a subject with no evidence or substance to it.

Now this statement has been released, crack on...





Bear in mind I think thats the first thread I've locked in about three years, and I didn't even ban Gotcha in the end either!

Reconsider.

I can't comment because it would be criticism of the moderation process

How far can the "big daft lad" defence carry one player?

Twice in nine months he's been a "big daft lad". A less talented player would currently be shopping for a new employer IMO.

If Leeds are that committed to equality and diversity, should they be looking to take some form of pre-emptive action against Hardaker - in public - now he's effectively admitted the offence?

With all respect, whether or not you have an issue isn't the issue. Let's face it, there are many - and I'm not saying they're wrong - who would remain dissatisfied however the apology was worded. What is important is that the statement makes it clear that ZH's behaviour was offensive and unacceptable and that he and the club recognise this. Let's face it; the statement is aimed more towards the impressionable than it is towards people like yourself who know better.

Anyone lip read what the Leigh player said to Zak as he scored his try...no doubt we'll have a moral outcry and clips on the VT any minute