And this is where it is all wrong.

Cas fans aimed their abuse at an openly homosexual player because, and only because, he was homosexual.

That was not the same last week. And that is much more the point here. The guidelines and the levels of punishment laid down by the RFL, which people are quoting, are to deal with homophobia.

The example you used was homophobia. Unless Hardaker said what he said because the player was homosexual, then it is not the same.

To whom? Who decides what is and isn't offensive and what mandate where they given to speak for us all?

As someone with a blossoming career in comedy I'd have thought you'd have a more liberal attitude to where the line should be drawn.

Was it intended to be insulting, abusive or offensive?

I'd suggest in the way that Hardaker used it, it was. Otherwise, why would he use it? Why not just call him a prat, or a pillock? Why pick that particular pejorative term, with all its implications that homosexuality is in some way something to be abused and ridiculed?

I'm sure the players will have had education on what is and isn't acceptable from both a racism and homophobia standpoint.

I'm imagining a hastily set up meeting room with 20 tatooed beefcakes sat in folding plastic chairs, a white board and a list of blue words on the left and red ones listed on the right. There is a guy from club HR with a laser pointer and the most hilarious Q&A session in history.

As I told everyone who wasn't willing to listen, no homophobia

I guess it is subjective though, isn't it? My definition of what is 'homophobic' isn't the same as yours and as the RFL said it was not, all it proves really is that it wasn't to them.

That's the beauty of life - we all have our own rules and definitions!

There was though, and that is why he has received a five match ban under a Grade E charge. He wouldn't have been charged with homophobic abuse if there was no homophobia.

OK then - if I were to call a white man the 'n' word am I racist?

I don't disagree with most of the rest of the post. However, doesn't starting with a broad assumption about the sexuality of people you don't know and have never met make it a tad hypocritical?

No. It means you used a racist word.

and you'll get a 5 match ban

6 if you are Tevita Leo-latu, though i couldnt have less sympathy for him.

What was definitely wrong on this topic was him and others trying make out that some of us on here said homophobia isn't a problem and trying to label us under the banner of ignorant.....simply because we weren't up in arms about this particular incident. This I found to be offensive, the same thing they're blasting Hardaker for - causing offence.

Seems some have a very black and white view on things......ANY homophobic incident = bad and we must be offended and outraged. Others like myself see some shades of grey in between and view incidents for varying context and situation and so forth.

Taking away what was actually said and the faux offence some have taken to the words the thing that the incident illustrates to me is how weak and poor our refs are.
The ref clearly heard the word used, thought it was directed at him as the RFL agree yet took no action. He didn't even look at zac in the clip I have seen let alone speak to him. Surley he would have taken some action at the time.
No wonder we are seeing more stick given to the ref if that's how it's delt with on the field

No. The word would still have clearly racist connotations though. I am a little lost as to why this distinction is still being ignored.

What if we have another openly gay player at some point in the league and he calls another player "a fu**ing fag!" ???

Will he face the same public outrage? Will he even be charged and banned?

How hard is it to understand that the offence Hardaker has been suspended for is the use of homophobic language, rather than being homophobic?

The sexuality of all those involved is a complete irrelevance. The language used was a slur based on someone's sexual preference, which is no more welcome in the game than slurs based on race IMO.

So there's two subjects in RL that you can't say on TV?

IMO Hardaker's offence was a penalty offence, with a warning from the referee that any repetition would result in a straight red.

But TBH that is pretty much just the same as any sledging. If the ref hears a threat of a punch in the next tackle, the same penalty should be awarded. Same with virtually any sledging.

Racial abuse, because of the racial abuse suffered in this country over the last few decades would rightfully earn an instant straight red and a ban. The reasoning for the difference is because of the history of sport. I just don't see why homophobic abuse is deserving of similar punishment.

Just what is acceptable and unacceptable sledging?

That's if you take what Zak said at face value, rather than just looking at it as general sledging. I'm sure another dozen words could have fallen out of his mouth. Possibly slating someone's mum, obvious swear words, and obvious slang words for genitalia and sex acts.

Nothing new here, just caught on a mic.

So there has been no homophobic abuse in this country? Really?

And we're going in circles again. That is precisely the context in which it is being viewed.

And things being caught on mic is an occupational hazard when your job is televised and beamed live to thousands of people. This makes it different to saying something to a handful of your mates who you know won't be offended. We can debate the rights an wrongs of that, but if you work in the presence of live broadcast cameras and mic's then you have to treat what you say as being to the general public.

Yep, you are the victim here and someone thinking you are ignorant about something you admit you can't have any personal experience of is exactly the same as someone using hate speech.

ANY homophobic incident does = Bad. You not caring doesnt introduce any shade of grey. It just means you dont care about this incident.

Far too sensitive for me.

I remember in early Super League, Lee Penny, was funnily caught on a camera a few times clearly saying 'f*** off' to someone in front of him. Did he tell the watching 'general public' to f*** off? Obviously not.

firstly. Gay people have had some pretty bad abuse over the last few decades. Im not sure what you mean about the history of sport which means homophobic abuse ISNT deserving of a similar punishment.

Secondly, its pretty clear and simple, no abuse based on race, gender, sexual preference, religion, national or ethnic origin. Its in the rules.

But those rules are designed, and rightly so, to be to protect those within those minorities. The fact that the player said it to another player (who the abuse was aimed at) who is not within those minorities is where the difference of opinion lies.