Who did the RFL receive a report of alleged homophobia from?

Lots of points from GH still need answering

Whilst I agree that he should have been punished I also think that sometimes s governing body should be challenged, especially when like ours is pretty much inept at most things it does

Mr Gilderdale said that the RFL had to act on a report of potential homophobic abuse which I completely agree with - my, as yet, unanswered question to him was who reported it.

I believe that GH asked the same question of the RFL which is, at present, still unanswered.

Did you ask the RFL or did you just post on a forum? Do you honestly think that you have the right to know who a complaint of homophobia is made by?

GH might have asked the RFL. I don't know. What I do know is that GH made statements to the press which clearly were inflammatory, detrimental to the game and called into question the integrity of at least a few of the games officials.

GH was completely and utterly out of order on this. Most of the Leeds fans who are backing him up are either dangerously biased or dangerously stupid. GH should be absolutely embarrassed by his actions. His fine is pathetically small and doesn't reflect either his offence or the position he holds.

And just to clarify, I'm a fan of GH. I have the utmost respect for him and his achievements and IMO he's one of the giants of RL. But no matter how much good he's done in RL it doesn't alter the fact that on this occasion he completely and utterly blew it.

I understand the suspicion that a homophobic term had been used was within the match officials report.

It should have been reported to the Match Commissioner by the referee on the night, but wasn't. That procedural point aside, what would you rather the RFL had done? Ignored it? Whitewashed over it?

Again. if it had been a Leeds player allegedly on the receiving end, how would that influence your opinion of how the incident had been handled? If it had been say an accusation of racist language being used against one of Leeds' ethnic minority players, should the RFL have just ignored that because it wasn't reported correctly?

My point is that there was seemingly no initial report of homophobic language, there then was a sh*t storm on social media which prompted the RFL to engineer a report post match. You kind of wash over this by saying it was a mere procedural error but I believe the RFL instigated the alleged 'witch hunt' not based on a report from the referee (or anyone connected with the game) but on the hysteria and faux outrage from other team's supporters on Twitter/Facebook.

I believe there is no place in our game for homophobia, I am very close to several gay people, including close family members and feel they get a really sh*t deal from time to time. The same applies for racism. I also believe that there is no place for which hunts which, from where I sit, is exactly what the RFL instigated and what GH got all irate about.

So... let me get this right, you believe that if a high profile Rugby League CEO (a giant of RL) suspects corruption from it's governing body, they have no right to air that opinion?

How should he have gone about it, he obviously couldn't confront the RFL directly so what should he have done in your opinion?

If GH believed that the RFL were involved deliberately and corruptly in trying to frame one of their players for a serious charge then the first point of contact should have been a meeting with the head of the RFL. IMO Leeds' stance would have been that anyone proved guilty of corruption would be banned from the game for a long time, and that the RFL having being involved in this would be in a position that it probably could not survive.

That's not what GH did though. He just went to the press and threw mud all over the RFL and all over a few RFL officials, including Silverwood.

GHs actions were not of a chief executive who suspects high level corruption in the game, they were the actions of a powerful man using force and media spin to probably get his man off.

So you believe the RFL made up the report from the match officiais? Based on what?

Other than rampant "everyone is against Leeds" paranoia.

If the match officials report said Hardaker had used homophobic language how come they came up with a lack of evidence conclusion?
It surely couldn't have said that, so then what did it say? What could Silverwood have reported that was grounds to launch an investigation yet not enough evidence when it came for a guilty verdict?

If you told the police that someone had punched you in the face but there wasn't a bruise, wouldn't you at least expect them to investigate?

That is why they call it an investigation, to establish the facts and see whether the allegation had any/enough evidence to support it.

He did nothing of the sort with Silverwood. Silverwood told Leeds, and indeed spilled the beans on his twitter, that he was instructed by the RFL to amend his report to include that something may well have been said by the players.

is it beyond the realms of possibility that Silverwood didnt hear it, didnt see it and had no idea it had happened (of which there is still no evidence it ever did, hence lack of charge and punishment) so didnt include it in his report. RFL higher up person A saw it on tv and the subsequent outcry so told him to stick it in there expecting the quick open and shut case that the previous one was.

Leeds/hardaker then said hang on a minute we arent admitting anything this time, you got it wrong.

RFL then desperately scramble around looking for alternative sources of evidence so they dont have to rely on Silverwood, can't find one, can't rely on Silverwood to lie for them (probably dont really want to) so are left with no other option than to let hardaker off.

There are numerous questions to be answered about the process and the actions of those in it.

Why did the match official, to the match commissioner confirm he hadnt heard/seen anything, then include it in his report?

What could he have possibly put in the report that would confirm he saw/heard something but that didnt lead to a charge?

One thing to bare in mind, the RFL havent at any stage contested the validity of what GH said. Simply that what he said brought the game in to disrepute.

I think I've read most of this thread. I think I've paid pretty good attention. I haven't actually seen this before. I think there'd have been 20 pages of outrage on this very subject and Rhinos fans and all fans would be demanding many RFL heads roll.

I don't think it happened though.

I think you're one of the utter loons that hear "There's a rumour that [iSteve[/i got arrested" and then instantly goes and tells someone "[iSteve's[/i been convicted of fiddling with kids" for some reason that would take a shrink to explain.

If this has been discussed before I'm quickly going to look like an idiot (well, more than usual). But I'll take that risk. I think you're making this 5hit up, have nothing to back it up, and should have just earned yourself a permanent ban from RLfans for a blatant libel on the boards.

Gotcha's post seems plausible enough, particularly if silverwood has indeed put it on twitter.

He did put it on Twitter, and Jose Mourinho is been an idiot like he has since the allegations first came out. Why else does he think GH took such a strong stance on it?

I said what had happened on this board the day before Leeds statement, when Silverwood himself first came out and said there was two sides to every story. Which referred to him been told to change his report, which was confirmed by Silverwood a few days after GH statement.GH himself had already spoke to Silverwood, and why he was so clear on the position. His statement was clear he wasn't blaming Silverwood.

So Silverwood put it on twitter, Gotcha saw it but nobody managed to actually link to it?

It's effing BS. Gotcha's making it up.

I did see Silverwood's twitter at around the time. He made a comment along the lines of "You shouldn't believe everything you hear".

That IMO is what Gotcha is refering to. He's an effing moron and he needs banning if he can't back up the allegation against Silverwood and the RFL.

Anyone who told Silverwood to change his report needs to be an ex-RFL employee.

Twitter is not the place to be having these debates.

Where are you getting your information from that GH and Silverwood spoke directly about this?

All my comments are based upon the statement that Leeds made. IMO the allegations were very serious and shouldn't have been made in a press statement.

GH is a very shrewd man. Do you really think he would make throw away comments to the press without any evidence and legal advice, I mean he's not the RFL!

Taken on it's own that could apply to the RFL's decision to tell the press they were investigating Zak and why, they set the tone for what was acceptable and ill advisedly or not GH followed suit.

I'll say it again. I think GHs achievements in RL are truly awesome and he is a person who I have the utmost respect for. But even though I admire and respect him I still don't think he's infallible. IMO in this case he's fallen on his face and let himself, Leeds and RL down.

I could be wrong though. The information I have is very limited and I may have got it completely wrong. I strongly doubt it though.

Leaving twitter aside for the moment, the reason I think Gotcha's take is plausible is that I'd expect the RFL to check with Silverwood with regard to what he'd heard. A response along the lines of "one of the players may have said something" is about what I'd expect, given that had plainly happened. I wouldn't care to speculate whether or not Silverwood actually heard what was said or not. Under that circumstance, I don't think it unreasonable that the RFL should ask him to include a statement to that effect to his match report.
As for GH, had he known that there was no evidence against Hardaker, I doubt he'd have gone public. But I think for a while he was a worried man.

On the one hand Leeds had a mighty bitchfest about their "duty of care" over poor little Zak being named in the week after, but on the other hand they are questioning why the match commissioner wasn't blabbing about it after the game.

Personally I don't know what the process is regarding the media speaking to the refs and match commissioners after a game. My guess about the Saints game would be that the red card would have been the main talking point. I don't know whether they'd have instantly been asking about Zak's possible comment, but if they were asking I'd expect most of the officials to keep their mouths shut.

My reading of it was that GH blew a load of smoke about there being no post match comments made by Silverwood and the match commissioner and used that to scream witch hunt.

IMO if the things that GH was alluding to in his press statement were true then he should have been speaking with the RFL chief and making heads roll. He didn't do that though. He just threw mud over the RFL, Silverwood and the game and it seems to have worked. And for that he's got a measly fine of a grand.

My view of the alleged offence by Zak was that the punishment wouldn't have matched the crime, if he was guilty. So in many ways I could accept GH resorting to dodgy tactics if he needed to. But IMO he shouldn't have been stamping on the faces of Silverwood and RFL officials, which is pretty much what he did.

I don't think GH was worried about any RFL punishment, I think he was trying to avoid being put into a position where the club might have to sack Hardaker. But like you, I wouldn't condone the way he went about that.