I know the other thread is now locked but it seems the RFL may yet take action; www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/29030926

I know the other thread is now locked but it seems the RFL may yet take action; www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/29030926

But of course everyone is just witch hunting!

the rfl are just jealous of him.

So, it appears that no complaint was made by a player, nor was it included on the Ref's match report. It seems the incident is being investigated after pressure from Social media.

A big well done everybody! Let's hope there's consistency shown from you all. Let's make sure we're all as keen on Thursday night during the Saints - Warrington game. Let trial by social media commence..... Who needs referees?

If Hardaker is found guilty (again) he has absolutely nobody but himself to blame. If you cant see that, then more fool you.

What he said.

Whereas if he's not guilty he's got nobody no blame but a handful of idiots on the forums whipping up unnecessary controversy.

And if you can't see that, then more fool you.

And yet roughly 100 players in the same league as him avoid it every single week. So hes still a silly boy for putting himself in that position. But yeah, lets blame the masses for the actions of the individual, as opposed the individual for the actions of the masses, that always goes well. In other news, Hitler never actually took any jewish persons life during wwII, so he cant be blamed for the holocaust. (No, I am not comparing Hardaker to Hitler, its a proof by ad absurdum.)

Wow. Very early in an argument to lose by Godwin's Law, but you managed it.

thats an impressive amount of nonsense right there.

If Hardaker didnt make a homophobic comment, what do you want him to do to stop others inventing that he had?

If Hardaker did he should be punished.

If he hasnt then he has every right to think badly of those who have whipped up an entirely unnecessary controversy. Your comparison with the Holocaust is not only crass and unwarranted, its confused and wrongheaded aswell. The two situations are not analogous at all. The premise as it was set was that Hardaker hasnt made a homophobic comment. Whether Hitler actualy took a jewish persons life during WW2 is so far from relevant i honestly have no idea how you got there. Its not proof by ad absurdum. Its just absurd nonsense

I think it's appropriate for the RFL to investigate an incident of this nature that caused controversy amongst RL supporters. The RFL have to be seen to be proactive towards this behaviour, even if there are no charges brought because the evidence is inconclusive.

I personally believe that he blew a kiss at the Saints player and called him a "puff." So he should get banned for longer than last time.

Eh? So the video clearly showing him behaving like this (again) is something that has been imagined? And the Holocaust didn't happen either?

Bizarre. Do you wear a black shirt?

except the video doesnt clearly show it at all.

it may show it, but pretending it clearly does is just lying. Which is an odd thing to do. Not quite as odd as somehow pretending its the same as holocaust denial but odd all the same.

Its funny how Kevin Sinfield avoided being accused of it throughout his career. Jamie Peacock and Ryan Hall have managed to. Hes a silly boy (and has no one to blame) for being under investigation for it, and he also is a silly boy and has no one else to blame if hes found guilty. The point was that regardless of whether he actually committed the crime or not, he put himself in that position through his actions, and thus takes responsibility for any and all fallout for the events that occur. If Hitler did take lives, does that make him more culpable than if he didnt? No, because of the position he put himself in. It was potentially an insensitive example of me to use, for which I apologise for any offence caused, but you cant blame "goody two shoes" fans (or anyone else) for Hardaker blowing a kiss, or (alledgedly) saying what he did.

there is an unfortunate presentation in this, jumped on by a few in this thread already (some hilariously misguided) that investigation = guilty

If hardaker is found guilty, then he should be punished and by more than last time.

If he isnt, then this is an entirely invented and unnecessary issue whipped up by a few fans.

Smokey, in that entire statement you said "IF" Hardaker made an homophobic comment. So why criticise people who believe he did make it. How are they any worse for those who believe he didn't make it?

There's is sufficient footage for the RFL to investigate (i don't think anyone can deny that)

Of course it's not Hardaker's fault for getting himself in this situation again.

Sorry....... you would blame Hardaker for an entirely incorrect accusation? That even if he didnt make a homophobic remark he is responsible for other people incorrectly thinking he did? He is responsible for other peoples mistake?

I wouldnt blame the fans for Hardaker making a homophobic remark, I would blame fans(those fans who did anyway) for saying that he did make a homophobic remark if he didnt.

It is absolutely insane to say that whether he made the remark or not he is responsible for the fall out. how on earth can he be responsible for the fall out of a comment he didnt make and a crime he didnt commit?

I have no problem with the RFL investigating.

I dont think he said 'puff' i dont know that he didnt. I wouldnt criticise those who think he did say 'puff' but didnt know that he did.

I think those who know that he did are clearly lying and deserve any and all criticism that comes their way.

Hang on a minute, let's deal in facts.

He has recently been banned for homophobic abuse on live TV.

Last week, again on live TV, he decides to blow a kiss at a player and shout abuse that, at best, is open to interpretation.

You can't then blame people, watching him on live TV, for interpreting his actions or, for some, simply stating what they believe he shouted.

There is one person at fault for this furore, even if he's found not guilty, and that is Hardaker - give his recent history he SHOULD NOT be blowing kisses and shouting questionable abuse on live TV! It's really quite simple, as Zak appears to be.

Nothing "goody two shoes" about "fans" who sit behind a screen, watching the same piece of tape again and again and again desperate to see something that isn't there, and all with the aim of destroying a lady's career.

When the dust has settled on this I'd expect it'll be these "fans" who'll have to take a long look at themselves, not Hardaker.

You certainly can blame those people. Hardaker is not at fault for people mistakenly deciding he said something he didnt. If he didnt say it, the only ones to blame the furore are those who jumped in with both feet, decided they knew best and turned out to be wrong.

There is nothing wrong with these people saying 'i dont know' before they wrap themselves up in what would unnecessary, unwarranted and entirely misplaced offence.

There is only one pertinent fact. We dont know, anyone moving past that is entirely and solely responsible for that decision.

.

You utter retard.

He blew a kiss = homophobic (well obviously if you say so)

He called him an effing puff (yeah of course, you are clearly the beacon of all knowledge, I can't believe anyone thought it was inconclusive)

He should get a long ban (who needs the RFL? Judgement made)

Magic, never bring the Nazis into an arguement. It's distracts from the point and gives people an easy thing to bash away with, rather than the point in question.

As to whether he should be investigated or not. It's a chicken and egg arguement.

The arguement is that he should not be cited as the ref and players did not bring it up.

My comparison would be that someone on the street allegedly commits an offense and the lawyers for the defense say that there should be no arrest as the police and any alleged victim did not report it.

But a group of bystanders did see it and have reported it. Therefore an investigation is valid on the basis of witnesses.

This does not prove guilt, but the (Leeds fans) Lawyers for the defense push the arguement further saying that there should never have been a discussion about it because no one is 100% sure of what they have seen.

I would argue that no witness is 100% sure of what they have seen or heard, but plenty of people are investigated from witness accounts. You can't really be 100% sure of anything. As we are not talking criminal charges and only sporting or civil proceedings the proof required is only on the balance of probabilities.

On the balance of probabilities you are talking 50/50. Is it more than 50% likely he said one thing or another. Any decision will be made on the evidence presented, but previous behaviour can lend weight to this. Either in favour or against.

For example someone sighted for a head high shot if there has been no similar behaviour before would be more likely to be believed to be accidental unless the evidence is more substancial that it is not accidental.

Were as if it can be shown to be part of a pattern of behaviour ie the 'Hock' senario. Then it's more likely to be picked up and face a heavier ban.

Either way, just because someone other than the ref or a player has reported it, does not mean it should not be looked at.