I'd just like to say that I could not be bothered watching the video so I have no opinion worth mentioning (which puts me in good company) but this is my 100th post so whoopee.

It's a bit like saying sorry for breaking your greenhouse but you shouldn't have built it out of glass and put it in your garden next to my house..
Typical PR guff written to try take the edge off any impending sentence and doesn't show any true remorse at all.

It wouldn't surprise me if the RFL say that there is no comprehensive evidence he's saying it to Child and therefore give him a slap (2-3 matches) and a small fine, which given the inconclusiveness of the Weyman incident (& the fact the ref mic didn't pic anything up despite being in his 'personal space' when he supposedly said whatever he said!) would be an absolute travesty of justice.
Personally I think the RFL need to grow a pair and give him an 8 match ban and further make a statement to say that any homophobic/racist comments made at players, officials, or fans including gesticulations etc will not be tolerated at any level. That if caught during a match should be an automatic sending off and will further punished.
As Cronus said, there is a massive social responsibility here and we cannot keep excusing players on the basis of 'heat of the moment' because that is complete and utter rubbish. If you can't show some control, don't engage in activities that somehow mean you lose control..or is it that some people are just like that and that they nail their true colours to the mast with these outbursts because they just cannot help themselves they are so deeply ingrained with their hatred toward such?
There's some psychology evidence to suggest that Hardaker's reaction is because he's aroused sexually by men & that he has latent homosexual feelings possibly angry with himself/others for not being allowed to 'come out'..thus directing that anger toward them..

To be fair they aren't already

Disciplinary 15.1(f) classes it as E-F so 4-8 matches or more. And that's if its not aimed at the ref. I agree though that it needs to be stamped out, regardless of who says it, who says what. Peacock should also have someone in his ear warning him too if that video is in any way accurate.

Then it's you who has comprehension issues. You posted:


So are you now saying that, when you wrote those words, your point was that actually the above quote was totally unconnected with Hardaker or your response to Hardaker's situation? Why on earth would you bring in to a discussion a wider general proposition, unless you thought it was relevant to your point?

Your clearly stated problem was



Indeed. that would be:


Your case is that having called someone "an effing fag" there is absiolutely nothing, at all, to add or explain. Your proposition is that Hardaker must simply issue an unqualified grovelling apology. he must not try to explain, because there is no explanation worth giving. He must not qualify, because anything else detracts from his apology, and renders it unfit for purpose.

The question I would ask is, why? You are over-simplifying it to the extreme. It is NOT just that he " called someone an effing fag". It is clearly helpful in judging Hardaker - which is what you are doing - to have his explanation of all relevant circumstances. NOT just "Yes I did say those words". This is, of course, "mitigation", and is, of course, precisely what the RFL will listen to and consider when they decide on an appropriate penalty. And quite right too. You would want him to simply state that he is sorry and shut the fsck up. So we would have no clue whether he is actually sorry or not, nor would we have any explanation from him a sto how it happened, nor would we have any version from him of whether or not he holds hompophobic views, nor whether it was such views that prompted his outburst, or something else.


Aww, a wannabe mod too! Bless. But I find your position silly. Where would we be if all a person who had said what Hardaker did was only allowed to issue a simple, bald, one phrase apology, and was prohibited from going on to explain themselves? You seem to be of the view that Hardaker has used the phrase, and so that is it, he can and should say nothing to attempt to contextualise it; nor give an insight into what he was thinking; nor how he feels on the wider issue of homophobia; nor what he meant by it.

If you had your way, then anyone who used that expression at any time, under any circumstances, would be equally condemned regardless of circumstance. Don't you think that is a bit extreme?

tl;dr

I got a far as the part where you accused me of having comprehension issues whilst trying to prove I said something by quoting a post where I didn't say it.

it might just be me but im not sure its all that helpful to your defence of your comprehension skills to preface that defence by stating the post was too long for you to read.

After such an awful start there's no way I'm wasting my time reading the rest of it. FA has clearly got an axe to grind and is using my post as a spring board. Perhaps CBA is a better acronym

Axe to grind?

What on earth would that be, then?

I'm sure you understand the point but won't backtrack. The question is simple: what would you have Hardaker do, then, if he isn't allowed to explain?

Exactly.
Like I said it's like using the N word and then trying to slightly mitigate it by saying well he only said in the heat of the moment. Racism is racism in much the same way as homophobia is homophobia.
I for one wouldn't use the word fag as it's a homophobic comment and as such the word wouldn't be in my 'heat of the moment' vocabulary.

[url=http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-jonah-hill-apology-homophobic-slur-paparazzi-20140603-story.htmlJonah Hill uses F- word[/url - and has the temerity to try to explain it, too.

Sorry Jonah, but according to EGW and others, there's absolutely nothing you can say now, once that word passed your lips. That was that. You're fooked.

However, Hill's explanation to me gets right to the root:

Personally I accept that that's entirely possible, and in both Hill and Hardaker's cases, probable, and there is nothing wrong with either of them explaining their case.

Oh no he is allowed to explain all he want's.
The fact he used a homphobic comment doesn't change though. As I say I wouldn't use that word as it's homophobic so it wouldn't be in my 'heat of the moment' vocabulary.

Still poor ikkle Zak is misunderstood and didn't mean to use a homophobic word that wouldn't be used by a non homophobe AT ALL.

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing at all.

Some wouldn't use that word AT ALL as it wouldn't cross their minds to use it.

You can decide why it wouldn't cross their minds.

I can't, though. I can (like you have) offer a view but nobody can "decide" as nobody will ever be able to see inside their minds. Look, I realise that you and others are convinced if someone uses the F- word, then they are morally inferior to you, and can only be a homophobe. You believe that is the only available explanation. had they had your moral virtue, then the word would not have crossed their minds.

So, there is nothing else they can say, which could make any difference.

Do I have that about right?

It's just an extreme position, with which I disagree.

It is also a foolish and naive position, since I would have to take your word for it that it "wouldn't cross your mind". I don't know you from Adam, so you might be lying through your teeth.

It is also hypocritical, since you think it is OK for you to big your moral position up by your holier-than-them exposition of the purity of your thought processes, whilst seeking to deny people who may use the word the same right to explain their thought processes.

Who said he wasn't allowed to explain? I certainly didn't, just like I didn't say he was a rampant homophobe. You're so determined to have this argument that you don't seem to care whether anyone has made the points you're arguing against.

There were specific comments within his statement which undermined his apology, which I've already discussed. From that it should be clear what I think he should have done, but you'd rather continue with this strawman of yours where I've supposedly said a whole host of things you'd prefer to be arguing about.

Yes I'm lying through my teeth obviously.
Maybe they should change the description of the word. Maybe it should now read.

Fag

noun

North American • informal, • offensive (Unless the person is VERY sorry in which case it should just be ignored)

A male homosexual.

I'll get onto the The Oxford English Dictionary publishers right this minute.

I'm sure you get the point, you're just avoiding answering it.

Doesn't your outrage at this whole debacle and your vehement position upon the use of this particular word identify that said word is in your vocabulary whether you would use the word choicely or not?

Have you never said anything you aren't ashamed of?

You mate is searching for straw men, that's a great one, can you pass it on? But it is quite ironic reading claims of moral virtue from the VT's answer to Richard Keys.

Seriously?

13 pages, we're still doing this?

Whatever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

I think words are cheap. Things like homophobia is an attitude, not simply the utterance of a word. Of course Zak shouldn't have said it and he'll rightly be punished. But the faux outrage and holier than thou bullsh*t on here over a word is cringeworthy.

Don't ever watch South Park or family guy. You'll be crying down the phone to mummy.

This is sort of just going round in circles now...

ZH said something stupid, whilst he was frustrated at a point in a match. He was caught, he has apologised and he will most likely be punished. I don't see how any posters on here who don't know the man can comment on his personality off the pitch. He may be homophobic, he probably is not. I don't care, the only important thing is people realise what the can and can't say in public. I'm sure Zac does now.

I have said things in the heat of the moment that I shouldn't have and I regret. That is the position Zac finds himself in now. He has said he will accept whatever punishment the disciplinary deem appropriate and will move on. We should do 5he same.

The interesting (for want of a better word) thing moving forward is whether the disciplinary believe him when he said it was aimed at MM rather then the Ref. If they don't , as they didn't in the Weyman case, the ban could be very severe.

Jesus wept! I've answered it pal. More than once.

Some people spend too much time on here, and need a life!

Er, no, you said you didn't bother reading it. Call me picky, but that's not quite the same.

The post you quoted asked what Hardaker was meant to do if he wasn't allowed to explain. Since the issue I have is with specific comments in his statement which I feel undermine his apology I obviously think he should have apologised without those comments. Sorry if that doesn't conform to the argument you wanted to have where I've supposedly called him a rampant homophobe. Keep going though, you aren't looking like an argumentative nob at all.