Exactly. You think he shouldn't have put forward his explanation. Unless, presumably, it had been one you approved of as not "undermining" his (undoubted) apology.

I've explained, with examples, why I disagree. You can simply repeat your initial remark - as you have - but that isn't addressing my point. It isn't taking any debate any further. It is simply restating your position and refusing to consider arguments against. That's fine. Just don't pretend you did.

For one thing Southpark isn't direct abuse so your comparison is just so far removed as to show you have no comprehnesion over such.
And secondly, you must have such strong mental fortitude nothing that has ever being said to you ever will affect you ever...meanwhile in the real world things said to someone that ARE offensive, that are said/shouted with vehemence and nastiness DO affect people all the time. You don't have to be weak to be effected by what people say, you just happen to be human and have emotions..seems you're eiither not human or you have no emotions whatsoever..I'm gambling on the former

For me, it's not about the swearing itself - we all say stupid things in the heat of the moment. It's about the double standards at Red Hall where our player got shown a red card, fined and a 2 match ban, yet two players from Leeds (one who has nobly appologised) get nothing. Maybe if the RFL were based in Hull.....

What is it with Hull KR? Why would you want 3 very different situations punished in exactly the same way? Especially one that is still under investigation. It's bizarre.

So because I'm someone who would be more inclined to ignore verbal abuse and let it fly over my head, I'm not human.

Good argument.

They all screamed verbal abuse at the ref so they're all the same.

In the end you're either in the 'refs should man up' camp or the 'refs need to be respected' camp. Regardless of which, parity in judgement and punishment should be applied.

Erm, they all seem the same to me. It's just one player plays for Hull Kr, and the other two play for Leeds.....Get my drift??
Jeez, what is it with Leeds?

So every high tackle is the same and deserves the punishment?

Have a read of what you wrote and my actual response because clearly you either haven't or just don't want o accept you're wrong..which is it?
Because according to you people are going to be personally offended by comments made in a make believe cartoon on TV in exactly the same way as personal insults/verbal attacks such as the one Hardaker has done here..

And on top of that no-one ever should be affected by name calling..




So I unfounded your ridiculous statement by asking if you are a) Human, and/or (take your pic) b) emotionally hardened never to be effected by verbal abuse. I plumbed for a on the basis of your earlier comparison between the likes of Hardakers Homophobic rant directed at another person and a cartoon...Is that a good enough arguement because if you can't grasp it then a is deffo the answer, you aren't a human being (in the normal sense of the phrase) because other human being's of adult age grasp basic understandings..unlike you it would appear.

www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

Well that was pretty grim reading, good link.

Knowing you, this will be a loaded question. In theory, yes. So we'll now have the argument that some high tackles are worse than others, some are deliberate and also how a ref interprets whether it WAS a high tackle. That in turn will come back to a refs interpretation of abuse thrown at him. If that's the case I will have just backed myself into a corner. Touche.

Depressing stuff.

Personally, I don't buy the 'heat of the moment' argument; either that stuff is in your vocabulary, or it isn't.

You have backed yourself into a corner, you're right.

Verbal abuse is different in most cases, just like physical abuse. For some to say that the incidents are the same is just plain wrong.

Saying that, the Hardaker incident is actually worse, and yet no conclusion has been come to yet over a consequence!

The first thing that should be looked at is the words used. Hardaker has used a term that too many people in society don't realise the connotations. Working in a school, I hear people insult others by saying "gay" and "bender" all the time. They know what it means, and they're not aiming it at someone who is actually homosexual. It's the fact that they use it as an insult that is the issue. As a slur. Suggesting that it is bad to be homosexual. That then engrains itself into that society as gays are bad, and then discrimination occurs because of it.

The good thing is, homophobic terms in schools have the same consequences as racist terms now. And so they should. For those suggesting "it's just a word", then I wish to hear your views on racism and racist terms.

The next thing to look at is where he said it and his role. He's a professional sportsman and a role model to thousands of kids. He is in a position of responsibility, and failed it by saying those words. So there does need to be consequences. What he says and does in his personal time out of the public eye is different. Know your audience. That wasn't the time or place to use comments like that. I'd be sacked if I said that at work. If your among your other people, then the consequences for using those terms are sorted out through social ways (either your friends will enjoy the banter or they'll think you're a n*b and won't talk to you). If you enjoy things like South Park, there's nothing wrong with that but you don't go repeating particular elements of it in a professional capacity.

Lastly, who he said it to. Now this is where there could be varying degrees of interpretations. From the close up, to me it doesn't look like he's directing it at the ref. I've not seen another shot though.
If it's at Monaghan, I don't think it can be perceived as him actually attacking his sexuality. Just an idiot saying the wrong word to insult someone (like school kids do). If it's at Child, then the same could apply. However, because it's the ref it's even worse. And because no one is quite sure on Child's position (not that it's any of our business), there's also the possibility it could have been a homophobic attack. I'm guessing that's what the investigation is about.

If it's at Monaghan, a few games ban to let the world know that that type of language won't be tolerated, regardless of the context. 4 games I think is the minimum for the grading.
If it's at the ref, and he's not gay (and if it's clear Hardaker wasn't suggesting he is), then add two games for dissent. 6 games.
If Child is actually gay, and if Hardaker knows this (again, I wouldn't have a clue), then the top punishment must be given.

But like I say, I reckon he said it to Monaghan. What is most interesting though (and one for the big club conspiracy theorists) is that it is reported that Child heard the comment during the game and was offended by it. If that's the case, why didn't he take action?!

Noticed a few Leigh players saying things to him during the game on Friday, I'm sure they were gently reminding him of the situation.

I think his screen grabs are pretty conclusive, when you watch the video it's clear Hardaker is talking to the referee.
My issue here isn't particularly with Hardaker who has been charged and will face the music and pay the penalty for his comments. My issue is partly with the Rugby football league who have failed to charge Jamie Peacock and Carl Ablett for their foulmouthed and unacceptable comments made towards the match official.

Again, why wasn't it dealt with by the ref at the time? And can the RFL bring charges, should the official choose not to report it? I'd imagine that it's one offence that's difficult to prove by means of video. Then there's consistency to consider. For every player caught gobbing off at the ref in camera there's almost certainly many, many more who aren't.

I'm in general against regular directives to temporarily clamp down on this, or clamp down on that, but if the refs were directed to have a spell of restoring 10 metre march-backs for players gobbing off out of turn, then that would get my firm vote. Simple, swift and proportionate justice.

Peacock must be sweating, throwing punches must surely mean he will get at least double Hardaker's punishment

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6663519 Well done Jamie for proving how much of a hypocrite you are as we didn't see you saying a peep about the disciplinary panel last week because it suited you and your team.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6663519 Well done Jamie for proving how much of a hypocrite you are as we didn't see you saying a peep about the disciplinary panel last week because it suited you and your team.

Hmm, calling somone a name Grade E, physical assault Grade B. Madness

its funny how uptight the Hull KR fans have got about Weyman's punishment. You do realise that foul and abusive language is judged by the referee?

Its perfectly possible that one ref finds something offensive that another doesnt. you might not offend a ref, you might. Your way to avoid that is to not use foul and abusive language and you wont cop a ban.

Hardaker's charge is completely different.

Peacock is entirely right though. I would rather see players have a punch up than what Sarsfield did. If we need to stamp either out of the game its the latter not the former.

That is the most laughable excuse for it I have seen to date.

its not an excuse it is a fact.

Foul and abusive language is decided by the referee.

Hull KR fans running around shouting "miss miss, but Jamie swore as well miss" isnt going to make any difference.

Zak Hardaker has been charged with a different offence.