I would absolutely agree Ablette looks directly at James Child and his eyes and body language show he is addressing him.

Hardaker is facing the Warrington team. He doesn't look at, turn towards or speak to James Child. He is clearly looking at and aiming his comment at a Warrington player throughout. What we don't see is what any Warrington player may have said to Hardaker. I'd suggest there was some 'banter' going both ways.

I think the fact that the RFL investigation makes no reference to comments being made towards the referee is key here. Also it has to be noted that James Child does not react.

I disagree,
What about Peacocks foul mouthed tirade, is that one being ignored?

Which part of my post that you left out don't you agree with?

As already said I haven't seen the Peacock clip. Is it online anywhere?

Let me repeat, and you can see this clearly on the clip: as Ablett is speaking, James Child walks to the penalty mark, passing across the front of Ablett and Hardaker, and is directly in front of Hardaker and in his direct line of sight when he speaks. If you don't believe this, follow Ablett's eyes as he watches Child pass him, just before Hardaker speaks.

Then, go back a few seconds and on the wide view. The first thing Hardaker does when the penalty is blown is have a strop, look at Child and shout something at him, walking towards him from behind Ablett. As he comes in shot in the close-up he just emerges from behind Ablett, staring and shouting at Child as he walks to the penalty mark. Even the commentators mention Leeds getting angry at the ref's decisions.

You can repeat what you're saying all day, but it simply isn't true. Ablett had a go at Child and Hardaker joined in.

But if you're so convinced - which Warrington player is he having a go at, and why? There was no niggle, no sledging, nothing untoward between the players at that point.

The part I'd already commented on in the previous post, please keep up!

F****cking hell. A few of you guys need to go on some of the JFK forums where your mindset will be appreciated.

You are completely wrong mate, and will be shown by the RFL.

Ablett had the ball stolen in the tackle and the ref awards a knock on. Ablett is not happy and vents his anger. The Warrington player patted Hardaker has he went past, gloating on the penalty, and Hardaker responded to that player.

What the RFL are investigating is the language used, and the fact it was picked up on TV.

me the same. if they are talking about me, even to a teammate, and i can hear it i deal with it.
most of the time its designed for me to hear it but they try to use the get out that they are talking to a team mate

What are you even watching? The penalty was for Leuluai lifting Monaghan's leg after the tackle, not a ball steal. No Warrington player touches Ablett. He doesn't look at any Warrington player and speaks only to Child, who walks past him (and Hardaker) to the penalty mark.

I think you need to go back and watch at 66:35 at realise everything you've just said is rubbish.

So Hardaker shouts a first time & Child doesn't react? Then you somehow think he does it again and Child again doesn't react?

You can repeat as many times as you like your completely unsupported view that Zak Hardaker aims his comments at james Child. Wide view, or close view, Zak Hardaker is clearly aiming his comment at a Warrington player on not James Child.

I'm actually of the opinion that Zak Hardaker doesn't have a case to answer.

Do I have to post pictures?

Do I?

Please do, you mentallist. Can you include some diagrams too with lots of arrows and maybe some dotted lines showing ZH's line of view?

Well if you lot can't see what's in front of you and make up fairy stories, sometimes nothing else will do.

This is 100% what happens. I cant even begin to fathom how someone can even suggest otherwise.

You could always wait for the RFL to review it before nailing someone to the wall just because you *think* you know what happened.

Let's see these pictures that conclusively show Zak Hardaker clearly looking at James Child when he makes his comments. Wide or close up will do.

Can you show us the grassy knoll as well?

This is much more fun.

You sure? You might end up looking a bit silly.

Oh well. Got some work to do for a while but I'll be back.

Wow, you really struck gold with that one.

I suppose the irony of that post is beyond you.

Obviously.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5408Based on the disciplinary report for the Weyman case[/url it wouldn't be necessary to have pictures that show conclusively that Hardaker was looking at Child. A sound track isn't even necessary.

No but a match officials report is necessary if those other aspects are missing.

Actually, given your bold claim that Hardaker is *clearly* aiming his comments at a Warrington player, perhaps that's what you ought to look at.

Oh look, Zak is already looking at Child, shouting at him and walking towards him.


Child walks in front of Ablett and Hardaker approaches from behind Ablett, still walking towards Child. Ablett begins to express his disappointment in the penalty call.


Child directly in front of them both and almost at the penalty mark. Ablett still expressing his disappointment.


Child directly in front of Hardaker and Ablett at the penalty mark. Zak begins to express his fondness for bundles of twigs with a prominent "F...".


So. No Warrington players involved. Everyone looking at Child. Child directly in Hardaker's line of sight when he speaks. In fact, Hardaker was looking at him and walking towards him all along.

Still think his comments were *clearly* directed at a Warrington player?

Love a good picture thread, me.

i dont know who Hardaker is speaking to there, frankly i dont care. Whether he aimed it at a Warrington player or the Ref is pretty irrelevant, its that he used those words (allegedly) which is the problem.

However if someone showed me those pictures in isolation, id be pretty confident in saying those two people were talking to different people,