Not really. A suspension by the club would be a more serious disciplinary measure where Hardaker would be at home for the duration of the suspension. In the same way as if you or I are suspended at work we aren't allowed in to continue working.

Not being selected for a game is like you or I having an important piece of work or responsibility taken off us. But isn't the same as being suspended.

Feel free to delete your account and join another site if you don't like this one

But if as has being said he is innocent (and not even charged of anything) why feel the need to omit his selection when otherwise fit to play? It's not like a few questions from the old bill is going to disrupt matters, certainly not for Leeds or indeed for Hardaker.
Given that he very much plays a pivotal role in the Leeds side one would feel unless the club knew something the general public doesn't, he would have being selected to play as normal?
You could certainly understand tongues wagging/speculating because of the non-selection.

Absolutely. I'm not proclaiming Hardaker's guilt or innocence in the matter, though he could have taken no part in the assault and still be disciplined by Leeds with regard to going out drinking until late "on a school night".

But as I said I have no idea what Hardaker's role in the whole thing is, just saying being suspended by the club is a harsher disciplinary measure than merely being "not selected". That probably happens within each club each season but for matters that aren't in the papers and so are announced as "illness" etc.

I have a feeling the club had discussed this with Hardaker earlier in the week, which is why Golding was named in the 19-man squad.

Actually, I don't even know what the allegations against Zak are, but I do notice the same forum members , who pathetically tried to defend his previous (and obvious) homophobic comments, are again being very vocal in his defence. Without knowing the accusation, if those posters again are, again getting so upset; I think he did it!

Loving ya work!

I'm surprised the site admin and mods have allowed this thread to go on so long with what appears to be a deliberately provocative title.

I don't know what has or hasn't happened or who did what if anything so I'm not going to speculate.

This thread wouldn't be allowed if it were a saints player (and they've had some right doylums).

I'm just wondering why people are quickly condemning key first team player from rival club Zak Hardaker.....

.....yet no one has made mention of squad member/U19 player from same rival club Elliot Minchella???

Surely they should be just as appalled by his involvement in this episode. Or does being more of a threat to other teams chances of success make a person more guilty and despicable?

One's an England international with a track record of poor behaviour.

The other is a complete nobody whose name sounds like a poor attempt to spell the name of the fella who plays second row for Hull.

Think that might be the difference.

The OP and the title are straightforward facts.

Given that one of those commenting is both an admin [iand[/i a Leeds fan, and appears to have had no problem with the OP or thread title, then it would seem reasonable to assume that any 'provocation' is in the mind of the reader alone.

And I can assure you, as both an admin and Saints fan, that were a similar report posted about a Saints player, in the factual and non-speculative way in which this has been, then there would be no reason to remove or lock it.

I also thought it was a bit strange to suggest that this threads title was "deliberately provocative title" i mean, this is the BBCs headline on it

"Zak Hardaker: Leeds Rhinos drop full-back amid police investigation" that to me makes it sound a lot worse that this thread title.

Both players released without charge, police matter closed. Club to carry out Inthernal investigation.

Time to move on.

Some right gompers on this thread, again.

That's good news for everyone IMO, that said he comes across as a bit of a mouthy sh it with a few short in the 'cells dept (hmmm, young sportsmen with a bit of cash stereotyping?) but that's only face value from my own POV admittedly.
As a highish profile sportsperson he has to try to ensure he keeps himself away from the idiots when socialising, not always easy to do but very easy to get embroiled/pulled down into something that can jeopardise your career. That's not to say these young lads shouldn't go out and enjoy themselves, just being more aware and wary of certain venues and situations that can put them in a spot of bother with a local after a few sherberts.
He's clearly a top talent, should be England's No.1 for a long time to come so hope he can stay on the right path and keep the headlines about what he's doing on the pitch.

Apart from the guy who got t****d ...

Maybe released without charge but according to the thread on Southstander, hardly released without a blemish. Probably going to linger for a while yet.

Admits the charge and pays a fine under community resolution (to avoid going to court). So all over and no shouting, but not, as Ovavoo says, without blemish.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -is-closed To be honest I was not aware this was even a channel that was open to offenders? Is the money a statutory amount? Even the RFL have bigger fines than that.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -is-closed To be honest I was not aware this was even a channel that was open to offenders? Is the money a statutory amount? Even the RFL have bigger fines than that.

Compensation to the victim rather than a fine. Get the feeling everything was agreed prior to anyone admitting anything. Don't think McDermott will let him off so easy.

Would payments made to victims count on the salary cap?

If paid by the club on behalf of the players, yes. But that's not the case. It's the players making the payment so it's no different to anything else a player pays for.

Even then I'm pretty sure a club wouldn't be so close to the cap that a few hundred quid would take them over.

From the low value of the payment, maybe there was more to this than a one sided affair.

If it was a one sided beating I would not settle for £400.

That's pretty much my view too.

I'm not excusing the 2 players by the way, just that I don't think its a straight forward case.

Keep racking up those misdemeanours Zak, your adoring fans still love you, jeez half of ‘em still think Savile was innocent

.

You can take the boy out of Ponte…

How many RL players have been involved in an altercation? how many have called an opposing playing a homophobic name in the heat of a game? how many have had a few jars too many at the wrong time?

as for savile, until hes brought before a jury of his peers and found guilty he is innocent. thats how the law works, you dont normally wait til someone has popped their clogs before bringing charges, but hey, who am i? lets call everyone guilty that has an accusation leveled at them and then let them prove their innocence.....