So your indisputable photos are actually screen grabs from the video, a video that's split people's opinions all week?

oh good lord

Good innit.



Perhaps you should read the first line of the post and try to understand the point. You have (mainly Leeds fans) saying Zak is clearly speaking to a Warrington player, that some phantom Warrington player pats Ablett and winds him and Zak up, that Child is to the side and therefore Hardaker can't be looking at him, etc. None of that is true - as can be clearly seen in the video and pictures.

What is indisputable is that Hardaker is looking at and walking towards Child from the start, and that Child was directly in Hardaker's line of sight, at the penalty mark, when he spoke.

Actually it's pretty bloody clear what happened but don't let that stop your blinkers getting in the way. Ablett had a hissy fit and Zak joined in.

TBF as SaintsFan has stated, You don't even need to be looking at the ref, be anywhere near the ref or be conscious to be accused, found guilty and punished for foul and abusive language towards a referee. The referee just has to accuse you.

Not really.




I give in, you win.

I guess it is relevant though, given that Mr Child is gay; if Hardaker called him a "fu**ing fag," then he's guilty of something far more serious that being a potty mouth.

For the same reason, JP could be in hot water, if anyone other than the thousands of people watching on Sky had seen his outburst.

In more general terms, players stomping round the field effing and jeffing at, or about, the officials should be clamped down on; it's unedifying and not within the spirit of the game. If that effing and jeffing also contains a more sinister undertone, then both the governing body and the clubs involved should throw the book at the offending parties. Given that players are undoubtedly representing their clubs when they wear the shirt, one would assume that the club bears some liability for anything that crosses the lines of taste and decency, so it would be in their interest to do so; not to mention their responsibilities to sponsors and other stakeholders.

i disagree, i think that language has no place on an RL pitch whether someone on that field is gay or not.

That's not what I said.

You said it was irrelevant who he said it to; it clearly is relevant, since Mr Child has some protection in law from homophobic abuse.

I went on to say that in general terms, effing and jeffing on the field of play (and around it - take note Mr Wane) is unacceptable; I agree with you on that front - it's about time the 'it's a physical game' 'they're not playing tiddly winks' nonsense was put to bed, and our big daft professional athletes were made to understand their responsibilities; and that their employers were made liable if they've failed to educate them sufficiently about those responsibilities.

Everyone has that same protection whether gay or not, we shouldnt be using it anyway.

on your other point, i dont really care about players swearing in a moment of frustration. It has never bothered me. I only think we have a problem when we veer in to hate speech.

So in conclusion 2 players were having a row, neither player are looking at the referee one says some choice words which the referee hears and the player gets sent off because he is in the referee's personal space (yet his mic manages to miss him saying it).
It's a grade B offence (1-2 games) and with not evidence to prove the referee is correct other that the referee's take on it the player gets 2 games. Brilliant.

Yet peacock is seen on national TV saying similar and because the ref had turned a deaf 'un nothing happens.

Only in RL.

How did you work that out?

The only time his head turn towards the referee is when he us in his close personal space and yet that his mic didn't pick it up.
Convient that isn't it.

Who? Ablett? Hardaker?

Weyman.

We've moved on from that, do keep up.

It's relevant though because the player who got a ban WASN'T looking at the official anyway. Yet they saw fit to ban him for 2 games.

I'd suggest you actually watch the footage. It is indisputable that Weyman shouts directly at Roby as he is looking at him and walking right past him.

Might be useful if you also look at the level of protest from Weyman. He knows exactly what he has done and walks straight off when Roby gets the card out.

It is absolutely clear that Zak Hardaker is not addressing James Child. Those attempting to suggest he were are shown to be wrong by the lack of reaction from James Child and the fact that he is not being investigated for comments made to a match official.

Zak Hardaker must be an arthropod and have compound eyes. Carl Ablett is clearly human because he moves his head to talk address James Child as he walks past.

I wonder why you haven't got a wider shot tat includes Warrington players? To much perspective to suit your agenda.

IMHO ablett was berating the official, hardaker was shouting at warrington players behind the ref.

I have and the RFL looked at it for me as well. It seems neither of us agree with you as I'm sure the RFL would definately of mentioned him shouting at the referee as it would certainly help their argument.

So he shouted at Roby YOU say. Yet nothing comes through the ref mic.
Strange that isn't it. Maybe it's a mic that has a swear filter although that's not very helpful when you are trying to prove a player swore at an official is it so I guess it was working fine.


So let me get this right your reasons for Hardaker not doing it is a referee turning a deaf 'un.
Thats as laughable as the decision the RFL have just made toward Weyman.

I think it is entirely relevant who his comments were aimed at. In my opinion calling a heterosexual man a slang term for gay isn't homophobic.

Had the Warrington player reacted at his sexuality being called into questions, would that make him homophobic?

Had it been directed at James Child or a gay player, then it's a different context entirely. There would be a case to answer and a ban would be entirely in order.

Players do get annoyed at themselves and use bad language when they or team mates come up with an error. I'm fine with that. If it's directed at an error made by match officials, again it's a different context.

In my opinion, we need to stop the cameras being too invasive during games. Perhaps have footage available for disciplinaries etc, but not show every angle or close up during broadcasts.

Go and watch the footage. Read the statements from Horne and Weyman. They don't concur with the footage.

Horne No.15, does have a go at Weyman when he's on the ground. After Weyman gets up he walks round the back of Shenton. As he is on Shenton's left he motions his head towards the referee who is ahead and just to his right and shouts towards him.

The only other player close to the referee is Travis Burns, No.6. Horne is away to one side, totally not in the line of sight of Horne, nor addressing him.

As Wyman goes past Roby he turns so he is still addressing him. You will note that Horne does not make any attempt to speak to Roby when the card is produced, and Travis Burns offers very little in terms of discussion or protest. Weyman knows exactly what he did, which is why he doesn't protest or argue his case. He walks straight off.

You need us Saints fans to sort this out. We proved that Brough did not kick that goal, now were are my paint shop lines to show the direction ZH eyes were pointing.

Can't you read? I HAVE watched the footage as has the RFL.
Your argument is laughable as SHOUTING would be clearly heard on the referee's mic. Especially when he is in the referee's personal space (Thanks RFL) but yet it cannot be heard.

In fact can you explain how a referee can be SHOUTED at in close quarters without is being audible on a working mic?

I do hope you aren't representative of the intelligence level of Hull KR fans. Read the part of his statement where Weyman claims his comments are aimed at Horne. Then watch the footage and explain why Weyman is looking directly at and walking towardsRoby, motions his head towards him as he says whatever he did if he was speaking to Horne. Note where Horne is stood.

Of course, you'd then have to explain how Weyman felt he had to say something to the referee, given he was supposedly arguing with Horne when he was on the ground.

The referee heard it, Weyman was looking at him when he said what he said. You seem to be hanging your entire defence, despite all the evidence, on a microphone not picking up what Weyman said.

Now, stop being a silly boy and accept that Weyman knew what he had done, his reaction to the card is the dead give away, but was simply trying to get away with it in pleading not guilty. He didn't even bother to appear before the disciplinary himself.

So you can't explain it then. Why didn't you just say so?
I do notice you have dropped the word 'shout' though.







A dead give away as in 'This guy has given us diddly today so whats the point?' you mean?