I just hope Hardaker can remember which Wire player he was shouting at

Are you disagreeing with me because you're convinced that Hardaker was not talking to Mr Child?

I'm not expressing a view either way on that - the point I'm making is that if he was, the matter is significantly more serious than if he was talking to a non-specific heterosexual Warrington player.

And that's without considering Jamie Peacock, who was clearly seen calling Mr Child a "fu**ing bent " on the Sky coverage - an offence which saw a SL coach fined a significant amount some seasons ago.

As for your suggestion of removing cameras - that's potty; surely the sensible answer is to educate professionals involved in the game to moderate their behaviour? I believe it is actually possible to express frustration without resorting to foul and abusive language.

What is there to explain you stupid boy?

Watch Weyman's head action, looks like he shouts aggressively at Roby to me. I note you haven't commented on the glaring discrepancies in Weyman's statement.

I thought I had agreed with your point on the target being relevant? I haven't seen the Peacock clip, is it available anywhere.

I am absolutely of the view that Hardaker was in no way addressing his comment at James Child. There is no way JC would have tolerated it and no way he could be expected to. The investigation isn't into comments made to a match official.

I didn't mention removing cameras, just being a little more careful about not being too invasive. At the end of the day players shouldn't be expected to alter their mindset because someone watching on television might not like what they say during a game. For me it's down to the governing body, match officials and players to take care of this aspect of the game.

When it comes to abuse of match officials, I'm on the side of letting it ride & relying on the referee's judgement in a game situation, but coming down hard, as Roby did, if it's direct and intentional.

Are you daft in the head? Hardaker doesn't even start speaking until Child is right in front of them, at the penalty mark.

A few questions seeing as you keep avoiding them:
- who does Hardaker look at immediately the penalty is blown?
- who does Hardaker shout at immediately the penalty is blown?
- who does Hardaker walk towards immediately the penalty is blown?
- who is stood directly in front of Hardaker when he shouts the now infamous obscenities?
*clue: it's the person with a camera on his head

And why do you still think it's "clear Hardaker addresses his comments to a Warrington player", when actually Child is directly in his line of sight and no Warrington player has been involved at all?


Because there wasn't one.

Are you bogged eyed?

Pipe down.

I haven't seen a wide shot of Hardaker's incident, which is why I'm not making any judgement about it; I don't know who he was talking to and without that kind of view, it's impossible to tell. If he said it to Child, he's a homophobic idiot - if he said it to someone else, he's still an idiot, but could have some defence in respect of the homophobic bit. Either way, you can't go around calling people fags on live TV broadcasts.

I don't know about Peacock; I clearly saw it during the game and I think some people posted clips on Twitter - but I don't have one, or a link to one.

I think your suggestion about invasive camera shots is wrong-headed; in this modern age of super zoom and high definition TV, viewers want and expect to be close to the action and to see it in detail. Broadcasters work hard and spend a fortune to deliver what viewers want and I don't see why they should change that, because a group of professional sportsmen can't rein in their offensive language.

In a thread discussing who Hardaker was talking to you think who his attention is on is irrelevant?


You're not very clever, are you? Hardaker speaks (shouts) twice. Once just after the whistle and again just after Ablett speaks.


In a thread discussing who Hardaker was talking to you think who he was advancing toward and his attention is on is irrelevant?


Incorrect. Child is. Standing at the penalty mark. Directly in front of him. In his line of sight. In front of him.

Odd you're not claiming it was a Warrington player seeing as you're strangely convinced he was "clearly" addressing a Warrington player.


So where do you think was Child stood?

What footage bears this out? Which Warrington player? Why, seeing as there had been no altercation? You're not being very clear about all this.




So it's a conspiracy now is it? Deary me today.

Have to disagree on the coverage issue. There's a balance to be struck on the level of influence it has. The psychological battle is as much a part of the game as the physical. Would be interesting know who instigated the pursuit of Hardaker.

Will you learn how to quote? It's not difficult.


No it's not. It's also about who Hardaker is talking to. Therefore Child is very relevant.


I've reached the conclusion you're either trolling or simply a complete idiot.

James Child walks in front of Hardaker and Ablett as Ablett speaks to him. He goes to the penalty mark. The penalty mark is directly in front on Hardaker and Ablett. You don't seem to understand this.


Yes, it shows Hardaker walking towards Child, as Child walks to the penalty mark.




You can't really be so stupid, surely? Child has just passed out of shot because he's gone to the penalty mark - directly in front of Hardaker and Ablett.


So you can't answer that then. If you don't know, how can you be sure in your assertions?

Let me try again: James Child walks in front of Hardaker and Ablett as Ablett speaks to him. He goes to the penalty mark. The penalty mark is directly in front on Hardaker and Ablett.


Yes, Ablett talks to Child as he walks in front if him. You see Ablett turn his head as he watches him, ending up facing directly forward as Hardaker begins to shout.

I see you still aren't answering questions. That's always a sign of a dying argument.




Bad form for idiots to have access to the internet but here you are.

Oh do shut up you ing stupid, moronic, agenda driven keyboard warrior . Fucking moderator? Fuck me that's hilarious. Moderator on a ball two bit forum that's infested with knuckle dragging witts. Class act.

I raise a glass to you sir, that's a cracking crash & burn.

=#FF0000
Breach of AUP removed
Chris

I know it's callous to stroll past someone in the middle of a mental breakdown but, would sky keep all their recorded footage? I wonder if the investigation could see different camera angles in a post event situation? Apologies if it's been asked before, I'm not wading through this pig-pen of a thread!

It would seem, rather like ebay, this site has it's fair share of hackers!

Profanities galore in an apparent attempt to have me removed.

Normal service has been resumed.

I have not seen it come to light who raised the issue but it could have been raised by "anybody in a professional capacity" at the game (official, referee, player, coaching staff etc).

As regards evidence, the RFL will call upon any and every piece of evidence available. This will include reports by the officials, TV coverage, maybe even any CCTV at the ground.

Will a line be drawn under this once the RFL have investigated? Maybe but then again maybe not. Anybody who was offended by what (is currently perceived) was shown could infact report the matter to the police, who would then be forced to consider an investigation as a sexually motivated case of abuse.

In a nutshell, it is irrelevant (if the apparent comments were said) who they were aimed at, who heard them, who reported it, was the person at whom they were aimed offended, ZH could find himself in a whole lot of trouble. Many have asked why should this be any different than the language you hear week in week out on the terraces. "Why" is a question for scoiety, but the fact that it is is because by law it is recognised as such. Do I expect ZH to be sentenced to a prison sentence for a hate crime ? No (ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually fall in that category). Would I, however, expect the RFL and Leeds Rhinos to come down on him like a ton of brick. Certainly. Afterall they (and their representatives) are the ones who instigated and have fully signed up to the RFLS respect campaign.

It could however fall into the category of a 'Hate Incident,' according to the ACPO definition:

“Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments Hardaker issues statement. I applaud what he has said. He will take his punishment (by his wording I'm guessing there will be one) and move on.

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments Hardaker issues statement. I applaud what he has said. He will take his punishment (by his wording I'm guessing there will be one) and move on.

I'm actually disappointed with Hardaker's comments. Why can't professionals just apologise properly and sincerely?

"I was deeply saddened when I found out after the game how my comment had been perceived."

You called someone an effing fag. The issue isn't how that was perceived but the fact you said it.

"Clearly certain words have powerful meanings other than that intended at the time."

It sounds a lot like he's trying to diminish what he's actually done. He didn't mean it that way and it's just that we've perceived it badly. Not an appropriate apology at all if you ask me.

I should mention that I haven't read most of this thread, but if Facebook is anything to go by the number of people from all clubs who think homophobic slurs are nothing to worry about is quite saddening. As one person puts it "it wasn't racist so just let them get on with it." Yeah we can't have racism, but homophobia, that's alright.

i think thats a bit of nonsense really. Hardaker explained that he reached for the wrong word in a moment of frustration, and expresses sadness and responsibility for the hurt he caused. As I said on the Leeds board, most of the justification and mitigation we have seen is that he didnt mean that way so its ok, or that it wasnt that big a deal so its ok. I can't see why we would criticise him for explicitly accepting responsibility for the hurt caused even though he didnt mean it that way.

So by that logic If I use the N word then say I meant to say kn.. that mitigates it slightly? Sorry that is rubbish
He DID use a homophobic word and no matter how much wriggling he makes nothing changes that.

I wouldn't use the word fag no matter how much frustration I felt as it's a homophobic comment in much the same way as I wouldn't the N word no matter how much frustration I felt as it's a racist comment.