GH is much smarter than to believe a kids lie. If Leeds are in any doubt you don't do what they have done.

The most concerning part of the whole thing so far, in my opinion, is if it's true the RFL have used a lip reader.

If that's true then, as I posted earlier, it puts the RFL in the position of having to watch every second of every available camera footage of every game to both pick up incidents the match officials missed and, with a lip reader, to work out every word, audible or visible, said by a player on the pitch.

Any swear words picked up are a game ban at least, depending on severity, according to the rules.

If Silverwood heard it why didn't he act upon it at the time?

So cos Suarez didnt mean it as in a bad way cos in his language its ok, thats ok?

Well god knows what GH said to Bailey and Senior then

GH said, "Plead guilty, STFU."

I have no problem at all with the club coming out to defend Hardaker if they think he's innocent. I also have no problem with them criticising the process. A lip reader if true is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard with respect to a sporting judiciary.

If the RFL have hired a lip reader and end up banning Hardaker, then IMO Leeds should hire one to review every week's games involving other teams, and constantly hand over 'evidence' to the RFL. I'm sure Leeds fans would happily join in the twitter witch hunts.

Doesn't language rely massively on context and it's intended meaning?

Yep.
If anyone remembers the behind the scenes dvd's that were brought out for GB in the 2005 and 2006 Tri Nations there was lots of foul and abusive language in that, both on the field and off it.
I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of foul and abusive language picked up by Sky cameras and microphones, indeed occasionally during quiet moments of you're stood near the action you can sometimes hear it at games from in the crowd.
Shaun Wane is well known for his use of industrial language and has been swearing at games live on Sky.
Yet no charge from the RFL.

The first Hardaker one (v Warrington) was different. It was audible, heard by the ref and most importantly, found to be directed at the ref.

This is, frankly, ridiculous.
As you say, if a lip reader has been used by the RFL then they have to review every minute of every piece of footage available to them in every game.

If he's found guilty and he did say it then he's an idiot who needs to pay more attention to the way his captain conducts himself (and I don't mean he should headbutt someone before some smart @rse says). But I don't believe he's homophobic, I think he's a young lad who gets carried away and needs to learn to compose himself more.

But regardless of whether he's found guilty or not I don't like the way it's been investigated or the increasing use of bans given out after games rather than properly penalised at the time.

Did any of the incidences of abusive/industrial language you've cited above involve homophobic abuse?

If not, then what point are you trying to make?

Actually, no its not. Its about how anybody watching it felt that matters, to which end the complaint could have come from anybody sat at home. Unlikely, but possible. Notwithstanding one's sexual orientation its already been noted the difference between some gentle ribbing (for her pleasure!) and aggressive acts from adversaries or strangers.

Interesting the witch hunt terminology and bias: many happy to state that no-one can know what ZH said but equally happy to believe my mate's dad speaking to or overhearing the match commissioner stating that the referee didn't have 'owt to report. All is open to speculation by us emptyheads and we all have different views on how each party should handle it. Mine is that people, including players, should use social media to stick to '...they're a good side and we had us work cut out, but we dug deep blah, blah, blah'. Once you lose it and then let everyone know, you're shot. Once RFL say they won't comment on active investigation, which seems perfectly reasonable, we do at least know its being looked at. Leeds's statement was a bit strong perhaps but they had to do something....a bit slow though.

Unfortunately for ZH he has already copped a ban (and probably deservedly) for homophobic comments this season and the previous will count against him if he has used the word puff and the powers that be believe so.

As for the incident, I don't think there was much wrong with MF's tackle although ZH did react quickly...probably aggrieved and indignant at being caught in goal to put his side under pressure towards the end of a tense and meaningful game...and just fronting up with a little bravado. I guess its just the fighting spirit necessary in some competitors....or maybe Flanagan whispered to him that he'd tailed Michelle Keegan.

And Zak's never watched Coronation Street and he thought Flanagan was bragging about being with Kevin Keegan?

it was the bubble perm that did it!!!!

The witch hunt point is valid because as far as I'm aware the RFL judiciary has never employed a lip reader to try to prove an offence relating what a player has said. That IMO creates an absolutely ridiculous precedent.

From what I can gather - which isn't a huge amount - it would appear that context and supporting verbal clues are usually a massive help in lip reading, as is context (which raises a very interesting question as to whether the RFL's 'lip reader' would immediately be biased if they knew what words they are looking for), and there are a number of 'sounds' which lip reading simply cannot pick up. It certainly doesn't sound incredibly convincing if used in evidence for anything, nor does its track record in UK courts.

Lets not forget that what Hardaker has been charged with is far more than a high tackle with a 2 match ban. If found guilty of this his reputation will be in tatters (his previous comment will eventually be taken in isolation as a one-off assuming he doesn't do it again), regardless of any ban.

No, I was stating the facts of the case. He admitted saying it thus isn't comparable to the Hardaker incident even though quite a few a Saints fans think it is.

...........................

Has anybody gotten round to designing the "Zak is Innocent" tshirts for Friday yet for us to all wear lol

Well he came out and said what he had said against Warrington before the hearing. Unlike the ref, the kid isn't a liar. If he said it he will say it.

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments There you go Saddened. Hardaker last time admitted pre verdict to using the language so not just a case of he'll never admit it.

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments There you go Saddened. Hardaker last time admitted pre verdict to using the language so not just a case of he'll never admit it.

I think the employment of the lip reader points to the fact there is little evidence other than the video. If no one heard it on the pitch, then I don't see how someone can be offended by what they think they see someone saying when lip reading on tv.

One scenario not put out there, could Flanagan have called Haraker a puff for complaining about the leg twist and Haraker repeated the taunt i.e don't call me that

That is, indeed if that word was said in the first place

I do find it amusing how many fans are coming on here telling GH how he should run the Club in response to this = GH by Plenty!

Haven't seen anyone mention that the Canal siders Gay RL Club where Zak worked during his ban have been very vocal on twitter in their support for him!

Lip reading would seem shaky evidence, of anything badlipreading.tumblr.com/

Lip reading would seem shaky evidence, of anything badlipreading.tumblr.com/

None of you can separate the swearing from the homophobic language.

We all know people swear, F's & B's & C's aren’t nice or clever, we have a wonderful English language and people should be able to articulate themselves in a better way.

However, insults directed using homophobic language is not on, its on a par with racism, which is illegal.

And you don't seem to be able to separate between someone not using such language, and someone using it.

The word on the street now is that Silverwood is extremely pished at the RFL. Apparently he did see no need for further comment on Friday night, as he did not hear anything homophobic. When pressed by the RFL over the weekend he then agreed he had heard something, but still nothing homophobic, to which he was instructed to put it in the report. Hence why Silverwood said yesterday there is two sides to every story and don't believe everything said, and why Leeds have concentrated their criticism on the RFL and the procedures.

Would appear the RFL were indeed looking for something not there, due to the uproar on social media.

So in the 40(ish) hours I was absent off these boards, an extra 27 pages of comments have appeared! Wow! Suffice to say, I have not read them all

So in that scenario the RFL have left one of their leading refs out to dry for no good reason, as well as one of their leading players. Marvellous.