Not that I know of and highly doubt there was, however foul and abusive language is against the rules too and deserving of a match ban according to the RFL guidelines, yet never investigated.

Didnt Hock get a red for that

Wasn't that for swearing at the referee?

A perfect example of the difference between cases.
The ref heard it, it was directed at him so he sent Hock off.

In this case the ref knew it wasn't directed at him and didn't report anything but we now have a lip reader looking over the footage.

If it's the case then why hasn't a lip reader been employed in the past to read what players and coaches have been saying.

As I said swearing, in any capacity, is against the rules according to the RFL.
Why weren't previous cases investigated?

Love how the 'mock outraged' are so worried that the poor homosexual viewers could be offended by what Zak said. However, the only people who could be offended are those that have paused, rewind, played, pause, rewind, played the incident over and over to try any work out what he said - even after replaying the incident several times it's not 100% clear what he said, so why would anybody feel the need to pause, rewind, play (repeat x10) and then be outraged or offended - unless they had an agenda.

Its not about hearing it on the spot or rewinding to hear it.

If he did it this time, like he DID do it before the games rep is tarnished.

Sponsors will stop being involved with the sport and GH will not have a game to control.

The RFL cannot seen to ignore an allegation of it, no matter how small. If its proved he didnt do it then fine, least they looked into it.

What about the drug allegations in the NRL. They HAD to look at it.

You could almost to the same about a salary cap allegation, do you ignore it cos its in the past?

I'm not saying it should be ignored - I'm saying that nobody would have been offended unless they were looking for it, as on the live viewing, nobody could be sure what was said, so the mock outrage isn't warranted, it's people rewinding and replaying in the hope they can find something that might not even be there and that there is no concrete proof is there - it's ridiculous. We could slow every second of the game down and find thousands of potential issues, seems very sad that people have the time and desire in their lives to do this.

Begs the question why didn't Child send off Hardaker for the Warrington incident if he heard it and believed it was aimed at him.....IF.

Only two cases I can think of regarding gay slurs and neither ref took any on field action. Convenient that the only two reported times a ref has ever heard homophobic language has been from live games where social media has blown it all over the place and within a few days the ref remembers he heard it after all.

Anybody who believes Child heard the previous one and thought it was aimed at him, yet did nothing, is kidding themselves.

Does anyone know what the timings are for match reports etc?
From what has been 'reported' in the media (not tattled on here, facebook or twitter) journos at the post match interview asked the match commissioner whether a report had been made by silverwood about a player making homophobic comments. I'm presuming they had seen a twitter/facebook storm of people making accusations which led to them asking the question. The match commissioner said no report had been made. How long after the match is this interview?
When and how does the ref make his report? is it verbal and/or written? If written it could not be immediately after leaving the field. Does the ref make a verbal report then a detailed written one? Does he go to shower and change first - is it even done the same day?
Would it be conceivable that the commissioner hasn't received a full match report prior to the interview and that actually its journos stirring the pot?
Anyone??

More importantly, if Silverwood heard it and thought it serious enough to warrant inclusion in his report why didn't he act upon it?

Either he didn't hear it or he heard what Hardaker said and didn't think it serious enough to punish, like most foul language that's used on the pitch.

I do not believe the Leeds response was emotive. It bears the language of a carefully worded legal statement and I feel sure GH took time with legal experts (maybe even a Barrister) before it was made public.

As the RFL had already chosen to make this a public affair with no sense of responsibility for the player who could well be innocent of the allegations the RFL not only scored an embarrassing own goal because they themselves have brought SL into disrepute by raising the media profile of the affair. So it was only fair that Leeds too made a public statement especially as it appears the RFL have been negligent with regard to exposing, a so far uncharged player, to public character assassination by their actions.

In going public before the conclusions of an investigation and without hearing the player's defense of the allegations, they have shown a Politically Correct-like regard for justice and very poor judgement which they have compounded by not following the correct procedure with regard to the referee's report. If the referee has stated he heard what was said (belatedly or not) why did they feel it necessary to publicly call for a lip reader? This would suggest that Silverwood either stated it was not a homophobic comment or that he was not sure but it could have been. Either way he did not regard it important enough to record it in his after match report. So what pressure was put on him to change his report and by whom?

I cannot believe a court would convict just on the word of a lip reader but do the RFL plan to do so? If they do then they leave themselves open to an appeal with other lip readers as expert witnesses and calling the players who were nearby as witnesses in his defense. If they do not charge him they leave themselves open to legal action from Hardaker for compensation.

" Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!"

If that is true Mr Gotcha that is unbelievable!

I can see this getting VERY nasty.
How can anybody trust the RFL (IF) this is the case ever again.........

THE LAW OF LIBEL.
Broadly speaking the law of libel is broken if somebody or organization makes a statement or remark about somebody that is untrue. This is more serious if that person is in the public eye ,especially so if that persons reputation suffers greatly from the said remarks.

that would be fine if the RFL had charged hardaker but they havent. Instead the RFL took the conscious decision to release his name to the media as under investigation for homophobic abuse. Thats akin to the police naming a criminal before he has been charged. even then anything should be sub judice. The RFL suggest their panel has a quasi legal function and it should behave as such. They must be worried now about a defamation claim. In fact theres every reason for them to want him to be guilty because if not heads will have to roll. I would be amazed if Leeds and/or Zak didnt escalate this to the Court of arbitration for sport as this has been amateur hour from start to finish and he and the club have a reputation to protect.

In fact you would have to be a gay lip reader to be offended. Im sure there may be some out there but not many

Where was Silverwood stood when Hardaker said whatever he said?, I don't have the game on sky+ and cant find the tackle and drop out on line.

Zak's reputation has been damaged? Really?

I honestly don't know much about Zak. I haven't seen enough of his play to rate him and I don't really care about what happens off field so I don't know what his indiscretions have been. I saw the fall out from his last "homophobic" insult but as I didn't actually see it I never followed it closely.

But my impression of him from the LEEDS FANS ON HERE is that Zak is pretty much a stupid ****. He's rated as an excellent player but an excellent player who's pretty much the polar opposite of "Sir Kev".

So stop talking about his reputation being in tatters because of what the RFL have done because his reputation is pretty much the same as it was before the Saints game.

What a ridiculous post. Don't know much about it him, don't see him much, but yet you come out with rubbish like that. Of course his reputation has been questioned, if the press are making him out to be homophobic without proof of it. Once is honest mistakes, twice is always taken more literally by others.

Good heavens go away and think about your post

Does this mean that players can't be named before they go before the disciplinary then? Or a CLUB named as being under investigation for their fans behaviour, or a coach....... you see where this is going?
This is not a criminal matter so comparing it to the police naming an (alleged) criminal is pointless.
As for being worried about a defamation claim




And there's Leeds fans claiming that fans of other teams are blowing this out of proportion

Mark Aston has called for a vote of no confidence in the RFL not about the Hardaker thing ,but it looks like the game I headin for turmoil under this lot

Zak Hardaker has been tried condemned and lynched over the social media already so if the RFL do take him t?o a disciplinary I can see he and the club taking it higher because they wont believe he will get a fair hearing after this.By the way have you been reading some of the stuff that's been posted about him and his club?

This is probably the straw that broke the Camels back.
The RFL have been a mess for a while, and GH has been one of theirs strongest supporters, not any more.

Somebody told me the senior management at redhall are very highly paid with decent pensions. You may ask whats that to do with the Hardaker situation . I may well reply that if you pay high salaries and wages you should expect efficiency and professional expertise .

Zak's just served a 5 match ban after he admitted an offence of homophobic abuse.

He's been back less than a month and he's blowing a kiss at an opponent and then shouting something at him, something which many people have argued could be another homophobic comment.

The RFL haven't created this mess, Daft Zak has.

I definitely think the RFL has made mistakes after the incident, but so has Zak and so have Leeds. Zak's one of the daft twitter lads who are asking for trouble by being so accessible. Zak could have made a statement saying he didn't call him a puff and saying what he did say. He never did that. He seemed to try and brush it under the carpet and said him and Flanagan laughed about it after the game.

Leeds haven't said that he never made the comment, they are just complaining about the process and seem to be hoping that a lack of any proof will mean he gets off.

IMO Zak's reputation is the same as it was. He's just added another incident in his rap sheet.

I don't think anyone comes out of this with credit.

or is it high salaries indicates a 'managerial/ director role in the normal world. The old adage of people who cant get promoted comes to mind!!!!