I'm critical because I don't think he has apologised properly. As SaintsFan said on the Leeds board, saying sorry for what you did and for the offence you caused is a proper apology. Saying you were saddened for how people perceived it gives the impression that you think the issue is with their perception, not your behaviour. It's like when people say "I'm sorry that you found it offensive" rather than "I'm sorry I offended you". Along with the other comments about the risk of some words being "unintentionally" being offensive and having meanings other than those intended it strikes me that Hardaker doesn't want to own his wrongdoing at all.

and he couldnt have apologised for his comments and the offence they caused more explicitly than saying

“First and foremost, I would like to apologise for any offence my comments during that game have caused"

“I have complied fully with the RFL’s investigation, never looked to deny what I said and will accept their judgment.

“I made a mistake and hopefully, if any good can come from this situation, it is that everyone thinks about the words they say and how they can cause unintended offence to those around us"

"Zak has made a mistake. I am confident this was a genuine error of judgement and that he understands the offence his comment has caused."

Isn't that exactly what you asked for? It's IN THE STATEMENT. Do you still have a problem with the apology, because if you do it must be for some other reason.

I've stated exactly what parts of his apology I have a problem with and why. If you want to believe it's because of something else then that's your own bias.

You said a proper apology is saying sorry for what he did and for the offence that he caused. That is exactly what's happened. Any stuff around "perception" is separate to that.

It isn't exactly what happened and the stuff about perception isn't separate. He apologised for causing offence but then undermined that by saying everything he did about perception.

You seem to want Hardaker to admit that he's a rampant homophobe, and that his use of the word was used because he is a rampant homophobe, and was therefore meant in the way that to be a "fag" is as bad a thing to be as he could think of, to call someone. I would be surprised if he is, and while he thoughtlessly used a word he shouldn't have in the heat of the moment, I don't believe that I can fully assess his entire character or world view on the basis of one microsecond expletive. I get where he's coming from and I don't believe he used it in an all-out homophobic spirit so it is fair enough that he tries to explain his side.

You mean you applaud what his agent/Leeds management has advised him to say and prepared for him?

That statement is nothing more than a damage limitation exercise and an attempt to get the case for the defence out in public before the RFL reaches its verdict in the hope they are swayed. Clever, but remains to be seen if the RFL fall for it. I suspect they probably will.

It's also another faux apology from someone only apologising because they got caught, the sort we see from politicians, officials, celebs, sports stars all the time. They never ring true and neither does this.

If he's aimed it at Monaghan I'm not actually all that fussed. It's not a word he should use but it didn't offend me personally and I'm not in the habit of taking offence for other people - frankly there's little I would say 'offends' me. The powers that be, however, have wider social responsibilities and can decide how seriously they view it and what action they deem appropriate.

However, if he's abused the ref (as I believe he has), the penalty should be significant - again, not because it 'offends' me, but because abuse of officials should be met with zero tolerance. The fact it's homophobic of course adds weight, certainly if Child is gay and this is known by the player (as has been rumoured). The game has always held the utmost respect for officials no matter what, and that cannot and must not change.

I have heard Hardaker interviewed several times. I must confess that I was surprised by the erudition of his personal statement. It resembles the sort of thing that would be created by senior managers. I am sure Hetherington would not permit such two faced behaviour.

That's a statement written by a lawyer as a damage limitation exercise - Hardaker would no more have that in his vocabulary than I would have it mine to call someone, for example, a fu**ing fag.

This is a strange post. I haven't said anything at all about him being a rampant homophobe, or said anything about his worldview, or even his character. Quite why you've brought those things up is a mystery. I've been quite clear on what it is I'm being critical of, so if you can't comprehend that enough to respond properly to it then you'd be better off not responding at all, or find someone who does hold the views you obviously want to sound off about.

I'd just like to say that I could not be bothered watching the video so I have no opinion worth mentioning (which puts me in good company) but this is my 100th post so whoopee.

It's a bit like saying sorry for breaking your greenhouse but you shouldn't have built it out of glass and put it in your garden next to my house..
Typical PR guff written to try take the edge off any impending sentence and doesn't show any true remorse at all.

It wouldn't surprise me if the RFL say that there is no comprehensive evidence he's saying it to Child and therefore give him a slap (2-3 matches) and a small fine, which given the inconclusiveness of the Weyman incident (& the fact the ref mic didn't pic anything up despite being in his 'personal space' when he supposedly said whatever he said!) would be an absolute travesty of justice.
Personally I think the RFL need to grow a pair and give him an 8 match ban and further make a statement to say that any homophobic/racist comments made at players, officials, or fans including gesticulations etc will not be tolerated at any level. That if caught during a match should be an automatic sending off and will further punished.
As Cronus said, there is a massive social responsibility here and we cannot keep excusing players on the basis of 'heat of the moment' because that is complete and utter rubbish. If you can't show some control, don't engage in activities that somehow mean you lose control..or is it that some people are just like that and that they nail their true colours to the mast with these outbursts because they just cannot help themselves they are so deeply ingrained with their hatred toward such?
There's some psychology evidence to suggest that Hardaker's reaction is because he's aroused sexually by men & that he has latent homosexual feelings possibly angry with himself/others for not being allowed to 'come out'..thus directing that anger toward them..

To be fair they aren't already

Disciplinary 15.1(f) classes it as E-F so 4-8 matches or more. And that's if its not aimed at the ref. I agree though that it needs to be stamped out, regardless of who says it, who says what. Peacock should also have someone in his ear warning him too if that video is in any way accurate.

Then it's you who has comprehension issues. You posted:


So are you now saying that, when you wrote those words, your point was that actually the above quote was totally unconnected with Hardaker or your response to Hardaker's situation? Why on earth would you bring in to a discussion a wider general proposition, unless you thought it was relevant to your point?

Your clearly stated problem was



Indeed. that would be:


Your case is that having called someone "an effing fag" there is absiolutely nothing, at all, to add or explain. Your proposition is that Hardaker must simply issue an unqualified grovelling apology. he must not try to explain, because there is no explanation worth giving. He must not qualify, because anything else detracts from his apology, and renders it unfit for purpose.

The question I would ask is, why? You are over-simplifying it to the extreme. It is NOT just that he " called someone an effing fag". It is clearly helpful in judging Hardaker - which is what you are doing - to have his explanation of all relevant circumstances. NOT just "Yes I did say those words". This is, of course, "mitigation", and is, of course, precisely what the RFL will listen to and consider when they decide on an appropriate penalty. And quite right too. You would want him to simply state that he is sorry and shut the fsck up. So we would have no clue whether he is actually sorry or not, nor would we have any explanation from him a sto how it happened, nor would we have any version from him of whether or not he holds hompophobic views, nor whether it was such views that prompted his outburst, or something else.


Aww, a wannabe mod too! Bless. But I find your position silly. Where would we be if all a person who had said what Hardaker did was only allowed to issue a simple, bald, one phrase apology, and was prohibited from going on to explain themselves? You seem to be of the view that Hardaker has used the phrase, and so that is it, he can and should say nothing to attempt to contextualise it; nor give an insight into what he was thinking; nor how he feels on the wider issue of homophobia; nor what he meant by it.

If you had your way, then anyone who used that expression at any time, under any circumstances, would be equally condemned regardless of circumstance. Don't you think that is a bit extreme?

tl;dr

I got a far as the part where you accused me of having comprehension issues whilst trying to prove I said something by quoting a post where I didn't say it.

it might just be me but im not sure its all that helpful to your defence of your comprehension skills to preface that defence by stating the post was too long for you to read.

After such an awful start there's no way I'm wasting my time reading the rest of it. FA has clearly got an axe to grind and is using my post as a spring board. Perhaps CBA is a better acronym

Axe to grind?

What on earth would that be, then?

I'm sure you understand the point but won't backtrack. The question is simple: what would you have Hardaker do, then, if he isn't allowed to explain?

Exactly.
Like I said it's like using the N word and then trying to slightly mitigate it by saying well he only said in the heat of the moment. Racism is racism in much the same way as homophobia is homophobia.
I for one wouldn't use the word fag as it's a homophobic comment and as such the word wouldn't be in my 'heat of the moment' vocabulary.

[url=http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-jonah-hill-apology-homophobic-slur-paparazzi-20140603-story.htmlJonah Hill uses F- word[/url - and has the temerity to try to explain it, too.

Sorry Jonah, but according to EGW and others, there's absolutely nothing you can say now, once that word passed your lips. That was that. You're fooked.

However, Hill's explanation to me gets right to the root:

Personally I accept that that's entirely possible, and in both Hill and Hardaker's cases, probable, and there is nothing wrong with either of them explaining their case.

Oh no he is allowed to explain all he want's.
The fact he used a homphobic comment doesn't change though. As I say I wouldn't use that word as it's homophobic so it wouldn't be in my 'heat of the moment' vocabulary.

Still poor ikkle Zak is misunderstood and didn't mean to use a homophobic word that wouldn't be used by a non homophobe AT ALL.

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing at all.

Some wouldn't use that word AT ALL as it wouldn't cross their minds to use it.

You can decide why it wouldn't cross their minds.

I can't, though. I can (like you have) offer a view but nobody can "decide" as nobody will ever be able to see inside their minds. Look, I realise that you and others are convinced if someone uses the F- word, then they are morally inferior to you, and can only be a homophobe. You believe that is the only available explanation. had they had your moral virtue, then the word would not have crossed their minds.

So, there is nothing else they can say, which could make any difference.

Do I have that about right?

It's just an extreme position, with which I disagree.

It is also a foolish and naive position, since I would have to take your word for it that it "wouldn't cross your mind". I don't know you from Adam, so you might be lying through your teeth.

It is also hypocritical, since you think it is OK for you to big your moral position up by your holier-than-them exposition of the purity of your thought processes, whilst seeking to deny people who may use the word the same right to explain their thought processes.

Who said he wasn't allowed to explain? I certainly didn't, just like I didn't say he was a rampant homophobe. You're so determined to have this argument that you don't seem to care whether anyone has made the points you're arguing against.

There were specific comments within his statement which undermined his apology, which I've already discussed. From that it should be clear what I think he should have done, but you'd rather continue with this strawman of yours where I've supposedly said a whole host of things you'd prefer to be arguing about.