You must've never been to an RL or Football game in your life.

There is a difference between foul and abusive behaviour and homophobic abuse - the former is defined within the operational rules and is a "simple" categoristation, the latter is also against numerous other RFL policies and initiatives, and simply put is a much more serious accusation. This in turn takes a longer period for hearings and sentencing - you wouldnt expect a murder trial to take the same time as a drunk and disorderly case.

You can say him not immediately springing on it at the time is "weak" but its well within the realms of possibility. He may of forgotten to raise it with the match commision but so long as it was raised in the match report than I dont see the issue. He he had written the match report with no mention and only now after the whole palava come out and said "oh yeah ..." then thered be much more of a case for it.

Or not, this is a myth of long standing. It originated from tests where the subjects were just making vowel sounds and mouth shapes, not speaking or having a conversation.

The 30% stat is very frequently cited, but there is no actual authority for it.

Most skilled lip readers would expect to achieve close to 100% accuracy of a conversation recorded in ideal conditions that they had the luxury of being able to replay on video. This is because they recognise speech not from any given individual mouth shape or movement, or individual phonemes, but are practised at associating sequences of such shapes and movements, into common words, phrases etc. And given a collection of such clues they are experienced in making sentences out of them, much like you can fill in a crossword clue much easier the more letters you know.

I am assuming normal conversation of course. If the discussion was between two nuclear physicists on formulas for obscure chemical reactions or such like the percentage would be much lower, as the subject of the dialogue is important.

The RFL are showing (for a change) due diligance in making sure they are absolutely as far as they can be what the facts are.
In something as serious as this (given Hardakers very recent misdemeanor) to rely on one piece of evidence alone could leave them on shaky ground when it comes down to it.
As MS mentions, it's easy enough for referees not to remember verbatim exactly what was said, he has to concentrate every single minute of the game on differing types of situations. It isn't that his report isn't accurate as an absolute..that would be impossible, because any point in time isn't always recalled as vivedly as another so to say X time/game the ref remembered everything without a shadow of doubt can't be compared to another occasion when he may have heard/seen something said but wasn't 100% sure.

In which case given how serious it [icould[/i be for Hardaker should he be proven guilty then they rightly have to show as far as possible that he is guilty, if there's a doubt then he isn't. That isn't a witch hunt, that's doing the right thing for everyone concerned!
It is their duty to uphold both the laws of the sport AND in this case actually what might be another criminal offence.

But of course whino fans & their club seemingly aren't interested in following up on something that could put the sport in a massively negative light if they just gloss over it as they are suggesting the RFL do by their stance
Jesus how pathetic, bigoted and narrowminded are some people, including the Leeds club.
if even after a lip reader has looked at whatever footage they have and can't be sure then the RFL would be left with little choice to say they've investigated and it isn't 100% clear so a warning for foul language.
If he is guilty and at this moment in time that is still a big if, then yes, it isn't good for the player, BUT it makes rugby league one of the very few sports to crack down on this sort of behaviour..that we will not as a family sport tolerate this kind of thing both from the players/clubs POV nor from fans.

THAT should be applauded instead of being labelled as witch hunting or are you whino fans & your nasty little club seriously suggesting the RFL and everyone else should sweep these types of things under the carpet and be ignored? Really..are you, because pretty much everything said so far including the ridiculous 'trail by social media' tag suggests that's exactly what should happen? Idiots

i would question any claim of 100% accuracy if only for the fact that whenever lipreading is included in a story, almost universally they take 2 or 3 different experts and the give 2 or 3 slightly different answers

Disgraceful post.

i love how much Hull fans hate Leeds, it is possibly the most one-sided rivalry in sport. Leeds barely know they are in it.

It sounded like Knowsley Road five or six years ago, but it still sounds crass, as does the monotonous drone of Yorkshire, Yorkshire.




I've been to more RL games than you've had hot dinners, however, you are correct about football, but maybe those crossover supporters get a little confused.

Surely skills that good would be tested and verified?

It is also the facial muscles that change, Pr1ck has a differing set of facial muscles being used compared to the word poof.
the former also induces a more open mouth at the sides and certainly more so said with vehemence. Compare that to the word 'poof' in a Northern dialect which has a 'flattened' (if you will though not strictly an accurate description) vowel in it, it shouldn't be too difficult for an expert to distinguish the two

Doubt it

Me too, but the general point is that as some benchmark of accuracy, the 30% myth is just that, and the actual accuracy is under reasonable conditions likely to be very much higher.

Seemingly not, so go for it, you could be the first to publish the definitive study.

Suddenly it seems, some here are experts in linguistics.

It does? I'm not sure where or how, seeing as the thread is fsck all to do with linguistics. Maybe you could clarify, and also ID who the linguistics experts are as I haven't seen anyone claiming to be?

You were touting most skilled lip readers as achieving almost 100%. Where are you getting that from?

Now you're being very defensive at that accusation. So I'd ID you for starters.

No I wasn't. I said most skilled lip readers would expect to achieve close to 100% accuracy of a conversation recorded in ideal conditions ... that they had the luxury of being able to replay on video... and assuming normal conversation not eg some specialist subject.

Read my words. Where are you getting that information from?

See what I mean, they complain at the length of the thread then feel the need to post a rebuttal to everyone who gives their 2p worth.

Obviously picking up on the 100% figure was a given, a bit like picking up on the Nazi post earlier. Give em and inch and they will play on it to the point of distraction.

Suddenly pronouncing everyone as expert lip readers, well to a point we are all expert lip readers. I personal have 35 years of watching peoples lips move up and down and listening to the words that accompany them.

I would never say I am a professional lip reader, as I do not have the qualifications or get paid for doing so. but no doubt any pro lip readers will be secret Leeds haters.

If you think my comment was homophobic then it's no wonder the PC brigade are death riding this country. I simply highlighted the "LOOK AT ME" nature of your post. I don't care what team you or anyone else bats for........just get off the cross because we need the wood!

Please. We have two incidents where both times the referees have done absolutely NOTHING on the field of play about said incident.

Even before both games finish social media and on this very site it's already blowing up about "did Hardaker say that?" with Vines following shortly. Over the course of the next few days after a barrage of "he needs banning for the good of the image of the sport" we start hearing that the incident is being looked at and that the ref did actually hear it after all.

Anybody who believes that the refs heard what was said both times, yet chose to do nothing/simply slipped their minds mid-game need their heads testing, especially when one ref claimed it was aimed at him.

What is it with the pathetic modern usage of the term 'haters'? You sound like all those other Merkan cry babies who use that term. You wouldn't say that to your mates, would you? or are they as limp wristed with their language.

No I didn't think your comment was homophobic really. But me saying it was had you scampering for that reply of "I don't care what team you bat for", kinda summing up the treading on eggshells approach many adopt to homophobia. Gay people want to be treated equal....not to be treated with kid gloves.

a few points.
the match commissioner told the press straight after the game silverwood never heard anything. that has been confirmed by several members of the trade press.
then silverwoods match report says he did hear it. who is lieing? somebody is.

in a game earlier this year a huddersfield player shouted at bentham he was an effing cheating w**ker.
all captured on sky. this player was never charged. why?

the RFL have, not for the first time, handled the whole thing incredibly badly. if, and i have no idea if he did, hardaker called flanagan a puff, then a good QC would pull the RFL case to bits in minutes.

given the fact that silverwoods credability is, for the moment, in question insteading of standing him down for a week they send him to wigan v leeds.

you really couldn't make it up