The first thing that should be looked at is the words used. Hardaker has used a term that too many people in society don't realise the connotations. Working in a school, I hear people insult others by saying "gay" and "bender" all the time. They know what it means, and they're not aiming it at someone who is actually homosexual. It's the fact that they use it as an insult that is the issue. As a slur. Suggesting that it is bad to be homosexual. That then engrains itself into that society as gays are bad, and then discrimination occurs because of it.

The good thing is, homophobic terms in schools have the same consequences as racist terms now. And so they should. For those suggesting "it's just a word", then I wish to hear your views on racism and racist terms.

The next thing to look at is where he said it and his role. He's a professional sportsman and a role model to thousands of kids. He is in a position of responsibility, and failed it by saying those words. So there does need to be consequences. What he says and does in his personal time out of the public eye is different. Know your audience. That wasn't the time or place to use comments like that. I'd be sacked if I said that at work. If your among your other people, then the consequences for using those terms are sorted out through social ways (either your friends will enjoy the banter or they'll think you're a n*b and won't talk to you). If you enjoy things like South Park, there's nothing wrong with that but you don't go repeating particular elements of it in a professional capacity.

Lastly, who he said it to. Now this is where there could be varying degrees of interpretations. From the close up, to me it doesn't look like he's directing it at the ref. I've not seen another shot though.
If it's at Monaghan, I don't think it can be perceived as him actually attacking his sexuality. Just an idiot saying the wrong word to insult someone (like school kids do). If it's at Child, then the same could apply. However, because it's the ref it's even worse. And because no one is quite sure on Child's position (not that it's any of our business), there's also the possibility it could have been a homophobic attack. I'm guessing that's what the investigation is about.

If it's at Monaghan, a few games ban to let the world know that that type of language won't be tolerated, regardless of the context. 4 games I think is the minimum for the grading.
If it's at the ref, and he's not gay (and if it's clear Hardaker wasn't suggesting he is), then add two games for dissent. 6 games.
If Child is actually gay, and if Hardaker knows this (again, I wouldn't have a clue), then the top punishment must be given.

But like I say, I reckon he said it to Monaghan. What is most interesting though (and one for the big club conspiracy theorists) is that it is reported that Child heard the comment during the game and was offended by it. If that's the case, why didn't he take action?!

Noticed a few Leigh players saying things to him during the game on Friday, I'm sure they were gently reminding him of the situation.

I think his screen grabs are pretty conclusive, when you watch the video it's clear Hardaker is talking to the referee.
My issue here isn't particularly with Hardaker who has been charged and will face the music and pay the penalty for his comments. My issue is partly with the Rugby football league who have failed to charge Jamie Peacock and Carl Ablett for their foulmouthed and unacceptable comments made towards the match official.

Again, why wasn't it dealt with by the ref at the time? And can the RFL bring charges, should the official choose not to report it? I'd imagine that it's one offence that's difficult to prove by means of video. Then there's consistency to consider. For every player caught gobbing off at the ref in camera there's almost certainly many, many more who aren't.

I'm in general against regular directives to temporarily clamp down on this, or clamp down on that, but if the refs were directed to have a spell of restoring 10 metre march-backs for players gobbing off out of turn, then that would get my firm vote. Simple, swift and proportionate justice.

Peacock must be sweating, throwing punches must surely mean he will get at least double Hardaker's punishment

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6663519 Well done Jamie for proving how much of a hypocrite you are as we didn't see you saying a peep about the disciplinary panel last week because it suited you and your team.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6663519 Well done Jamie for proving how much of a hypocrite you are as we didn't see you saying a peep about the disciplinary panel last week because it suited you and your team.

Hmm, calling somone a name Grade E, physical assault Grade B. Madness

its funny how uptight the Hull KR fans have got about Weyman's punishment. You do realise that foul and abusive language is judged by the referee?

Its perfectly possible that one ref finds something offensive that another doesnt. you might not offend a ref, you might. Your way to avoid that is to not use foul and abusive language and you wont cop a ban.

Hardaker's charge is completely different.

Peacock is entirely right though. I would rather see players have a punch up than what Sarsfield did. If we need to stamp either out of the game its the latter not the former.

That is the most laughable excuse for it I have seen to date.

its not an excuse it is a fact.

Foul and abusive language is decided by the referee.

Hull KR fans running around shouting "miss miss, but Jamie swore as well miss" isnt going to make any difference.

Zak Hardaker has been charged with a different offence.

Weyman ban overturned. All we ask is a level playing field, you'd be the first up in arms if it was one of yours.

No i wouldnt, its a joke. Im sure every single player in RL has sworn on the pitch at sometime in their lives. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with leaving it to the ref.

Seeing as you are a Leeds fan I hardly find that surprising.

I wonder if you would get agreement with fans of SL clubs Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Warrington apart?

Perhaps if the RFL produce a list at the start of each season of acceptable swear words...
Or have themed rounds where different swear words are acceptable

The medieval round could be good...

God’s blood, God’s teeth, By the Virgin, By Satan’s hairy

The shakespeare round:-

Thou gorbellied brazen-faced gudgeon!

Thou puking ill-breeding malcontent!

Thou infectious guts-griping hedge-pig!

Thou pribbling milk-livered haggard!

Seriously though....foul and abusive language is very offensive to individuals and very off putting to the TV and it needs cleaning up in sport. Good to see RL taking a lead on this

I am also sure every single player has sworn on the pitch and I am also sure that Tim Roby has heard thousands of incidents of swearing on the pitch, it would be interesting to see how many times he has reached for a straight red in those incidents. All the majority of fans want is consistency, something which is lacking in our sport. If we are to have video at games, replays of incidents on Sky and review panels, then we should expect that offences of a similar nature are dealt with the same but at the moment they are not.

probably not, RL unfortunately has a large proportion of victims and are becoming as bad, if not worse than football fans in respect of the referee

do you drive? have you ever gone over the speed limit? Ever committed any other traffic offence?

its the same thing, yeah everyone does it, and yeah for the most time there is no further issue. Every once in a while you will go too far, or deal with the wrong officer and get punished.

Going to court and saying 'well everyone does it' is not going to get you very far and you can't complain it is unfair, you knew the rules of the road, you are bang to rights.

Do you really want the disciplinary system going through every minute of every game and picking out every incidence of swearing and banning players? Do you really want the refs power to discipline a player who he thinks has taken it too far taken away from him?

It's interesting that Roby thought he heard someone swear at him and made the apparent wrong decision to send him off, yet James Child hears a player use homophobic language and does nothing but report it after.

And although Roby heard something he thought was aimed at him, the players involved both said it it wasn't. Weyman was still banned and then the independent panel agrees with the players and overturns the ban. The system is simply not fit for purpose. The original panel can't even act like a proper decision making panel and just agreed with the ref in the face of the "evidence"

Indeed strange isn't it.
It would seem the referees pick and choose when to apply the rules. Who would have thought it eh

you do realise they are different offences dont you?

No they aren't.

Well you could say that.
Roby wrongly (As has been proved) sends a player off for use of bad language that he wrongly thought was aimed at him with no warning or yellow or any discussion. The disciplinary panel wrongly (As has been proved) found Weyman guilty. Yet Jamie had no case and in fact wasn't even brought up to answer for comments that were clearly aimed at the referee (F'in bent c...) unless that was also a homophobic comment? Strange that
Child heard a homophobic comment (As the statement from Hardaker confirms) and does nothing what so ever.

You explain to me how that can happen?

So are you saying using homophobic comments on the field of play isn't a sending off offence yet swearing is?