I do apologise. In my defence, I think it is hard to expect anyone to spot your first-ever RLFans.com joke, but let me be the first to congratulate you on your debut in humour. Do you plan any more "jokes", as a health warning should accompany them, to reduce the risk of the unsuspecting splitting their sides.


Indeed. incidentally she did study at Oxford but did not graduate as her child was born early shortly before she was due to sit her finals.

Indeed. And is herself totally deaf.


Then you'll know that, as a yardstick for the usefulness of lip-readers, in the event that case is totally useless. And that Terry is an exceedingly lucky boy.

So, the facts are (as far as I can tell)...

Hardaker blows a kiss at an opposition player (something another player did earlier in the season with no repercussions), and says something that non of the the players heard, non of the officials heard, and wasn't picked up by the refs microphone.

The refs don't mention anything in their match report.

There's uproar on social media.

The ref then changes his match report, and states he may have heard something.

Investigation begins...

There's now rumours that Silverwood is very uphappy about being pressured into altering his match report...

The whole thing needs throwing out IMO.

I honestly can't believe Silverwood would change his match report due to pressure from RFL or twitter. Not only would his career be finished, they would also be a legal issue about deliberately accusing someone of homophobic language when he knows he hasn't heard anything.

I personally haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that he has change his match report, just that he didn't mention it to the match commissioner which are two different things.

Kicked out of the sport for two childish anti-gay insults that practically no opponent will care about? Will a gay person who sees Hardaker's first offence and thinks he's guilty of the second really be offended and hurt, or just decide that Hardaker is **** and want him to lose every game from this moment on.

There are players throughout every team who are always dishing on sly punches and they'd probably be voicing their threats throughout games too. Ball carrying players know they're going to get smacked, it is part of the game and every pro will admit it.

But two ridiculous insults mean Hardaker should be kicked out of RL while being a serial cheap shot merchant who's carrying out promised threats will be ignored because the watching public isn't smart enough to know what's going on on their screen?

The passion from both sides of this debate is surprising, but I guess the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

It needs investigating, it doesn't really matter how the RFL discovered the alleged incident they have a duty to investigate an alleged homophobic slur by a player.

They probably haven't handled it correctly and that needs looking at too.

If he did make a homophobic slur it's pretty bad, but it's all gone a bit overboard now and it's not like he's Adolf Hitler or anything, if he even said it.

It's not a witch-hunt though, and Im very disappointed that Leeds and many RL/Leeds fans are hammering that point. Why would anyone want to pick on Zak Hardaker? He's one of England's brightest prospects, opposing fans don't hate him or want him to fail and neither do the RFL. Why would there be a witch-hunt against him?

You say opposition fans don't hate him yet he's been receiving huge amounts of vitriolic abuse on twitter.

It's interesting to note that the Canalsiders have been very supportive of him, and stated that they do not think he is homophobic at all. There has been a massive witch hunt. If he played for a lesser team and didn't have as high a profile the frenzy would not have happened.

I don't like Leeds and haven't seen the footage.

I will agree that IF Silverwood made no mention in his match report it seems a bit iffy. But from what I understand he didn't mention it to the match commissioner, I've not seen anywhere it wasn't in his match report so that's two different things.

I suppose some people will think if he did say what he's being accused of then as long as we find him guilty that's ok. I don't agree with that though, there needs to be transparency and following of processes correctly otherwise Leeds have every right to be angered.

I have however yet to see any conclusive evidence that things are iffy. I also don't think Leeds helpep the situation with their statement and actually think questioning the integrity and motives of the RFL is probably grounds for a disrepute charge.

I was agreeing with you re the insults, I was saying if people can prove he is homophobic. (which clearly thet won't be able to)

Some of the homosexual people he's worked with in the past do not believe he is homophobic.

Exactly, and I would not believe he is either. Lets face it, it is quite a common thing for people to say (can debate the rights and wrongs elsewhere)
The point I guess is that he is not a vile person, just a bit thick. Therefore he needs punishing for being a bit thick, and I think Leeds should have made a statement to that effect, rather than what they did

Watching the game live on TV, you couldn't hear what he said, or lip read fully what he said, so if it's not a witch hunt, why have people gone to the effort of pausing, rewinding and replaying the incident time and time again to try and prove something is there? Watching the game in real time, nobody could be offended by what Hardaker did or said, because even on multiple replays, it's not clear - this is evidenced by the fact the RFL need a lip reader to be involved.

So those trying to 'protect' the image of the game, and the rights of all homosexuals are doing do so with a vested interest. Why else would they be pausing and replaying a nothing incident in what was a decent game and then casting their own aspersions of what they 'think' or 'want' to have happened and posting it all over the internet?

And if he's innocent and actually hasn't said anything homophobic, why should he be punished, and why should Leeds be putting that in any statement?

Like I said, it needs to be proven whether he did or did not. Clearly a lot of people believe he did say it

What vested interest can anyone at the RFL possibly have in trying to unnecessarily curtail the career of one of England's brightest young prospects?

Could it possibly be that in the modern world, every organisation has a responsibility to take potential homophobic behaviour seriously, hence the investigation?

It does nobody any favours to pronounce innocence or guilt prior to the investigation being completed; and that goes for those fans who are convinced he is guilty, and his club for immediately jumping to his defence. If the investigation finds that on the balance of probability he did make another homophobic comment, Leeds are going to have egg on their face, and the stink of an organisation that brushes such incidents under the carpet rather than taking the behaviour seriously. Not a good look for one of the games leading lights.

Personally, I'm happy that players behaviour is under closer scrutiny with the advent of multiple cameras, HD, super zoom and social media; rough and tough big daft lads they may be, but so long as we maintain the culture that the physicality of RL excuses 1970's attitudes, the game will forever be seen as a parochial, Northern past-time, played and watched by poorly educated, tattooed thugs - and that holds us back. Maybe clubs should be taking a more enlightened attitude to the language and behaviour of their players during training and match-days? If I was engaged in work activity and I used language of that type, I'd be subject to disciplinary action in a heartbeat - why are RL players any different? I'm talking generally here of course, rather than about this case, the outcome of which has yet to be determined.

Haven't you ever seen basic instinct? Wore my video out with that one!!!

If he's displaying homophobia because he's actually gay are we still going to kick him from the sport because of his abuse? Or will we break out the rainbow flags and welcome him back?

What if he was assaulted as a kid and still retains a strong degree of hate?

IMO he's displaying "homophobia" because that is how a significant amount of people still choose to insult each other. I've not had many close friends, because generally I think people suck a55, but the closest male friendship I've ever had was in the last 5 years with a guy in America. Now, because he had an older brother and his method of teasing him was to call him a "faggot" my friend still retained this as a standard insult between fiends. You won't know that about him if you're a casual acquaintance because he's sensible enough to know it's "wrong", but between close friends it is the insult of choice.

Because we'd become close friends I accepted his homophobic insults and gave them back ten times worse. I'm just like that. So pretty much half of all our joking between ourselves was homophobic insults and they were probably 10 times worse than what Hardaker is accused of.

Now I am not a homophobe. I'm pretty much a live and let live guy to everyone. I think other people's private life is exactly that and generally don't judge people even if they're into really weird ****. And my friend was actually a great guy who went above and beyond in many different ways. So neither of us were homophobes and neither of us would dream of actually insulting a gay person, but we are still guilty of serious homophobic insults, just between us though.

I actually think that most teams will be quite like that. Sports teams are a macho, insulting place to be. British people have a sarcastic sense of humour which is based on ripping on each other.

Just before last Christmas I had a temp job working for a supermarket overnight. It was my first job in the UK for about 8 years after being in America. On my first or second night one of the workers was shouting out about one of his friends who worked the next aisle being a raging faggot. This would have probably carried through the whole store. Being used to the US I was shocked at this and made a comment to another worker. He couldn't understand what I was talking about, it was just a joke and nothing was meant by it. So I left it because I was just a temp. Incidentally, I got the impression that the night shift manager might have been gay. Just an impression I got from his comments and mannerisms. I did overhear some other people saying the same things. So if it was an issue to the people their the manager could have sacked him in a second for it. And I do actually think that the company concerned had procedures in place that were massively impressive. If a complaint had been made he'd have been sacked instantly, but IMO the people in that store knew that it was a joke and chose to treat it as that rather than creating something out of nothing.

IMO stupid childish insults between players should be treated as such. I think the homophobe tag should be kept for genuine homopobia. If I coach finds out a player is gay and drops him, he needs sacking. A player insults a gay person off the pitch just for being gay, he needs to be hammered to stop being a ****. Making disgusting gay insults to an opposition player because he actually is gay, by all means ban him for that. But a stupid, childish insult should be treated as a stupid childish insult and not blown up to be something it isn't.

The problem the RFL have is that the outcry over the weekend about from the internet and social media blew up big and such a large portion of the fans out there want him found guilty.

On Monday when the RFL tweeted about Moon and. Farrell being the 2 players charged this week, most of the comments were angry fans posting abuse about the RFL and Hardaker and about their not being no mention of a charge for him.

That it's reached media coverage now means that if the RFL DON'T find him guilty they'll get all sorts of cr*p thrown and labelled at them......"corrupt", "condoning homophobia", "letting the game be tarnished" etc.

GUILTY - Hardaker takes all the abuse and punishment and the RFL are praised for dealing with such a sensitive issue correctly.

NOT GUILTY - The knives come out for the RFL and they get slated from a large section of the RL supporters who think it's a cover up for not banning him (even though it'd only have been due to lack of concrete evidence)

Which do you think they prefer? That's their vested interest. The get all sorts of accusations when they don't find certain teams players guilty of a high tackle......it'd be 10 times worst in this case.

The RFL don't WANT to find him guilty
They NEED to find him guilty to protect their own skins.

I don't buy that a large proportion of fans want him found guilty, so I can't accept the rest of your theory.

Also, since when have the RFL cared so much about the opinion of fans? They brazened out the Bradford debacle, shrugged off the shoulder charge furore and didn't seem too fussed about the strength of feeling around the recent structural changes; they've got sufficiently broad shoulders.

For mine, this has to be investigated properly and more importantly, it has to be *seen* to have been investigated properly - it's potentially too serious to do otherwise - but there's far too much heat being generated on both sides of the argument; not helped by the club immediately jumping in to claim a witch hunt - that just inflames fans and creates a siege mentality, as evidenced by some of the guff on here.

Like you mention later, the issue being investigated is very serious.

Having broad shoulders about shoulder charges and P/R is one thing. A homophobia case when the media gets hold of it and the verdict will make headlines is an altogether different beast that is nowhere near comparable to the issues you listed above.

They either throw Hardaker under the bus or themselves and the sport......which do you think they'll pick?

What use is a lip reader anyway? Hardaker turns on the video before the second word even finishes. So bar the first syllable or two, the remainder of the word would be guess work, and could be one of several hundred alternatives.

|sn't the word in question only one syllable long anyway?

One man possibly calling another man an "effing puff" isn't a very serious issue. Unless you're an effing [icl[/iickhead who wants to claim the crown as the most passionate defender of gay rights. Having that crown seems very important to you, but that giant penis on your head means you'll never get to wear it.

I think that's an overblown and hysterical prediction about only two of the potential outcomes; and seems to suggest that even if he is found guilty, it's not because he actually did it, but because there is indeed a witch hunt.

In another scenario, they find that the evidence is inconclusive and ask Hardaker to be mindful of his future conduct; where does that leave Leeds and those fans who have jumped on the witch hunt bandwagon? Lots of spleen with nowhere to vent.

No I don't believe the words allegedly said are a serious issue infact I think it's daft people are so 'offended' by them, the fallout from whatever decision comes from it is a serious issue though for the RFL.

As for your other point, a man that uses the titles Lord and God in his username portraying someone else as an big headed d**khead who wants a crown.....priceless.

The word the mob have decided he's said is one syllable long. The actual word he says (and I've no idea what that is) clearly isn't.