Yes. They are. With different names and punishments and everything.

Gosh. Aren't you clever?

Yes, very easily. Child wasnt offended by Peacock. Roby was. That is a decision that is left to the refs opinion.

As I said, everyone gets away with some minor traffic violations. Sometimes you dont. Throwing your hands up and crying its not fair is pretty pointless. You knew the rules, you knew your running the risk, Dont do it and you will be fine, run the risk and you might not be.

I ask again, do you want the disciplinary running through every minute of every game to check every angle to see if a player swore? Do you want the power of the referee to send a player from the field when he thinks he has gone too far taken away from him?

Steve Ganson once punished Carl Ablett for laughing in a funny way. Sometimes you push a refs buttons, sometimes you dont.

I also dont think it strange that Child didnt deal with the Hardaker issue at the time. It is a serious offence with a serious punishment and serious ramifications. Im comfortable with this been dealt with after the fact, when the necessary and appropriate time can be spent making the right decision. Our approach, as a game, to discrimination is too important for us to rush in to it. Can you imagine the problems the game would cause itself to have a referee send a player off and accuse him publicly (because it would need to go in to the report) accuse him of homophobia on the field and been wrong? As I have said, i personally question whether punishment is the best way to address discrimination, whether education and engagement with that community would not be better. However if Hardaker is punished on the back of a considered verdict I wont complain.

Lets not forget, Hardaker has yet to be found guilty even if he has been charged.

Thank you.

Him being offened isn't the issue you pillock.
Is homophobia more, less or as acceptable as swearing on a RL field?

A straight answer if you can ta.

5 match ban for Zak

No he isn't. He's your typical barrack room lawyer who thinks he can outsmart folk with his use of big words and lengthy arguments. He usually wins because said folk get p*ssed off and can't be bothered with the boring t*t.

Yes, it is. It is the referees decision to make.

Homophobia is unacceptable anywhere. Whether it is more or less acceptable the swearing on an RL field is neither here nor there. Its a false comparison you are using to feed in to your victim complex.

I never said that homophobia was less acceptable than swearing and it is deliberately disingenuous for you to pretend I did. Its not a competition and any type of ranking would be entirely meaningless and pointless.

Except in a case where a send off is warranted/expected. If the ref heard it he should have walked him. As a rovers fan I don't have a problem with Weyman being sent off if the ref thought the aggressive language was directed at him. What I do have a problem with is peacock not being walked for exactly the same thing. All fans ask for is consistency. Not hard for refs to know that foul language directed at them equals a send off every time. God forbid we become like soccer with players chasing refs around the pitch! The for the rfl to charge Weyman and not change peacock just rubs salt into the wounds.

I'm not trying to feed anything clown shoes I'm pointing out that refs decide which rules they want to apply when it suits them and in this case Child copped a deaf 'un seeing as we have statements saying he actually heard it. Any fan who isn't being disingenuous (Clearly not you) will admit that the bigger clubs get more decisions like this then the smaller ones.
Thanks however for admitting that refs play fast and loose with the rules although you could have just said that right from the start.

Yes refs do decide which rules to apply and when. That is because they are referees and that is their job. To apply the rules as and when they see fit. Did no one explain that to you when you were young?

And yes, children will tell you that their club is on the wrong end of a referees bias. Its how they deal with losing. They can't accept they or their team arent the bestest in the world so they need to find someone else to blame and the smaller teams lose more often.

So i will ask you again, which do you want? The RFL to watch every single game from every single angle and ban every single player they see swearing? or the referees power to send a player he thinks has gone to far from the field?