Please do, you mentallist. Can you include some diagrams too with lots of arrows and maybe some dotted lines showing ZH's line of view?

Well if you lot can't see what's in front of you and make up fairy stories, sometimes nothing else will do.

This is 100% what happens. I cant even begin to fathom how someone can even suggest otherwise.

You could always wait for the RFL to review it before nailing someone to the wall just because you *think* you know what happened.

Let's see these pictures that conclusively show Zak Hardaker clearly looking at James Child when he makes his comments. Wide or close up will do.

Can you show us the grassy knoll as well?

This is much more fun.

You sure? You might end up looking a bit silly.

Oh well. Got some work to do for a while but I'll be back.

Wow, you really struck gold with that one.

I suppose the irony of that post is beyond you.

Obviously.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5408Based on the disciplinary report for the Weyman case[/url it wouldn't be necessary to have pictures that show conclusively that Hardaker was looking at Child. A sound track isn't even necessary.

No but a match officials report is necessary if those other aspects are missing.

Actually, given your bold claim that Hardaker is *clearly* aiming his comments at a Warrington player, perhaps that's what you ought to look at.

Oh look, Zak is already looking at Child, shouting at him and walking towards him.


Child walks in front of Ablett and Hardaker approaches from behind Ablett, still walking towards Child. Ablett begins to express his disappointment in the penalty call.


Child directly in front of them both and almost at the penalty mark. Ablett still expressing his disappointment.


Child directly in front of Hardaker and Ablett at the penalty mark. Zak begins to express his fondness for bundles of twigs with a prominent "F...".


So. No Warrington players involved. Everyone looking at Child. Child directly in Hardaker's line of sight when he speaks. In fact, Hardaker was looking at him and walking towards him all along.

Still think his comments were *clearly* directed at a Warrington player?

Love a good picture thread, me.

i dont know who Hardaker is speaking to there, frankly i dont care. Whether he aimed it at a Warrington player or the Ref is pretty irrelevant, its that he used those words (allegedly) which is the problem.

However if someone showed me those pictures in isolation, id be pretty confident in saying those two people were talking to different people,

So your indisputable photos are actually screen grabs from the video, a video that's split people's opinions all week?

oh good lord

Good innit.



Perhaps you should read the first line of the post and try to understand the point. You have (mainly Leeds fans) saying Zak is clearly speaking to a Warrington player, that some phantom Warrington player pats Ablett and winds him and Zak up, that Child is to the side and therefore Hardaker can't be looking at him, etc. None of that is true - as can be clearly seen in the video and pictures.

What is indisputable is that Hardaker is looking at and walking towards Child from the start, and that Child was directly in Hardaker's line of sight, at the penalty mark, when he spoke.

Actually it's pretty bloody clear what happened but don't let that stop your blinkers getting in the way. Ablett had a hissy fit and Zak joined in.

TBF as SaintsFan has stated, You don't even need to be looking at the ref, be anywhere near the ref or be conscious to be accused, found guilty and punished for foul and abusive language towards a referee. The referee just has to accuse you.

Not really.




I give in, you win.

I guess it is relevant though, given that Mr Child is gay; if Hardaker called him a "fu**ing fag," then he's guilty of something far more serious that being a potty mouth.

For the same reason, JP could be in hot water, if anyone other than the thousands of people watching on Sky had seen his outburst.

In more general terms, players stomping round the field effing and jeffing at, or about, the officials should be clamped down on; it's unedifying and not within the spirit of the game. If that effing and jeffing also contains a more sinister undertone, then both the governing body and the clubs involved should throw the book at the offending parties. Given that players are undoubtedly representing their clubs when they wear the shirt, one would assume that the club bears some liability for anything that crosses the lines of taste and decency, so it would be in their interest to do so; not to mention their responsibilities to sponsors and other stakeholders.

i disagree, i think that language has no place on an RL pitch whether someone on that field is gay or not.

That's not what I said.

You said it was irrelevant who he said it to; it clearly is relevant, since Mr Child has some protection in law from homophobic abuse.

I went on to say that in general terms, effing and jeffing on the field of play (and around it - take note Mr Wane) is unacceptable; I agree with you on that front - it's about time the 'it's a physical game' 'they're not playing tiddly winks' nonsense was put to bed, and our big daft professional athletes were made to understand their responsibilities; and that their employers were made liable if they've failed to educate them sufficiently about those responsibilities.

Everyone has that same protection whether gay or not, we shouldnt be using it anyway.

on your other point, i dont really care about players swearing in a moment of frustration. It has never bothered me. I only think we have a problem when we veer in to hate speech.

So in conclusion 2 players were having a row, neither player are looking at the referee one says some choice words which the referee hears and the player gets sent off because he is in the referee's personal space (yet his mic manages to miss him saying it).
It's a grade B offence (1-2 games) and with not evidence to prove the referee is correct other that the referee's take on it the player gets 2 games. Brilliant.

Yet peacock is seen on national TV saying similar and because the ref had turned a deaf 'un nothing happens.

Only in RL.

How did you work that out?

The only time his head turn towards the referee is when he us in his close personal space and yet that his mic didn't pick it up.
Convient that isn't it.