Who? Ablett? Hardaker?

Weyman.

We've moved on from that, do keep up.

It's relevant though because the player who got a ban WASN'T looking at the official anyway. Yet they saw fit to ban him for 2 games.

I'd suggest you actually watch the footage. It is indisputable that Weyman shouts directly at Roby as he is looking at him and walking right past him.

Might be useful if you also look at the level of protest from Weyman. He knows exactly what he has done and walks straight off when Roby gets the card out.

It is absolutely clear that Zak Hardaker is not addressing James Child. Those attempting to suggest he were are shown to be wrong by the lack of reaction from James Child and the fact that he is not being investigated for comments made to a match official.

Zak Hardaker must be an arthropod and have compound eyes. Carl Ablett is clearly human because he moves his head to talk address James Child as he walks past.

I wonder why you haven't got a wider shot tat includes Warrington players? To much perspective to suit your agenda.

IMHO ablett was berating the official, hardaker was shouting at warrington players behind the ref.

I have and the RFL looked at it for me as well. It seems neither of us agree with you as I'm sure the RFL would definately of mentioned him shouting at the referee as it would certainly help their argument.

So he shouted at Roby YOU say. Yet nothing comes through the ref mic.
Strange that isn't it. Maybe it's a mic that has a swear filter although that's not very helpful when you are trying to prove a player swore at an official is it so I guess it was working fine.


So let me get this right your reasons for Hardaker not doing it is a referee turning a deaf 'un.
Thats as laughable as the decision the RFL have just made toward Weyman.

I think it is entirely relevant who his comments were aimed at. In my opinion calling a heterosexual man a slang term for gay isn't homophobic.

Had the Warrington player reacted at his sexuality being called into questions, would that make him homophobic?

Had it been directed at James Child or a gay player, then it's a different context entirely. There would be a case to answer and a ban would be entirely in order.

Players do get annoyed at themselves and use bad language when they or team mates come up with an error. I'm fine with that. If it's directed at an error made by match officials, again it's a different context.

In my opinion, we need to stop the cameras being too invasive during games. Perhaps have footage available for disciplinaries etc, but not show every angle or close up during broadcasts.

Go and watch the footage. Read the statements from Horne and Weyman. They don't concur with the footage.

Horne No.15, does have a go at Weyman when he's on the ground. After Weyman gets up he walks round the back of Shenton. As he is on Shenton's left he motions his head towards the referee who is ahead and just to his right and shouts towards him.

The only other player close to the referee is Travis Burns, No.6. Horne is away to one side, totally not in the line of sight of Horne, nor addressing him.

As Wyman goes past Roby he turns so he is still addressing him. You will note that Horne does not make any attempt to speak to Roby when the card is produced, and Travis Burns offers very little in terms of discussion or protest. Weyman knows exactly what he did, which is why he doesn't protest or argue his case. He walks straight off.

You need us Saints fans to sort this out. We proved that Brough did not kick that goal, now were are my paint shop lines to show the direction ZH eyes were pointing.

Can't you read? I HAVE watched the footage as has the RFL.
Your argument is laughable as SHOUTING would be clearly heard on the referee's mic. Especially when he is in the referee's personal space (Thanks RFL) but yet it cannot be heard.

In fact can you explain how a referee can be SHOUTED at in close quarters without is being audible on a working mic?

I do hope you aren't representative of the intelligence level of Hull KR fans. Read the part of his statement where Weyman claims his comments are aimed at Horne. Then watch the footage and explain why Weyman is looking directly at and walking towardsRoby, motions his head towards him as he says whatever he did if he was speaking to Horne. Note where Horne is stood.

Of course, you'd then have to explain how Weyman felt he had to say something to the referee, given he was supposedly arguing with Horne when he was on the ground.

The referee heard it, Weyman was looking at him when he said what he said. You seem to be hanging your entire defence, despite all the evidence, on a microphone not picking up what Weyman said.

Now, stop being a silly boy and accept that Weyman knew what he had done, his reaction to the card is the dead give away, but was simply trying to get away with it in pleading not guilty. He didn't even bother to appear before the disciplinary himself.

So you can't explain it then. Why didn't you just say so?
I do notice you have dropped the word 'shout' though.







A dead give away as in 'This guy has given us diddly today so whats the point?' you mean?

I just hope Hardaker can remember which Wire player he was shouting at

Are you disagreeing with me because you're convinced that Hardaker was not talking to Mr Child?

I'm not expressing a view either way on that - the point I'm making is that if he was, the matter is significantly more serious than if he was talking to a non-specific heterosexual Warrington player.

And that's without considering Jamie Peacock, who was clearly seen calling Mr Child a "fu**ing bent " on the Sky coverage - an offence which saw a SL coach fined a significant amount some seasons ago.

As for your suggestion of removing cameras - that's potty; surely the sensible answer is to educate professionals involved in the game to moderate their behaviour? I believe it is actually possible to express frustration without resorting to foul and abusive language.

What is there to explain you stupid boy?

Watch Weyman's head action, looks like he shouts aggressively at Roby to me. I note you haven't commented on the glaring discrepancies in Weyman's statement.

I thought I had agreed with your point on the target being relevant? I haven't seen the Peacock clip, is it available anywhere.

I am absolutely of the view that Hardaker was in no way addressing his comment at James Child. There is no way JC would have tolerated it and no way he could be expected to. The investigation isn't into comments made to a match official.

I didn't mention removing cameras, just being a little more careful about not being too invasive. At the end of the day players shouldn't be expected to alter their mindset because someone watching on television might not like what they say during a game. For me it's down to the governing body, match officials and players to take care of this aspect of the game.

When it comes to abuse of match officials, I'm on the side of letting it ride & relying on the referee's judgement in a game situation, but coming down hard, as Roby did, if it's direct and intentional.

Are you daft in the head? Hardaker doesn't even start speaking until Child is right in front of them, at the penalty mark.

A few questions seeing as you keep avoiding them:
- who does Hardaker look at immediately the penalty is blown?
- who does Hardaker shout at immediately the penalty is blown?
- who does Hardaker walk towards immediately the penalty is blown?
- who is stood directly in front of Hardaker when he shouts the now infamous obscenities?
*clue: it's the person with a camera on his head

And why do you still think it's "clear Hardaker addresses his comments to a Warrington player", when actually Child is directly in his line of sight and no Warrington player has been involved at all?


Because there wasn't one.

Are you bogged eyed?

Pipe down.

I haven't seen a wide shot of Hardaker's incident, which is why I'm not making any judgement about it; I don't know who he was talking to and without that kind of view, it's impossible to tell. If he said it to Child, he's a homophobic idiot - if he said it to someone else, he's still an idiot, but could have some defence in respect of the homophobic bit. Either way, you can't go around calling people fags on live TV broadcasts.

I don't know about Peacock; I clearly saw it during the game and I think some people posted clips on Twitter - but I don't have one, or a link to one.

I think your suggestion about invasive camera shots is wrong-headed; in this modern age of super zoom and high definition TV, viewers want and expect to be close to the action and to see it in detail. Broadcasters work hard and spend a fortune to deliver what viewers want and I don't see why they should change that, because a group of professional sportsmen can't rein in their offensive language.

In a thread discussing who Hardaker was talking to you think who his attention is on is irrelevant?


You're not very clever, are you? Hardaker speaks (shouts) twice. Once just after the whistle and again just after Ablett speaks.


In a thread discussing who Hardaker was talking to you think who he was advancing toward and his attention is on is irrelevant?


Incorrect. Child is. Standing at the penalty mark. Directly in front of him. In his line of sight. In front of him.

Odd you're not claiming it was a Warrington player seeing as you're strangely convinced he was "clearly" addressing a Warrington player.


So where do you think was Child stood?

What footage bears this out? Which Warrington player? Why, seeing as there had been no altercation? You're not being very clear about all this.




So it's a conspiracy now is it? Deary me today.

Have to disagree on the coverage issue. There's a balance to be struck on the level of influence it has. The psychological battle is as much a part of the game as the physical. Would be interesting know who instigated the pursuit of Hardaker.