Will you learn how to quote? It's not difficult.


No it's not. It's also about who Hardaker is talking to. Therefore Child is very relevant.


I've reached the conclusion you're either trolling or simply a complete idiot.

James Child walks in front of Hardaker and Ablett as Ablett speaks to him. He goes to the penalty mark. The penalty mark is directly in front on Hardaker and Ablett. You don't seem to understand this.


Yes, it shows Hardaker walking towards Child, as Child walks to the penalty mark.




You can't really be so stupid, surely? Child has just passed out of shot because he's gone to the penalty mark - directly in front of Hardaker and Ablett.


So you can't answer that then. If you don't know, how can you be sure in your assertions?

Let me try again: James Child walks in front of Hardaker and Ablett as Ablett speaks to him. He goes to the penalty mark. The penalty mark is directly in front on Hardaker and Ablett.


Yes, Ablett talks to Child as he walks in front if him. You see Ablett turn his head as he watches him, ending up facing directly forward as Hardaker begins to shout.

I see you still aren't answering questions. That's always a sign of a dying argument.




Bad form for idiots to have access to the internet but here you are.

Oh do shut up you ing stupid, moronic, agenda driven keyboard warrior . Fucking moderator? Fuck me that's hilarious. Moderator on a ball two bit forum that's infested with knuckle dragging witts. Class act.

I raise a glass to you sir, that's a cracking crash & burn.

=#FF0000
Breach of AUP removed
Chris

I know it's callous to stroll past someone in the middle of a mental breakdown but, would sky keep all their recorded footage? I wonder if the investigation could see different camera angles in a post event situation? Apologies if it's been asked before, I'm not wading through this pig-pen of a thread!

It would seem, rather like ebay, this site has it's fair share of hackers!

Profanities galore in an apparent attempt to have me removed.

Normal service has been resumed.

I have not seen it come to light who raised the issue but it could have been raised by "anybody in a professional capacity" at the game (official, referee, player, coaching staff etc).

As regards evidence, the RFL will call upon any and every piece of evidence available. This will include reports by the officials, TV coverage, maybe even any CCTV at the ground.

Will a line be drawn under this once the RFL have investigated? Maybe but then again maybe not. Anybody who was offended by what (is currently perceived) was shown could infact report the matter to the police, who would then be forced to consider an investigation as a sexually motivated case of abuse.

In a nutshell, it is irrelevant (if the apparent comments were said) who they were aimed at, who heard them, who reported it, was the person at whom they were aimed offended, ZH could find himself in a whole lot of trouble. Many have asked why should this be any different than the language you hear week in week out on the terraces. "Why" is a question for scoiety, but the fact that it is is because by law it is recognised as such. Do I expect ZH to be sentenced to a prison sentence for a hate crime ? No (ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually fall in that category). Would I, however, expect the RFL and Leeds Rhinos to come down on him like a ton of brick. Certainly. Afterall they (and their representatives) are the ones who instigated and have fully signed up to the RFLS respect campaign.

It could however fall into the category of a 'Hate Incident,' according to the ACPO definition:

“Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments Hardaker issues statement. I applaud what he has said. He will take his punishment (by his wording I'm guessing there will be one) and move on.

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments Hardaker issues statement. I applaud what he has said. He will take his punishment (by his wording I'm guessing there will be one) and move on.

I'm actually disappointed with Hardaker's comments. Why can't professionals just apologise properly and sincerely?

"I was deeply saddened when I found out after the game how my comment had been perceived."

You called someone an effing fag. The issue isn't how that was perceived but the fact you said it.

"Clearly certain words have powerful meanings other than that intended at the time."

It sounds a lot like he's trying to diminish what he's actually done. He didn't mean it that way and it's just that we've perceived it badly. Not an appropriate apology at all if you ask me.

I should mention that I haven't read most of this thread, but if Facebook is anything to go by the number of people from all clubs who think homophobic slurs are nothing to worry about is quite saddening. As one person puts it "it wasn't racist so just let them get on with it." Yeah we can't have racism, but homophobia, that's alright.

i think thats a bit of nonsense really. Hardaker explained that he reached for the wrong word in a moment of frustration, and expresses sadness and responsibility for the hurt he caused. As I said on the Leeds board, most of the justification and mitigation we have seen is that he didnt mean that way so its ok, or that it wasnt that big a deal so its ok. I can't see why we would criticise him for explicitly accepting responsibility for the hurt caused even though he didnt mean it that way.

So by that logic If I use the N word then say I meant to say kn.. that mitigates it slightly? Sorry that is rubbish
He DID use a homophobic word and no matter how much wriggling he makes nothing changes that.

I wouldn't use the word fag no matter how much frustration I felt as it's a homophobic comment in much the same way as I wouldn't the N word no matter how much frustration I felt as it's a racist comment.

I'm critical because I don't think he has apologised properly. As SaintsFan said on the Leeds board, saying sorry for what you did and for the offence you caused is a proper apology. Saying you were saddened for how people perceived it gives the impression that you think the issue is with their perception, not your behaviour. It's like when people say "I'm sorry that you found it offensive" rather than "I'm sorry I offended you". Along with the other comments about the risk of some words being "unintentionally" being offensive and having meanings other than those intended it strikes me that Hardaker doesn't want to own his wrongdoing at all.

and he couldnt have apologised for his comments and the offence they caused more explicitly than saying

“First and foremost, I would like to apologise for any offence my comments during that game have caused"

“I have complied fully with the RFL’s investigation, never looked to deny what I said and will accept their judgment.

“I made a mistake and hopefully, if any good can come from this situation, it is that everyone thinks about the words they say and how they can cause unintended offence to those around us"

"Zak has made a mistake. I am confident this was a genuine error of judgement and that he understands the offence his comment has caused."

Isn't that exactly what you asked for? It's IN THE STATEMENT. Do you still have a problem with the apology, because if you do it must be for some other reason.

I've stated exactly what parts of his apology I have a problem with and why. If you want to believe it's because of something else then that's your own bias.

You said a proper apology is saying sorry for what he did and for the offence that he caused. That is exactly what's happened. Any stuff around "perception" is separate to that.

It isn't exactly what happened and the stuff about perception isn't separate. He apologised for causing offence but then undermined that by saying everything he did about perception.

You seem to want Hardaker to admit that he's a rampant homophobe, and that his use of the word was used because he is a rampant homophobe, and was therefore meant in the way that to be a "fag" is as bad a thing to be as he could think of, to call someone. I would be surprised if he is, and while he thoughtlessly used a word he shouldn't have in the heat of the moment, I don't believe that I can fully assess his entire character or world view on the basis of one microsecond expletive. I get where he's coming from and I don't believe he used it in an all-out homophobic spirit so it is fair enough that he tries to explain his side.

You mean you applaud what his agent/Leeds management has advised him to say and prepared for him?

That statement is nothing more than a damage limitation exercise and an attempt to get the case for the defence out in public before the RFL reaches its verdict in the hope they are swayed. Clever, but remains to be seen if the RFL fall for it. I suspect they probably will.

It's also another faux apology from someone only apologising because they got caught, the sort we see from politicians, officials, celebs, sports stars all the time. They never ring true and neither does this.

If he's aimed it at Monaghan I'm not actually all that fussed. It's not a word he should use but it didn't offend me personally and I'm not in the habit of taking offence for other people - frankly there's little I would say 'offends' me. The powers that be, however, have wider social responsibilities and can decide how seriously they view it and what action they deem appropriate.

However, if he's abused the ref (as I believe he has), the penalty should be significant - again, not because it 'offends' me, but because abuse of officials should be met with zero tolerance. The fact it's homophobic of course adds weight, certainly if Child is gay and this is known by the player (as has been rumoured). The game has always held the utmost respect for officials no matter what, and that cannot and must not change.

I have heard Hardaker interviewed several times. I must confess that I was surprised by the erudition of his personal statement. It resembles the sort of thing that would be created by senior managers. I am sure Hetherington would not permit such two faced behaviour.

That's a statement written by a lawyer as a damage limitation exercise - Hardaker would no more have that in his vocabulary than I would have it mine to call someone, for example, a fu**ing fag.

This is a strange post. I haven't said anything at all about him being a rampant homophobe, or said anything about his worldview, or even his character. Quite why you've brought those things up is a mystery. I've been quite clear on what it is I'm being critical of, so if you can't comprehend that enough to respond properly to it then you'd be better off not responding at all, or find someone who does hold the views you obviously want to sound off about.