I don't disagree with most of the rest of the post. However, doesn't starting with a broad assumption about the sexuality of people you don't know and have never met make it a tad hypocritical?

No. It means you used a racist word.

and you'll get a 5 match ban

6 if you are Tevita Leo-latu, though i couldnt have less sympathy for him.

What was definitely wrong on this topic was him and others trying make out that some of us on here said homophobia isn't a problem and trying to label us under the banner of ignorant.....simply because we weren't up in arms about this particular incident. This I found to be offensive, the same thing they're blasting Hardaker for - causing offence.

Seems some have a very black and white view on things......ANY homophobic incident = bad and we must be offended and outraged. Others like myself see some shades of grey in between and view incidents for varying context and situation and so forth.

Taking away what was actually said and the faux offence some have taken to the words the thing that the incident illustrates to me is how weak and poor our refs are.
The ref clearly heard the word used, thought it was directed at him as the RFL agree yet took no action. He didn't even look at zac in the clip I have seen let alone speak to him. Surley he would have taken some action at the time.
No wonder we are seeing more stick given to the ref if that's how it's delt with on the field

No. The word would still have clearly racist connotations though. I am a little lost as to why this distinction is still being ignored.

What if we have another openly gay player at some point in the league and he calls another player "a fu**ing fag!" ???

Will he face the same public outrage? Will he even be charged and banned?

How hard is it to understand that the offence Hardaker has been suspended for is the use of homophobic language, rather than being homophobic?

The sexuality of all those involved is a complete irrelevance. The language used was a slur based on someone's sexual preference, which is no more welcome in the game than slurs based on race IMO.

So there's two subjects in RL that you can't say on TV?

IMO Hardaker's offence was a penalty offence, with a warning from the referee that any repetition would result in a straight red.

But TBH that is pretty much just the same as any sledging. If the ref hears a threat of a punch in the next tackle, the same penalty should be awarded. Same with virtually any sledging.

Racial abuse, because of the racial abuse suffered in this country over the last few decades would rightfully earn an instant straight red and a ban. The reasoning for the difference is because of the history of sport. I just don't see why homophobic abuse is deserving of similar punishment.

Just what is acceptable and unacceptable sledging?

That's if you take what Zak said at face value, rather than just looking at it as general sledging. I'm sure another dozen words could have fallen out of his mouth. Possibly slating someone's mum, obvious swear words, and obvious slang words for genitalia and sex acts.

Nothing new here, just caught on a mic.