But you are trying to mitigate his use of it in the same way people justified using those words.

you're certainly proving there is at least one gigantic swollen h0le. Just saying like, and I'm quite chilled about it.

And you tried to make out that I said it was ok for him to use those words when I never did. Understandable, yes. Ok, no. Their's a difference.

i didnt. I simply tried to draw that parallel.

Quite clear there that you thought people were arguing that it was ok for Hardaker to use that word. Not one single person has said he should use that word, more a case that the crime (and context it happened in) isn't level with some of the IMO OTT reactions on here.

Hardaker chose the wrong insult and, hopefully, he chose the wrong sport in which to use it. It's a little tiresome that certain aspects of the game seem mired in the 1970s. Considering we've ditched some of its better traditions, it's a pi$$ing shame we've retained some its the worst.

Parallel's are usually thought of as straight....

homophobe alert?

That's quite ok, I am still chilled. I never mentioned you by name though, so well done for realising which posters I was referring to.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5408Weyman has received a two match ban[/url for his abuse of the referee, and that was taking into consideration that there was no sound available and the player claimed to have been abusing a fellow player.

Apparently the disciplinary would only look at an abuse case if the referee had reported it to the match commissioner. Therefore, I think it can be safely assumed that Child heard what was said by Hardaker, believed it to be directed at him and reported the incident to the match commissioner.

If Childs did hear it why wasn't Zak sent off then?

He did hear it, but he knew it had nothing to do with him and wasn't aimed at him. Knowing as this thread has repeatedly said, the same thing is said over and over again with all players.

The action has not been brought by Child, but by complaints from tv viewers jelous of Leeds success. Whether you agree with the language or not and think it is appropriate, that is still the case.

When was the last time we had something like this though, with videos all over the web and lynch mobs out for blood?
Whether Child reported it or not this was going to happen.

The Hardaker incident hasn't been referred to the normal disciplinary, it's been referred to the RFL's compliance department. If Child heard what Hardaker is accused of saying then he either must not believe it was aimed at him, or that he didn't think Hardaker said those particular words.

The scenario you safely assume, has no chance of being correct. Child would've sent Hardaker off and also it would've been dealt with now just like the Weyman case. The Leeds game took place two days earlier than the HKR game, if the word of the referee is enough for the disciplinary then Hardaker would've already been given a ban by now.

Chris Irvine of the Times appears to think Child did hear what was said and included it in his match report. Whether or not Irvine's piece - or indeed Child's match report - has any passing acquaintance with the facts is open to debate.

Roby reffed Cas/HKR on Sunday and with his verbal evidence Weyamn is banned by Tuesday.

Child reffed Leeds on Friday and with his ALLEDGED verbal evidence Hardaker still isn't banned by Wednesday??? Nor did he send him off, or even a telling off?

Hardaker would've been banned on Tuesday like the other players who got bans on that day, simple as that IF the ref heard it.

no, i thought people were arguing that it was no big deal, that it didnt really matter, that plenty of people use it in everyday language, that it wasnt too bad because it was just a casual throwaway expression, that its ok because he didnt mean it in that way, that its ok because he didnt aim it at a gay person, the same justifications and mitigations we used to hear when people spoke about Pakis, n.iggers, Kikes, ragheads etc.

its almost some kind of twee nostalgia, that you think I would be insulted by you insinuating that. I can see why Hardaker would need some kind of education to join the rest of us in the 21st Century, look at the company he (apparently) keeps.

Lets face it though, however much some on here jump up and down about it, the word he [isupposedly[/i used isn't thought of by society to be as derogatory as the words in your above post. If all "offensive" words were judged similarly, any swear word would be causing the same outrage.

Whether it should be deemed as offensive is a different argument, but to suggest someone is homophobic for using said word is naïve at the least.

An argument could be made about many words being offensive or prejudice such as has been mentioned already, calling someone a woman which could be construed as sexist. It's not however deemed to be drum-banging offensive by society as a whole because we're not that precious.

The word used is thought of as that offensive. Ignorance to that is no defence. Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur.

Thankfully, the RFL agrees, thats why he is being investigated for homophobic comments and not for use of foul and abusive language.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/misconductThey appear to be one and the same[/url as the Compliance Manager chairs the Disciplinary Committee.

Both League Express and League Weekly this week stated that the complaint would have had to have come from James Child.

How many players are sent off for verbal abuse? Very, very few. That doesn't mean to say the referee hasn't heard the abuse, just that they choose not to act on it for whatever reason. Has Child ever sent anyone off? He didn't even refer Ablett's foul on the try scorer to the video ref or award a penalty try if he saw it himself, and Ablett now has a ban so clearly an offence was committed.

In your world it does. It appears you are more offended than the Homosexuals in society. And I am sure they don't need you for their unofficial spokesperson.




Surely it is only right to put the true position, rather than made up position to suit your agenda here. Just a slight difference to the wording, but a massive difference to the position.

An investigation is in place to look into "alleged" homophobic comments. Nowhere have the RFL said what they think he said, and without that, there is no way you could say they agree with you.

Only homosexuals should be offended by homophobia? What is this 1950? A spokesman for the homosexuals in society? You think they are one homogeneous community that get together, decide their position and put out a statement on it? What is this 1950?

do you actually understand the words you write? What would the RFL be investigating if they had already concluded he had said it? They are investigating homophobic comments, not foul and abusive language. Because those things are different things.

I used to have this fella down as intelligent. I know he rubs people up the wrong way, but I never thought he was challenged in that way.

He has got so excited over this topic that the above, quite clearly shows I was wrong to assume intelligence.

Read again what I said, where you posted your first comment above.

To your second comment, I repeat again there is an investigation into an "alleged" homophobic comment. So yes the words are clearly understood that are written. You are just so caught up in your own hole you are digging, that you are frantically coming out with comments no relevant. So in answer an investigation is taking place to see if there was homophobic comments made, not because they have already decided, unlike you.

To be clear. I am happy enough for the RFL to deal with it as they see fit, as long as that is consistent going forward. You are judge, jury, and executioner, before anything is even proven as said.

I always like to see a post littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors questioning my intelligence.

I havent in any way 'decided' Hardaker has said those words, i have been careful not to.

Its sweet to see you jumping to young Zaks defence so quickly, and being so keen to dismiss others as 'knob jockeys'. Are you aware of the term 'transference'?