I must be missing summat here.

The RFL administer the game on behalf of and with the consent of the Clubs' chairmen/owners. The RFL are not some kind of mythical deity that was spirited down to earth to dictate to the men with money.

It is well within the remit and powers of club chairmen/owners to change virtually whatever they want to, all that is required is concensus

The only issue I have is why its taken them so long to come for GH. I had no problem with him coming out with the comment, and I also bet he knew he'd get fined as a result. There won't be any 'fight' - he'll just pay the fine.

Everyone knows the rules on this sort of thing - are coaches ever shocked when they get fined for suggesting refs are rubbish? They say it anyway, perhaps mainly in the hope that changes are made, which may have been GH's aim.

The investigation into Hardaker's comments were ongoing. IMO GHs comments inflamed the situation even worse than it was. If the RFL had charged GH then the Leeds fans probably would have gone total scouse and started printing t shirts.

The RFL merely made a statement saying they weren't going to respond to an ongoing investigation. They have now concluded that investigation and are going forward with their case against GH.

Come on, people need to wake up and start smelling what they're shovelling in.

Had Leeds and GH kept quiet and let the RFL come to their conclusion then Hardaker would've got banned because it'd give good headlines that RL "doesn't tolerate homophobia" and "is a family and all inclusive sport."

It's what happened before when James Child CLEARLY didn't hear Hardaker say anything as he took F**K all action on the field. Yet a few days later thought it was aimed at him.

Basically the RFL started an investigation based on the Vine that was doing the rounds on the Internet. Fair do's.....problem is they made public they were launching an investigation based solely on that piece of 'evidence' (Silverwood clearly didn't hear anything as they wouldn't later reach a "lack of evidence" conculsion). Granted they didn't name Hardaker publicly but it was as clear as day everyone knew what it was about regardless. Why did they make it public based on so little and flimsy evidence? To quell the baying mob obviously.

Like I said, they'd have reached a guilty verdict if it wasn't for GH taking a stand, that meant the RFL had to come up with concrete evidence with the public spotlight on them and once they realise the delayed report of Silverwood wasn't enough/could be picked apart by Leeds then they could only say "no charge".

A 3 week investigation to come up with zilch? I think they were stalling in the hope it would go away.
Anyway is that lip-reader still knocking about? That tirade from Flower towards Ferres might be worth a look. In the interest of the family game of course!

Or hoping that they were not seen to bow to the accusations of a club chairman by concluding the investigation straight after he publicly criticised the process.

Imagine the internet and media storm if they had dropped the investigation straight after GH's public comments?
Everyone is assuming that Hardaker would have been found guilty had GH not made his statement. That's a big assumption. IMO it would have all been concluded much quicker - with the same outcome- if he'd complained in private.

I think we all like the idea of Big Gary wading into protect our club and players against the idiots who proliferate the game, but he's not perfect and I think he got this one wrong.

Agreed.

It's almost like he'd read the posts on this forum and decided to placate the crazy views of idiots like Gotcha!

I believe the CEO might be feeling the pressure somewhat.

Distinction without a difference. Same net effect

In fact, the RFL didn't announce they were investigating Hardaker for anything.

They announced that an incident was under investigation. It was Leeds who first put the player's name in the press IIRC.

Hetherington should have kept his mouth shut, let the investigation run its course and then pass comment. He was stupid, and is now trying to bluster his way out of it IMO. Pay the fine, learn your lesson, move on.

Actually the press had run with it being Hardaker in their stories on the 2nd of September.

Leeds' statement came out on the 3rd of September, so they weren't the first to put Hardaker's name out there.

What?

It's the same but different?

Or it's two distinct things and they are the same?

I know you have a real difficulty in accepting you may be wrong but come on............

The name was already out there,

The RFL's response was like when the Police are asked by the press, Have you arrested Rolf Harris?, and they say, "well i can't confirm that, what i can say is that we arrested an 84 year old Australian man living in Berkshire in relation to historical sex offences committed by celebrities"

Only in the same way that you can make a pudding from apples and another one from oranges.

Whatever you make them from, it's still bull[is[/ihit

There are more mixed metaphors in there than there are grains of sand in the night sky.