100% right and Conner blatantly does something to Zak that fires him up. If you take the time to look at 79:20 on the sky clock Conner (to my eyes) bites Hardaker.

The Brough story is some poor attempt at a cover up.

Social media did not get lip readers in- the RFL did. How do you know there was no evidence whatsoever? Do you work for the RFL? Did you see the match report
he's been sent home by the england management, banned for a homophobic comment directed at a referee, and admitted assaulting a student (after the lipreader was brought in) all those things following many Leeds fans complaining trial by social media
(Still - at least the anger management course seems to be working.... )

The irony on here is ridiculous- give it the hardaker was badly done to, trial by social media rubbish, then do exactly the same for a player from another club

IF Jake has bitten anyone I condemn that completely and he should get a lengthy ban. I'd expect the same to happen for any other player that bites another- whichever club they play for. Previous similar incidents have been awarded 5-6 matches, perhaps it should be more.

Just a couple of things. At no time what's so ever was he sent home by the England management. Why some people still cant seem to cotton on to this despite MCNamara and Hardaker both saying the same story.

Nor has he admitted assaulting a student. He has accepted been involved in an incident with a student and given him compensation to make it go away.

He may have got banned for an homophobic comment, and because the referee was offended, however anyone with half a brain knows the comment wasn't made at the ref, and was at Monaghan.

Don`t talk a load of crap, that was a perfectly legal dump into touch by a good defence. It was only because the ref called held which wasn`t heard that it was penalty. And why should Silverwood shout held when it was clear where he was going when only a couple of metres off the touchline. Just another example of Silverwood trying to find ways of getting Leeds back into the game.

Doesn't matter who it was aimed at, it was a homophobic slur.

But yet he came home, - perhaps he just decided he didn't want to play for england???? Or perhaps they tried to do the best by him. he'd been out drinking but claims he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, he admitted he'd let everyone down and the club reprimanded and fined him-whilst McNamara dithered.
The police were quoted as saying they had both admitted the assault when they were helping with enquiries.
Oh that's ok then - as long as it was only another player. And only hardaker really knows who the comment was actually made towards.

It does matter, but that is irrelevant. The point was Jools was wrong, as in a few of his points highlighted.

Perhaps the RFL should bring in the lipreaders to look at Paul Anderson - almost as bad as Wane !

Give your head another tap, but a bit harder this time.

The original call, right or wrong (and it was right and correctly explained by Silverwood when Brough queried it - as soon as Watkins lends weight he calls held) is completely irrelevant.

You cannot run up to a touch judge, scream expletives in his face and wave your arms around at him. You just can't do it, or at least you shouldn't be able to.

I notice through the game McGuire was giving plenty of spray to the officials, so come on get off your high horse and stop nitpicking, just because you were lucky to draw the game.

I didn't. The reason I didn't is because McGuire wasn't.

And the fact you think it's irrelevant suggests you think it doesn't matter which is exactly why it does matter. And it's anything but irrelevant If you are using it to try and prove a point. he admitted drinking, he admitted using homophobic language - and according to the police he admitted assault- so what point are you highlighting?

Christ your stupid, you should check out those social media sites.
You'll fit right in, on Facebook especially.