Hello Gotcha, you're right it's best I keep a bit quiet. Understandably lots of speculating what's happened and what's not happened

Wouldn't any other witnesses have been there thus been captured on cctv too thus why weren't their pictures shown? From what I recall the article wasn't asking for witnesses merely if anybody could identify the two men.

I agree with you on the part about what could the club realistically done. I would imagine the club asked the two players about but I doubt they sat there grinning like Cheshire cats admitting it. They'll have said it wasn't them or possibly that the lad took the first shot (remember the Billy Slater incident outside a nightclub at the start of the 2013 WC)......so what then? Discipline them on the say so of a student with little/no evidence.

Also on the drinking front. Whilst the odds are pretty strong that they will be been......there's no evidence that they had a drink or at least enough to be drunk.

It seems to me that Leeds did the right thing. In the first instance you should always seek to support and protect your employees. Leeds have a good record of doing this. I'm sure there are allegations involving rugby players all the time. You can't just react without evidence.

It also seems to me that Zac is rather unfortunate. His various misdemeanours don't really add up to very much at all. I mean giving a student a couple of black eyes is hardly worth all this fuss. (If it had been done by another student for example, would the guy have gone to the police? Not a chance)

The thing is, and this is where I think Leeds did slip up, they should have just played him against Warrington anyway. Taking him out of the game seems like an admission of guilt.

I'm betting that Zak's future is firmly at Leeds. It will all be forgotten in a few years time. I've never understood why sports stars are expected to be role models. Expecting rugby players, people who let's face it hit people hard for a living, to be Cistercian monks off the field is really a bit daft.

Having said that - I hope he's still missing on Friday!!!

Nobody expects sports stars to behave like Cistercian monks.

What they do expect though is that they are held to the same standard of behaviour as the fans in the stands would be by their employers.

If I smacked someone and ended up with my face (and my employer's details) plastered all over the local media as someone suspected of assault, I'm pretty sure my employer would be taking disciplinary action. Particularly if it wasn't the first time my conduct had reflected badly on them in public.

They might do. But you don't play Rugby at the highest level. You aren't (probably) worth all that much to your employer (I'm not either by the way!).

If I went into Leeds and smacked a student around, you would probably never hear of it, and neither would my employer. It certainly wouldn't be plastered all over the media. You've got to admit that Zak is unfortunate in that respect.

Zak is a valuable commodity for Leeds. There aren't that many capable of doing his job. And that's why he's treated differently to you or I. All things considered I think that is fair.

Whenever stuff like this happens I find comparisons to people with 'normal' jobs a bit out of place tbh.

If you got sacked for assaulting somebody and being in trouble with the police over it, I imagine it would hamper your chances of getting another job. Whereas Hardaker would just stroll into another team here in SL that was challenging for trophies, with no heat on the club for signing him whereas if we kept him we'd get heat for it.

For arguments sake were we left with little choice but to get rid of Hardaker.....then the club would be punished more than the individual for his actions.

One of the issues for the club that may come back to bite them is that they set high store on a person's character.
So if for reasons of expediency they decide to keep Hardaker & to select him to play, which they are entitled to do unless he's remanded in custody, what messages does that send out to the rest of the players?
It is really difficult to adopt & maintain the high moral ground in these cases.
Another reason why GH & McDermott may feel particularly let down.

That's a very good point.

At a guess, GH will have dealt with about 50 of these stupid incidents. It's part of his job, and IMO he probably has a right laugh about some of the dumb stuff his idiot players come up with.

In front of the TV cameras GH will treat this as a very serious incident and will be gravely concerned. When speaking to Zak he'll probably give him a similar serious speech. In truth though I doubt he is the slightest bit concerned or bothered about it. His main concern will be getting the clubs lawyers to get Zak the slightest tap on the wrist he can get.

I suspect you forget to mention the allegedly and innocent until proved guilty out of your posting.

Both players released without charge by the police, the club to continue its own internal disciplinary whitewash... I mean "investigation"

They've been released without charge *and* the police investigation has been concluded. It's not whitewash if there's nothing there to paint. Move on.

Good news that the police have dealt with this speedily.
The club must investigate it properly, following their own internal disciplinary procedures.
This I expect them to do.
So it should not be a whitewash nor need they announce their findings to the world at large.
Hopefully, we can all move on from this & Hardaker will be available for selection this week, if his head is in the right place.
Despite Wigan's apparent poor form we need to have our best 17 available.

Good news.