The abuse towards the player this week, has been far more offensive than anyone offended at the game.

The point isn't whether Monaghan, Child or anyone else was offended.

The point is that Hardaker was happy to use that kind of language, which is rightly considered to be inappropriate in any setting - workplace or otherwise. If you just turn a deaf ear to it, then you're sending out entirely the wrong message.

Heat of the moment, not premeditated and a slap on the wrist to let everyone know it's not acceptable. When the RFL actually start sending out the right message on every issue that'll do for me. Until they do there's no need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Many things are considered offensive. Like making jokes about someone with disabilities, like Helen Keller. Imagine the kind of people happy to publish such material on twitter.

Glass houses @AndyGilder. I've read some of your near the knuckle jokes that were far more offensive than Zak's heat of the moment outburst. I find some of them funny even, but then again I'm not prissy, easily offended or hypocritical. I didn't think you were.

Careful up on that high horse.

I'm not offended, but the language used was offensive and of the sort that the RFL have clear policies to deal with.

If Leeds fans were happy to see Cas punished for their fans using such language against Gareth Thomas, then it ill fits them to complain when one of their own gets into bother for doing the same.

Unless of course they're being prissy or hypocritical?

And this is where it is all wrong.

Cas fans aimed their abuse at an openly homosexual player because, and only because, he was homosexual.

That was not the same last week. And that is much more the point here. The guidelines and the levels of punishment laid down by the RFL, which people are quoting, are to deal with homophobia.

The example you used was homophobia. Unless Hardaker said what he said because the player was homosexual, then it is not the same.

To whom? Who decides what is and isn't offensive and what mandate where they given to speak for us all?

As someone with a blossoming career in comedy I'd have thought you'd have a more liberal attitude to where the line should be drawn.

Was it intended to be insulting, abusive or offensive?

I'd suggest in the way that Hardaker used it, it was. Otherwise, why would he use it? Why not just call him a prat, or a pillock? Why pick that particular pejorative term, with all its implications that homosexuality is in some way something to be abused and ridiculed?

I'm sure the players will have had education on what is and isn't acceptable from both a racism and homophobia standpoint.

I'm imagining a hastily set up meeting room with 20 tatooed beefcakes sat in folding plastic chairs, a white board and a list of blue words on the left and red ones listed on the right. There is a guy from club HR with a laser pointer and the most hilarious Q&A session in history.

As I told everyone who wasn't willing to listen, no homophobia

:lg5bjpcr] "We were pleased that the panel made a particular point of saying that they did not believe that Zak had meant his comment as a homophobic remark and that they considered that Zak was not homophobic."'"

I guess it is subjective though, isn't it? My definition of what is 'homophobic' isn't the same as yours and as the RFL said it was not, all it proves really is that it wasn't to them.

That's the beauty of life - we all have our own rules and definitions!

There was though, and that is why he has received a five match ban under a Grade E charge. He wouldn't have been charged with homophobic abuse if there was no homophobia.

OK then - if I were to call a white man the 'n' word am I racist?

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.