www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments There you go Saddened. Hardaker last time admitted pre verdict to using the language so not just a case of he'll never admit it.

www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments There you go Saddened. Hardaker last time admitted pre verdict to using the language so not just a case of he'll never admit it.

I think the employment of the lip reader points to the fact there is little evidence other than the video. If no one heard it on the pitch, then I don't see how someone can be offended by what they think they see someone saying when lip reading on tv.

One scenario not put out there, could Flanagan have called Haraker a puff for complaining about the leg twist and Haraker repeated the taunt i.e don't call me that

That is, indeed if that word was said in the first place

I do find it amusing how many fans are coming on here telling GH how he should run the Club in response to this = GH by Plenty!

Haven't seen anyone mention that the Canal siders Gay RL Club where Zak worked during his ban have been very vocal on twitter in their support for him!

Lip reading would seem shaky evidence, of anything badlipreading.tumblr.com/

Lip reading would seem shaky evidence, of anything badlipreading.tumblr.com/

None of you can separate the swearing from the homophobic language.

We all know people swear, F's & B's & C's aren’t nice or clever, we have a wonderful English language and people should be able to articulate themselves in a better way.

However, insults directed using homophobic language is not on, its on a par with racism, which is illegal.

And you don't seem to be able to separate between someone not using such language, and someone using it.

The word on the street now is that Silverwood is extremely pished at the RFL. Apparently he did see no need for further comment on Friday night, as he did not hear anything homophobic. When pressed by the RFL over the weekend he then agreed he had heard something, but still nothing homophobic, to which he was instructed to put it in the report. Hence why Silverwood said yesterday there is two sides to every story and don't believe everything said, and why Leeds have concentrated their criticism on the RFL and the procedures.

Would appear the RFL were indeed looking for something not there, due to the uproar on social media.

So in the 40(ish) hours I was absent off these boards, an extra 27 pages of comments have appeared! Wow! Suffice to say, I have not read them all

So in that scenario the RFL have left one of their leading refs out to dry for no good reason, as well as one of their leading players. Marvellous.

Not that I know of and highly doubt there was, however foul and abusive language is against the rules too and deserving of a match ban according to the RFL guidelines, yet never investigated.

Didnt Hock get a red for that

Wasn't that for swearing at the referee?

A perfect example of the difference between cases.
The ref heard it, it was directed at him so he sent Hock off.

In this case the ref knew it wasn't directed at him and didn't report anything but we now have a lip reader looking over the footage.

If it's the case then why hasn't a lip reader been employed in the past to read what players and coaches have been saying.

As I said swearing, in any capacity, is against the rules according to the RFL.
Why weren't previous cases investigated?

Love how the 'mock outraged' are so worried that the poor homosexual viewers could be offended by what Zak said. However, the only people who could be offended are those that have paused, rewind, played, pause, rewind, played the incident over and over to try any work out what he said - even after replaying the incident several times it's not 100% clear what he said, so why would anybody feel the need to pause, rewind, play (repeat x10) and then be outraged or offended - unless they had an agenda.

Its not about hearing it on the spot or rewinding to hear it.

If he did it this time, like he DID do it before the games rep is tarnished.

Sponsors will stop being involved with the sport and GH will not have a game to control.

The RFL cannot seen to ignore an allegation of it, no matter how small. If its proved he didnt do it then fine, least they looked into it.

What about the drug allegations in the NRL. They HAD to look at it.

You could almost to the same about a salary cap allegation, do you ignore it cos its in the past?