I'm not saying it should be ignored - I'm saying that nobody would have been offended unless they were looking for it, as on the live viewing, nobody could be sure what was said, so the mock outrage isn't warranted, it's people rewinding and replaying in the hope they can find something that might not even be there and that there is no concrete proof is there - it's ridiculous. We could slow every second of the game down and find thousands of potential issues, seems very sad that people have the time and desire in their lives to do this.

Begs the question why didn't Child send off Hardaker for the Warrington incident if he heard it and believed it was aimed at him.....IF.

Only two cases I can think of regarding gay slurs and neither ref took any on field action. Convenient that the only two reported times a ref has ever heard homophobic language has been from live games where social media has blown it all over the place and within a few days the ref remembers he heard it after all.

Anybody who believes Child heard the previous one and thought it was aimed at him, yet did nothing, is kidding themselves.

Does anyone know what the timings are for match reports etc?
From what has been 'reported' in the media (not tattled on here, facebook or twitter) journos at the post match interview asked the match commissioner whether a report had been made by silverwood about a player making homophobic comments. I'm presuming they had seen a twitter/facebook storm of people making accusations which led to them asking the question. The match commissioner said no report had been made. How long after the match is this interview?
When and how does the ref make his report? is it verbal and/or written? If written it could not be immediately after leaving the field. Does the ref make a verbal report then a detailed written one? Does he go to shower and change first - is it even done the same day?
Would it be conceivable that the commissioner hasn't received a full match report prior to the interview and that actually its journos stirring the pot?
Anyone??

More importantly, if Silverwood heard it and thought it serious enough to warrant inclusion in his report why didn't he act upon it?

Either he didn't hear it or he heard what Hardaker said and didn't think it serious enough to punish, like most foul language that's used on the pitch.

I do not believe the Leeds response was emotive. It bears the language of a carefully worded legal statement and I feel sure GH took time with legal experts (maybe even a Barrister) before it was made public.

As the RFL had already chosen to make this a public affair with no sense of responsibility for the player who could well be innocent of the allegations the RFL not only scored an embarrassing own goal because they themselves have brought SL into disrepute by raising the media profile of the affair. So it was only fair that Leeds too made a public statement especially as it appears the RFL have been negligent with regard to exposing, a so far uncharged player, to public character assassination by their actions.

In going public before the conclusions of an investigation and without hearing the player's defense of the allegations, they have shown a Politically Correct-like regard for justice and very poor judgement which they have compounded by not following the correct procedure with regard to the referee's report. If the referee has stated he heard what was said (belatedly or not) why did they feel it necessary to publicly call for a lip reader? This would suggest that Silverwood either stated it was not a homophobic comment or that he was not sure but it could have been. Either way he did not regard it important enough to record it in his after match report. So what pressure was put on him to change his report and by whom?

I cannot believe a court would convict just on the word of a lip reader but do the RFL plan to do so? If they do then they leave themselves open to an appeal with other lip readers as expert witnesses and calling the players who were nearby as witnesses in his defense. If they do not charge him they leave themselves open to legal action from Hardaker for compensation.

" Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!"

If that is true Mr Gotcha that is unbelievable!

I can see this getting VERY nasty.
How can anybody trust the RFL (IF) this is the case ever again.........

THE LAW OF LIBEL.
Broadly speaking the law of libel is broken if somebody or organization makes a statement or remark about somebody that is untrue. This is more serious if that person is in the public eye ,especially so if that persons reputation suffers greatly from the said remarks.

that would be fine if the RFL had charged hardaker but they havent. Instead the RFL took the conscious decision to release his name to the media as under investigation for homophobic abuse. Thats akin to the police naming a criminal before he has been charged. even then anything should be sub judice. The RFL suggest their panel has a quasi legal function and it should behave as such. They must be worried now about a defamation claim. In fact theres every reason for them to want him to be guilty because if not heads will have to roll. I would be amazed if Leeds and/or Zak didnt escalate this to the Court of arbitration for sport as this has been amateur hour from start to finish and he and the club have a reputation to protect.

In fact you would have to be a gay lip reader to be offended. Im sure there may be some out there but not many

Where was Silverwood stood when Hardaker said whatever he said?, I don't have the game on sky+ and cant find the tackle and drop out on line.

Zak's reputation has been damaged? Really?

I honestly don't know much about Zak. I haven't seen enough of his play to rate him and I don't really care about what happens off field so I don't know what his indiscretions have been. I saw the fall out from his last "homophobic" insult but as I didn't actually see it I never followed it closely.

But my impression of him from the LEEDS FANS ON HERE is that Zak is pretty much a stupid ****. He's rated as an excellent player but an excellent player who's pretty much the polar opposite of "Sir Kev".

So stop talking about his reputation being in tatters because of what the RFL have done because his reputation is pretty much the same as it was before the Saints game.

What a ridiculous post. Don't know much about it him, don't see him much, but yet you come out with rubbish like that. Of course his reputation has been questioned, if the press are making him out to be homophobic without proof of it. Once is honest mistakes, twice is always taken more literally by others.

Good heavens go away and think about your post

Does this mean that players can't be named before they go before the disciplinary then? Or a CLUB named as being under investigation for their fans behaviour, or a coach....... you see where this is going?
This is not a criminal matter so comparing it to the police naming an (alleged) criminal is pointless.
As for being worried about a defamation claim
And there's Leeds fans claiming that fans of other teams are blowing this out of proportion

Mark Aston has called for a vote of no confidence in the RFL not about the Hardaker thing ,but it looks like the game I headin for turmoil under this lot