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.

and you'll get a 5 match ban

What was definitely wrong on this topic was him and others trying make out that some of us on here said homophobia isn't a problem and trying to label us under the banner of ignorant.....simply because we weren't up in arms about this particular incident. This I found to be offensive, the same thing they're blasting Hardaker for - causing offence.

Seems some have a very black and white view on things......ANY homophobic incident = bad and we must be offended and outraged. Others like myself see some shades of grey in between and view incidents for varying context and situation and so forth.

Taking away what was actually said and the faux offence some have taken to the words the thing that the incident illustrates to me is how weak and poor our refs are.
The ref clearly heard the word used, thought it was directed at him as the RFL agree yet took no action. He didn't even look at zac in the clip I have seen let alone speak to him. Surley he would have taken some action at the time.
No wonder we are seeing more stick given to the ref if that's how it's delt with on the field

No. The word would still have clearly racist connotations though. I am a little lost as to why this distinction is still being ignored.

What if we have another openly gay player at some point in the league and he calls another player "a fu**ing fag!" ???

Will he face the same public outrage? Will he even be charged and banned?