==roundpeg21-not a lover of Leeds but they have a talent in hardaker,pity he cant see it.a lad who had a chance of representing his country and was sent home in disgrace says it all

I very much doubt its likely to impression on young kids, kids are probably going to pick this up at school, quite often teachers say pupils learn the words first without knowing there true meaning.
Printer is correct, crowd abusive behaviour is far worse because of its close proximity to the impressionable than a player who is inaudable during a heated situation some distance away.

Leeds Club want an investigation into the investigation (which hasn't even finished yet).

rlhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/29051607rl

Leeds have made themselves look distinctly unprofessional by the statement they made, including the accusations in reference to Silverwood. They are yet again trying to influence the judiciary in relation to one of their players.

The RFL have messed up and surrendered to the uproar of the social media and are now hanging Silverwood, Hardaker and Flanagan out to dry with an enforced investigation.
Initially Silverwood said he didn,t hear anything homophobic, Flanagan has not admitted hearing anything and now the social media have over analysed it, opinionated it and ethically created a forced agenda towards conviction.
Have the RFL or SKY TV received any official complaints from anyone other than "expert" media gossip., Puff Daddy perhaps for taking his name in vain.

That would be assuming he did say Puff. You see Judders without wanting to you have entered the debate.

Either you accept social media or you don't, but forums like this are part of that. If you look at the posts on the VT, probably 50% of them are rebuttals, but discussing the point inflates it even more. Even if part of the discussion is about whether it should be discussed.

i don't buy the impressionable kids arguement. Printer is quite right about that.

However the RFL are on tricky wicket. They ignore an allegation (even if it is by social media) and risk reputation from none action.
Or take action and risk an investigation that will be inconclusive.

The Leeds club are naturally going to poo poo and investigation. Even your basic crim knows to say they did nothing wrong and the police are picking on them. It's your basic first principle. Deny everything.

Take the extract on sporting life from the coach....

"Zak's getting accused of being something he isn't and his name shouldn't be bandied about at this stage.

"It's guilty until proven innocent, unfortunately. He's not even been investigated yet, never mind been found guilty.

All this seems fine but then tagged on is

"That happened last time and it's happening again."

Well last time Zak's was accused of something he did say he was proven guilty.

The last sentence seem to imply that last time it was all social media and Zak was innocent last time just like this time. A bit of re-writing history, whilst pleading the case.

There again. Leeds coming in to defend the guy, just again becomes a talking point that we can all pick over. You can't say anything in this situation without it adding to the story.