Does he protesteth too much?

rlhttps://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/9453349/hardaker-faces-fresh-allegationsrl

It involves them as much as it involves you or me. It's a rugby league topic so they are free to discuss it.

The only person it directly involves is Hardaker and Flanaghan themselves.

It will be fall-out from the eye gouging incident with Hill.

TBF to Warrington fans, the first Hardaker incident took place against Warrington yet they were threads on both the Saints and Wigan boards.

And to be even fairer as a Leeds fan, had the same incident/s happened with a Saints/Wire/Wigan player then it's around 95% certain they'd be a thread on the Leeds board about it.

It does involve us as he is dragging rugby league's name through the dirt. Second time in 3 months that our sport has made national news for homophobia because of him and only him.

I'm guessing this poor attempt at a comeback was because you know what I said was true and had no intelligent response?

Oh, for the power of social media in the negative form, if we didn,t have facebook and twitter the Hardaker incident would have been forgotten within 24 hours.

If Hardaker is guilty then would the incident being forgotten about be a good thing?

Its just "verbal handbags" nothing else, social media will always amplify it, are we that ethical sensitive, Flanagan wants to forget it and has already responded by saying he didn,t hear anything.
If you want to hear and see some proper verbals, check out Utube when Senior decks Wilkin and compare it with Hardaker and Flanagan........the game is going soft.

It's not just about the game though is it? It's about Hardaker allegedly making discriminatory comments in front of thousands of impressionable kids who watch his every move.

I gent frustrated nowadays with how soft things are but I also understand that professional sportsmen set an example and have a responsibility to conduct themselves properly.

All grown ups set an example and at all grounds you have adults turning the air blue in earshot of young kids......I don't see others around them bat an eyelid.

From last weeks game, kids are more likely to have noticed, picked up on and copied thousands saying the referee is a w**ker, rather than rewind the Sky plus several times to see if they could work out what Hardaker said.

If people are going to go down the impressionable kids route then they need to look at the stands first and foremost before the pitch.

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.