No idea what definition of "race" the RFL works to, but the legal definition of race definitely covers national origin. If you sack someone for being Australian, call them a "pommie idiot" at work, refuse service because they are Irish etc you could sued for race discrimination and you would lose. Consistency would seem to me to require an insult based on nationality to be treated in the same way as any other, but as I say, no idea what the RFL rules say on this. You're right about different counties though.

I can read fine. It is you who is too arrogant to provide cohesive words that seem to hint at unsavoury principles.

Anyone who offers a crumb of support to Hardaker really doesn't deserve a right to reply.

I can read fine. It is you who is too arrogant to provide cohesive words that seem to hint at unsavoury principles.

Anyone who offers a crumb of support to Hardaker really doesn't deserve a right to reply.

how's the view up there on your high horse?

This idiot was claiming Hardaker couldn't tackle last season, despite his defence being excellent.

Just ignore him. He was happy to support the likes of Jon Clarke and Chris Bridge, who've both previously been charged with assault, with at least one of them doing a stretch in prison.

Absolutely no club bias shown whatsoever.

You are doing a very good job of convincing me otherwise.

Why would i want to do that in the first place?

What you've said is ridiculous. Offering support to Hardaker doesn't mean you condone using homophobic language. I've seen the footage numerous times now and believe the word Zak used was "prick". Unless some evidence is produced proving that this is wrong I will continue to support him. If you have such evidence, by all means disclose it. If not, Zak should be considered innocent until someone else has proved him guilty.

Do people really go on about it.

I've made a couple of posts on it, but far less than on the likelihood of Wheeler ever wearing a Saints shirt again.
However the Wheeler conundrum only really interests us Saints fans, were as Hardaker appearing to say something similiar to what he got a ban for previously on TV will obviously attract interest from more than just Leeds fans.

Those posting the case for the defense have been far more frequent on this and other threads than any odd poster who may assume he said something else. So it's not people having a go, it's the odd post here or there, but some feel the need to respond to each and every one of those. If people just stated their opinion and did not feel the need to take on each and every poster whose view runs counter to their own the threads would have been half their size.

But to put it into perspective, look at the size of the Widnes thread. Far more interest from a far wider range of fans. And it was not everyone having a pop at Widnes.

[url=http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/23751.php#.VAce6vldWOQRhinos backing Hardaker[/url and righty so if that info about the ref is true.

At least "incongruent" is a word, even if one previously only used by chemists



Having just looked at the Vine, from what little can be seen, it doesn't look like he says "puff" to me, for whatever that may be worth.

I am though wondering why, in the lengthy statement he made, Hetherington complains bitterly about the process, but doesn't actually deny that Hardaker used homophobic language.

What with all the talk of which-hunts & the RFL employing lip readers, it’s like the petty spats on here have crossed over into the real world

.