Smokey, in that entire statement you said "IF" Hardaker made an homophobic comment. So why criticise people who believe he did make it. How are they any worse for those who believe he didn't make it?

There's is sufficient footage for the RFL to investigate (i don't think anyone can deny that)

Of course it's not Hardaker's fault for getting himself in this situation again.

Sorry....... you would blame Hardaker for an entirely incorrect accusation? That even if he didnt make a homophobic remark he is responsible for other people incorrectly thinking he did? He is responsible for other peoples mistake?

I wouldnt blame the fans for Hardaker making a homophobic remark, I would blame fans(those fans who did anyway) for saying that he did make a homophobic remark if he didnt.

It is absolutely insane to say that whether he made the remark or not he is responsible for the fall out. how on earth can he be responsible for the fall out of a comment he didnt make and a crime he didnt commit?

I have no problem with the RFL investigating.

I dont think he said 'puff' i dont know that he didnt. I wouldnt criticise those who think he did say 'puff' but didnt know that he did.

I think those who know that he did are clearly lying and deserve any and all criticism that comes their way.

Hang on a minute, let's deal in facts.

He has recently been banned for homophobic abuse on live TV.

Last week, again on live TV, he decides to blow a kiss at a player and shout abuse that, at best, is open to interpretation.

You can't then blame people, watching him on live TV, for interpreting his actions or, for some, simply stating what they believe he shouted.

There is one person at fault for this furore, even if he's found not guilty, and that is Hardaker - give his recent history he SHOULD NOT be blowing kisses and shouting questionable abuse on live TV! It's really quite simple, as Zak appears to be.

Nothing "goody two shoes" about "fans" who sit behind a screen, watching the same piece of tape again and again and again desperate to see something that isn't there, and all with the aim of destroying a lady's career.

When the dust has settled on this I'd expect it'll be these "fans" who'll have to take a long look at themselves, not Hardaker.

You certainly can blame those people. Hardaker is not at fault for people mistakenly deciding he said something he didnt. If he didnt say it, the only ones to blame the furore are those who jumped in with both feet, decided they knew best and turned out to be wrong.

There is nothing wrong with these people saying 'i dont know' before they wrap themselves up in what would unnecessary, unwarranted and entirely misplaced offence.

There is only one pertinent fact. We dont know, anyone moving past that is entirely and solely responsible for that decision.

.

You utter retard.

He blew a kiss = homophobic (well obviously if you say so)

He called him an effing puff (yeah of course, you are clearly the beacon of all knowledge, I can't believe anyone thought it was inconclusive)

He should get a long ban (who needs the RFL? Judgement made)

Magic, never bring the Nazis into an arguement. It's distracts from the point and gives people an easy thing to bash away with, rather than the point in question.

As to whether he should be investigated or not. It's a chicken and egg arguement.

The arguement is that he should not be cited as the ref and players did not bring it up.

My comparison would be that someone on the street allegedly commits an offense and the lawyers for the defense say that there should be no arrest as the police and any alleged victim did not report it.

But a group of bystanders did see it and have reported it. Therefore an investigation is valid on the basis of witnesses.

This does not prove guilt, but the (Leeds fans) Lawyers for the defense push the arguement further saying that there should never have been a discussion about it because no one is 100% sure of what they have seen.

I would argue that no witness is 100% sure of what they have seen or heard, but plenty of people are investigated from witness accounts. You can't really be 100% sure of anything. As we are not talking criminal charges and only sporting or civil proceedings the proof required is only on the balance of probabilities.

On the balance of probabilities you are talking 50/50. Is it more than 50% likely he said one thing or another. Any decision will be made on the evidence presented, but previous behaviour can lend weight to this. Either in favour or against.

For example someone sighted for a head high shot if there has been no similar behaviour before would be more likely to be believed to be accidental unless the evidence is more substancial that it is not accidental.

Were as if it can be shown to be part of a pattern of behaviour ie the 'Hock' senario. Then it's more likely to be picked up and face a heavier ban.

Either way, just because someone other than the ref or a player has reported it, does not mean it should not be looked at.

The utter certainty of some people on here is bewildering. The more I watch it the less certain I am of what he's said (at the minute I think it might be 'effing b@llocks') and unless there's a clearer view or some audio then I'd be confident he can't be charged with anything. I've not really seen any Zakolytes (new word, what do you think?) saying he definitely didn't say it, but the online prosecutors seem to have absolute certainty.

So, a challenge. If it's proved that Zak used the word 'Puff' then I shall donate £25 to both Joining Jack and whichever charity the Canal Siders recommend. If, however, he said anything else, then I challenge all those so certain of his guilt to put their money where their mouth is and do the same.

If you're absolutely certain then there's really no risk involved, so there should be a lot of people take me up on this.

Sorry. Autocorrect. I meant lad not lady. PLEASE DON'T ARREST , BAN AND BURN ME.

That was a really unfortunate Freudian slip!

This is fundamentally wrong (both in terms of the Law analogy and the RFL disciplinary, but especially in the former where it is a basic legal principle). Past behaviour can never be used to judge guilt.

It can be taken into account in sentencing *after* someone is found guilty.

I don't believe fans have whipped up any faux outrage. What there appears to be is disbelief that he has possibly done it again so soon after being banned for the same. It's more of a "is he completely thick" rather than "oh my, I'm in shock at the word he used" (possibly).

I reckon the RFL might need Zak to cough it, unless they have a better camera angle. On a balance of probabilities, he did say "puff" (i.e., he probably said it). Beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., so that I'm sure of it? Not sure it gets as high as that burden of proof.

Reckon the RFL will come down on the side of uncertainty.