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.

Genuine question for all the lip reading experts - what did Flanagan say to Hardaker (to which he replied by blowing a kiss)?

Do we have a video?

You're wrong. Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the admissibility of bad character evidence during a criminal trial, where someone's past convictions shows either a propensity to commit the offence charged, or where in answering questions the defendant has attacked someone else's character.

He is responsible for creating the situation in which his actions can be viewed as potentially homophobic, given that he was found guilty and banned for using homophobic abuse towards an official very recently.

He is responsible for shouting abuse at another player and preceding that abuse by blowing a kiss - it's not too much of a leap to link the two together, even for the horrid, witch-hunty RL fans who have a vendetta against poor innocent little Zak.

He is therefore entirely responsible for finding himself under investigation again and by extension, entirely responsible for any sanction that is applied if, on the balance of probability, he is found guilty.

And never let it be said of course than any of the people who have raised this issue just don't like to see homophobic incidents happen on the field - it must *always* be the case that they are just bitter, jealous fans of opposition teams who want to ruin his career; because in some peoples worlds, calling each 'puffs,' 'fags,' and 'bent c**ts' is just an everyday part of RL.

Quote Big Jim Slade="Big Jim Slade"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.'" This is exactly right. You can't even tell from the video how many syllables the last word has as he turned round. There are literally hundreds (and possibly thousands) of words he could have used. Also people really ought to watch this (pointed out I think by Gareth on Southstader last time around IIRC) to understand how their own opinion/prejudices about Hardaker will directly impact how they view the clip whether they like it or not: youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0

Quote Big Jim Slade="Big Jim Slade"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.'" This is exactly right. You can't even tell from the video how many syllables the last word has as he turned round. There are literally hundreds (and possibly thousands) of words he could have used. Also people really ought to watch this (pointed out I think by Gareth on Southstader last time around IIRC) to understand how their own opinion/prejudices about Hardaker will directly impact how they view the clip whether they like it or not: youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0

That is true, but in the context of the blown kiss and his past conduct, the number comes down to a very small number. He might have said "pussy", but that is arguably as homophobic, in the context of a blown kiss.

As for punishment, I would fine him. The last incident was worse. This is just crass because he seems irredeemably stupid. The two incidents together do not warrant someone missing out on effectively half a season, and certainly a punishment that exceeds someone knocking someone out with an illegal shoulder charge would be ridiculous.

I assume this is a reference to Jamie Peacock's comments, where I believe it was clear that he meant bent in the sense of 'dodgy' or 'corrupt' rather than homosexual. That's not necessarily an acceptable thing to say to a ref, but it's not homophobic either.

Also, you don't know for sure that Hardaker was even shouting abuse, all you know is that he was saying something. That's all. The fact that it was preceded with a blown kiss is neither here nor there, that's something that has happened in all sports and probably for all time. To leap from the fact that he's blown a kiss at another player to the presumption that whatever has followed out of his mouth is homophobic abuse is a pretty big one. Not as big as it would be for other players who have not been banned for this, but still a pretty big leap.

If the RFL are to ban him then it has to be because they have either a referee's word for it, an admission, or absolute and categorical proof - and based on what I've seen so far they (and we) don't have any of those.