I guess they don't play the Rfl respect message before games at the job?

Off with his ugly head.

And there is many definitions in the dictionary's of the word "Fag" which is what Hardaker was previously done for. However, none of them define it as an homosexual comment.

Really?

[urlhttp://www.oed.com/view/Entry/67610?rskey=3a4vJg&result=5&isAdvanced=false#eid[/url

It was all in the moment, and doesn't mean that Wane actually thinks that the ref was actually copulating, nor that he is corrupt/biased, nor illegitimate. Wane should be able to control his mouth better, and probably will in future, but really, nothing to see here. FFS.

Like I say, I have no doubt that he didn't mean it and it was in the heat of the moment. Same as Hardaker. But neither were acceptable. I don't see what reason he has to "control his mouth" if there isn't a consequence fit his actions? I'm not talking the same as Hardaker, but it definitely needs addressing otherwise it basically means you can say what you like about anyone you like from the touchline.

You can't just use "heat of the moment" as an excuse for saying things that are totally unacceptable.

The vast majority of fans are closer than Wane was, should they be policed too? Surely the same rules must apply to all equally? Maybe we should all have a Siri enabled microphone that can constantly monitor what's being said and a swear box be passed around? And then, a chip for the thought police to monitor.

I'm no lover of Wane but his phrase is just an instantaneous exclamation about a situation, if he'd 'mouthed' "That's a fooking disgusting decision", would that be contrued as something to use against him, if not how does that differ to the alledged comment he's made?
Isn't actually the problem in part down to how the broadcaster is constantly looking for moments just like this after contentious decisions, we see it all the time, some people react in different ways, the likes of Wane will vent their frustration directly in words. In that scenario it ISN'T public just because sky have covered it and it isn't directed personally as he isn't addressing anyone just making an angered exclamation.

If this is to be punished and scrutenised and from what some have written it is then we as a society are completely screwed

Thanks for demonstrating my point entirely. Man makes comment out loud but pretty obviously to himself, in a heated, emotional environment, cameras catch it purely by chance, some reactionary knee-jerkers demand punishment based on being lip and mind reading experts.

We're heading down a horribly sterile, sanitised road where everyone is forced to live by the standards of the most sensitive, delicate, permanently outraged little cherubs on social media. You included.

Actually, now I know you're a teacher it makes sense.








Or was he just exasperated at going to the VR for what was pretty clearly a good try to seal the win? Because - taken in actual context - that seems far more likely than him suddenly deciding to shout out that Bentham is 'corrupt'.

When he's representing the club and the game, man needs to keep those kind of comments to himself. You can't just say what you like because "it was the heat of the moment."


It's not about being sensitive. It's about doing what is expected of you when you represent someone. Calling referees bent in public is just not acceptable.


What's your point?


If it was an obvious try, why would he need to worry? I'm sorry, that explanation just makes no sense at all. I just don't get why the phrase "bent" would come into his mind because a referee has asked to check something. His first reaction is clearly that he thinks the ref is trying to find ways to get the try chalked off, why else the frustration? Why else would he choose that word? The fact that it popped into his head shows his mentality, and it's a mentality not needed in the game that needs stamping out.

On reflection, he won't agree with what he was thinking at the time, just like Zac Hardaker probably didn't mean to call someone the f word. But the fact that he couldn't control himself enough to stop himself saying it is the reason why there should be some form of consequence.

I think it's a more dangerous road to go down to use "the heat of the moment" as an excuse to just do what you like.

The fans so not represent the club or the game in a professional capacity, so no they should not apply equally. It's a ridiculous conclusion to draw from what I've said.