Here's a question.....

IF the referee says he heard it.....why would you then need a lip reader?

Since when wasn't the refs report and claims not enough to see someone banned?

I can't recall the James Child case requiring a lip reader, his claim that he heard Hardaker was enough last time, why isn't it this time?

Using a lip reader is/has been 100% completely not needed IF the ref has said he's heard foul and abusive language.

Admittance that they're using a lip reader blows apart the claim that Silverwood heard it.

Or he said that he *thought* he might have heard it but can't be 100% sure?

Was Silverwood near enough to hear it?

First off, its only Leeds claiming a lip reader is being used, it may have been said in the same manner that this is a "witch hunt".

Secondly, it may of been the case that after the last time this happened the rfl deemed it a good investment for future cases in similar circumstances ... not thinking it would be the same player 3 months down the line.

Finally, as a player you can barely remember a match blow by blow and I'd imagine its even worse than as a ref. If he thinks he heard it, but didnt focus on it at the time (too busy stopping a fight breaking out between lms and hardaker), in the same way child did, thinking it was refering to him, it can easuily fall to the back of the mind, only to be brought back up when concentrating on the match report. If the supposed lip reader supports Silverwoods claim, it hardly "blows apart" Silverwoods claim.

Rightly or wrongly, it dont look good for Hardaker ...

dp

Trial by lip reader, maybe someone could get a full time gig at Red Hall .

After watching the game last week, the most excruciating part for me was the chanting regarding Silverwood’s masturbatory habits.

Maybe he went home & watched his stellar performance but on hearing the South Stand Harpies decided to stick the knife in on poor old Zac.

No I don't buy the "it falls to the back of their mind" reason, that's extremely weak.

The same weekend as the first Hardaker incident, Mick Weyman of HKR was sent off for using foul language towards the referee. He was charged on Monday as usual and banned on Tuesday, the game took place on Sunday so only 48 hours turnaround.

The Leeds game was the Thursday night game and even though Child 'heard it' it took 13 more days until Hardaker was banned? Why the holdup if the ref said he used that language then that's it.

Again Silverwood is saying Hardaker said it.....fine ban him.....what's stopping them, since when wasn't the report and word of a referee not enough?

which would indicate nobody actually heard it. Because nobody heard it on TV, Flanagan didnt hear it, Silverwood didnt hear it clearly enough to be sure, and Hardaker denies he said it.

Considering lip readers will tell you only about 30% of sounds in the english language are distinguishable by sight we now have an investigation into a player possibly saying something he denies saying, something that nobody heard, and that nobody can be sure they saw.

If what Leeds have said is true, the RFL have made a huge error in publicly accusing a player of something with only tenuous evidence to start with. Not only because it makes them look incompetent and sets people against them, but such accusations are often entirely counter-productive to what is actually intended to be achieved.

Seriously? You think they'd make a public statement over something so serious and make things up?




So he thinks he heard something but can't remember? Sounds about right

You must've never been to an RL or Football game in your life.

There is a difference between foul and abusive behaviour and homophobic abuse - the former is defined within the operational rules and is a "simple" categoristation, the latter is also against numerous other RFL policies and initiatives, and simply put is a much more serious accusation. This in turn takes a longer period for hearings and sentencing - you wouldnt expect a murder trial to take the same time as a drunk and disorderly case.

You can say him not immediately springing on it at the time is "weak" but its well within the realms of possibility. He may of forgotten to raise it with the match commision but so long as it was raised in the match report than I dont see the issue. He he had written the match report with no mention and only now after the whole palava come out and said "oh yeah ..." then thered be much more of a case for it.

Or not, this is a myth of long standing. It originated from tests where the subjects were just making vowel sounds and mouth shapes, not speaking or having a conversation.

The 30% stat is very frequently cited, but there is no actual authority for it.

Most skilled lip readers would expect to achieve close to 100% accuracy of a conversation recorded in ideal conditions that they had the luxury of being able to replay on video. This is because they recognise speech not from any given individual mouth shape or movement, or individual phonemes, but are practised at associating sequences of such shapes and movements, into common words, phrases etc. And given a collection of such clues they are experienced in making sentences out of them, much like you can fill in a crossword clue much easier the more letters you know.

I am assuming normal conversation of course. If the discussion was between two nuclear physicists on formulas for obscure chemical reactions or such like the percentage would be much lower, as the subject of the dialogue is important.

The RFL are showing (for a change) due diligance in making sure they are absolutely as far as they can be what the facts are.
In something as serious as this (given Hardakers very recent misdemeanor) to rely on one piece of evidence alone could leave them on shaky ground when it comes down to it.
As MS mentions, it's easy enough for referees not to remember verbatim exactly what was said, he has to concentrate every single minute of the game on differing types of situations. It isn't that his report isn't accurate as an absolute..that would be impossible, because any point in time isn't always recalled as vivedly as another so to say X time/game the ref remembered everything without a shadow of doubt can't be compared to another occasion when he may have heard/seen something said but wasn't 100% sure.

In which case given how serious it [icould[/i be for Hardaker should he be proven guilty then they rightly have to show as far as possible that he is guilty, if there's a doubt then he isn't. That isn't a witch hunt, that's doing the right thing for everyone concerned!
It is their duty to uphold both the laws of the sport AND in this case actually what might be another criminal offence.

But of course whino fans & their club seemingly aren't interested in following up on something that could put the sport in a massively negative light if they just gloss over it as they are suggesting the RFL do by their stance
Jesus how pathetic, bigoted and narrowminded are some people, including the Leeds club.
if even after a lip reader has looked at whatever footage they have and can't be sure then the RFL would be left with little choice to say they've investigated and it isn't 100% clear so a warning for foul language.
If he is guilty and at this moment in time that is still a big if, then yes, it isn't good for the player, BUT it makes rugby league one of the very few sports to crack down on this sort of behaviour..that we will not as a family sport tolerate this kind of thing both from the players/clubs POV nor from fans.

THAT should be applauded instead of being labelled as witch hunting or are you whino fans & your nasty little club seriously suggesting the RFL and everyone else should sweep these types of things under the carpet and be ignored? Really..are you, because pretty much everything said so far including the ridiculous 'trail by social media' tag suggests that's exactly what should happen? Idiots

i would question any claim of 100% accuracy if only for the fact that whenever lipreading is included in a story, almost universally they take 2 or 3 different experts and the give 2 or 3 slightly different answers