Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:04 pm  

Slightly o/t
Peacock has been given a £300 fine but no ban.

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:08 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Slightly o/t
Peacock has been given a £300 fine but no ban.

IMO I don't think he should have been banned (was the Leigh lad on report?) for a punch up like that but it's the old inconsistent banning of players that irritates me.

Some players get sent off for fighting, some get sin binned, some get warned, some get banned and some get fined. It's not hard to have one rule for fighting.

Does this mean anyone can get up and start throwing punches and get away with no ban now?

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:18 pm  

The RFL have just confirmed on Twitter that Hardaker has been found guilty and banned for five matches, with the regulation £300 fine thrown in for good measure.

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:19 pm  

St pete wrote:

Does this mean anyone can get up and start throwing punches and get away with no ban now?

So long as they claim provocation then they should be sorted. The biff is back!

(I have always thought bans for punch ups to be stupid. Sin bin sufficient for me, unless a player is unable to defend himself in which case that's a bit different)

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:20 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

The RFL have just confirmed on Twitter that Hardaker has been found guilty and banned for five matches, with the regulation £300 fine thrown in for good measure.

Bit of a cop out if you ask me.

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:03 pm  

St pete wrote: Bit of a cop out if you ask me. Interesting conclusion to it actually :- http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/30 ... banned-for The tribunal accepted that the player is not homophobic but were satisfied that the remarks were made to the match official. Which begs the question why was he banned then??

St pete wrote: Bit of a cop out if you ask me. Interesting conclusion to it actually :- http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/30 ... banned-for The tribunal accepted that the player is not homophobic but were satisfied that the remarks were made to the match official. Which begs the question why was he banned then??

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:15 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote: Interesting conclusion to it actually :- http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/30 ... banned-for Which begs the question why was he banned then?? Because he used a homophobic slur. Perhaps also because the disciplinary didn't believe he aimed the slur at Monaghan. Anyway, the Canalsiders were content with the ban and he's working with them now. Hopefully this whole incident will be the last one of its kind in rugby league.

Magic Superbeetle wrote: Interesting conclusion to it actually :- http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/30 ... banned-for Which begs the question why was he banned then?? Because he used a homophobic slur. Perhaps also because the disciplinary didn't believe he aimed the slur at Monaghan. Anyway, the Canalsiders were content with the ban and he's working with them now. Hopefully this whole incident will be the last one of its kind in rugby league.

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:25 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Because he used a homophobic slur. Perhaps also because the disciplinary didn't believe he aimed the slur at Monaghan.

Anyway, the Canalsiders were content with the ban and he's working with them now.

Hopefully this whole incident will be the last one of its kind in rugby league.

Apologies, I got tricked from a quote put on the Leeds board!

"We were pleased that the panel made a particular point of saying that they did not believe that Zak had meant his comment as a homophobic remark and that they considered that Zak was not homophobic."

(Except I now can't find the source of this) - if they believed it not to be homophobic, and not at the ref, then what is the ban for?

I think 5 games is about right.

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:53 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Hopefully this whole incident will be the last one of its kind in rugby league.

Dream on.

Re: Zak Hardaker charged : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:33 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Because he used a homophobic slur. Perhaps also because the disciplinary didn't believe he aimed the slur at Monaghan.

Anyway, the Canalsiders were content with the ban and he's working with them now.

Hopefully this whole incident will be the last one of its kind in rugby league.

Oh well I'm glad about that, I mean if they'd been unhappy the RFL would have had to take another look at it. As for being the 'last of it's kind' , take some time out this weekend and go watch a few amateur games and listen closely to some of the language used, I imagine you'll be greatly offended