Re: Hull : Mon May 27, 2024 5:31 pm  

Found 'unequivocally not guilty' wonder if everyone who's hung him out to dry all week will offer an apology? Doubt it.

Re: Hull : Mon May 27, 2024 8:44 pm  

Yippee try yay wrote:

Found 'unequivocally not guilty' wonder if everyone who's hung him out to dry all week will offer an apology? Doubt it.

Why am I not surprised by that! It doesn't say much then for the match officials & how they handled the "incident".

Re: Hull : Mon May 27, 2024 9:56 pm  

Deadcowboys1 wrote:

Why am I not surprised by that! It doesn't say much then for the match officials & how they handled the "incident".

Piece of luck for this fella that audio ended up proving he did nothing wrong. These he said/she said cases are really dodgy. Very unclear how anyone can come to a definitive view on what happened in absence of real evidence. Especially problematic as consequences can be severe.

Re: Hull : Tue May 28, 2024 4:10 am  

Seems this story isn't over yet following the club's statement to seek legal advice.

Re: Hull : Tue May 28, 2024 9:33 am  

Why was the RFL statement made jointly with Hull FC ? That doesn't seem appropriate regardless of whether a charge is progressed.

Re: Hull : Tue May 28, 2024 10:08 am  

jbuzza wrote:

Why was the RFL statement made jointly with Hull FC ? That doesn't seem appropriate regardless of whether a charge is progressed.

Agreed Buzz but in any event with a charge like this, you need transparency & that should result in a hearing deciding on the evidence provided by Hull & the views that Sid wants to put forward. Whether he said something or Sid misunderstood who knows, but dismissing it as "nothing to see here move along" does RL no favours.

Re: Hull : Tue May 28, 2024 11:14 am  

Deadcowboys1 wrote:

Agreed Buzz but in any event with a charge like this, you need transparency & that should result in a hearing deciding on the evidence provided by Hull & the views that Sid wants to put forward. Whether he said something or Sid misunderstood who knows, but dismissing it as "nothing to see here move along" does RL no favours.

OK so on the face of it the issue is slapdash process rather than the substantive issue. One assumes Broncos have heard the recording- if not, that is odd. The actual issue itself remains a he said/she said where the ‘he’ actual has, seemingly, proof he didn’t say what he was accused of. If the tape provides that proof, let Broncos hear it and that would seem to be that. Lack of transparency and the optics of a joint press release are valid points but I’m not sure what mileage there is in pursuing. I recall us getting all bent out of shape about the game in Toulouse a few seasons back. We had a ‘moral’ point but got nowhere. Net result money out, lost points and we ended up 7th in the league.

Re: Hull : Tue May 28, 2024 12:47 pm  

BigTime wrote:

I recall us getting all bent out of shape about the game in Toulouse a few seasons back. We had a ‘moral’ point but got nowhere. Net result money out, lost points and we ended up 7th in the league.

Without wishing to rehash that farce, which of course if it did anything, it showed that Broncos often aren't allowed a level playing field, the wording in the Broncos statement suggests that either they haven't heard the tape or the tape was provided after the RFL/Hull released the "nothing to see" statement. Either way, that is wrong. The use of the word "unequivocally withdrawn", is tantamount to saying Sid is telling porkies, which I am sure he is not & heard something. What it would seem is that the RFL don't want to know in great detail what that something might be which you would have hoped a hearing might determine. After all, it isn't unknown for Islanders in both codes of rugby to use, shall we say, intemperate language at times.