I think even if he had pleaded guilty they would of given him 12 games.A guilty plea would of taken the ban down to 8 and then you could of taken off the pre season and possibly the internationals ( if thats allowed ) leaving him with 4 games,there is no way they would of settled for that with it being the showcase final.

That is just desperate.

Seeing as you're so keen to compare the standards of evidence required for an industrial tribunal and a criminal case, why not ask a lawyer the qualitative difference between the offences of biting on the arm and the ear, and whether or not they'd expect clients to get the same tarriff for both.

I think you have to take everything into account, you can't compare like with like.

1st it was in the GF infront of a maximum TV audience
2nd he did not plead guilty
3rd he's English
4th he has the chance to work some of these games in the off season

So he gets a 12 match ban, you take out the internationals and the 2 pre-season games, that takes it down to about 6.

The difference between a bite and other things like breaking jaws and eye gouging is the parts of the body used. Arms and hands are involved in tackles anyway, so a swinging arm would be expected to be seen in RL as would hands involved in the tackle.

Teeth however have no part to play in the game of RL and so intent is far easy to define. If your teeth have bitten someone, it's harder to argue that it was unintentional, were as a swing arm can be mitigated by, 'I meant to make contact with the ball Me Lord' Or he side stepped me and I just lashed out with a grab.

He should have all his teeth taken out then he can't become a repeat offender!

He is just saying (I think) that he hasn't done ir; not it was an accident?

Certainly the photos and videos on line are not conclusive but do suggest that it is likely he did it. Less likely but possible is that Graham was screaming abuse down slayers ear lug and slater had got a scratch to his ear during the prior fracas.

Didn't he have a gum shield in? If so, isn't it difficult to draw blood with a gum shield?

I can't understand why he pleaded not guilty unless he really believes he didn't? Slater appears to be an obnoxious big headed showboater and I woulddn't put anything past him.

I don't know if this is the end of it - if Graham believes he has suffered an injustice, and wants to appeal, he will need new evidence.

That can depend on how many pints one has drunk.

Yes he had a gumshield on his top set of teeth,his lower one however didnt and its his lower one that would of caught the ear.

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/im-a-lover-not-a-biter-defiant-graham-maintains-innocence-20121004-271tw.htmlJammer is maintaining his innocence[/url

In terms of balance of probabilities the photo is the clincher. You can get quite alot passed on the balance of probabilities, even without photo evidence, so the photo just makes it nice and easy to judge on. Hence the 10 minute coffee break it took to reach the decision.

If you were to go to the level of reasonable doubt, then sure all the questions raised about the mark, whether it was accidental etc etc etc, would be important. But it's not enough just to raise a doubt. It's balance of probability and it only has to be 51% to 49% likely that he did it. That's the kinda odds you get on a coin toss. Put those photos to any number of people you like and I would guess most would vote yes he did it.

Whether he did actually do it is another matter and not one that can be proven, they are not going to stop a match to take forensics.

He's been a very naughty lad and deserves every game of the 12 match ban. Whatever the justification and provocation (and it must have been severe) a 12 game ban is fair. I only wish to the lords of all that's holy that the disciplinary committee over here started applying the same standards...

That's what gets me about this. He could be entirely innocent of the charge, whatever the video may LOOK like, and yet not only has he been banned on the basis of a 10 minute coffee break, but he's been made an example of by receiving a bigger ban than anyone previously for this charge. This must be awful for him if he IS innocent, and he continues to maintain that he is. How many players do that after they have been found guilty?

A couple of months ago I was ambling to the car in a world of my own. I have to open my car with a key as the sensor stopped working years ago. So I was there, trying to get my key into the lock of the car but it wouldn't go. I realised that in actual fact it was not my car at all but it was a stranger's car parked in the space where I usually park my car but hadn't done so that morning.

If someone had spotted me or taken a picture of me and the car had later gone missing, to a suspicious/cynical/reactionary mind it would have looked like I was trying to steal someone's car. However, I wasn't. I was just being a dozy bint. It's alarming to think that in a sports context I would have been subject to a long punishment on the basis of what my actions looked like as opposed to what they were.

To every one who thinks he was saying something in Billy Slaters ear two things:

Firstly what was he saying? Wellens is faster than you

Secondly is Slater deaf? His mouth was bloody close to his ear for him to say something. A more conventional way for sledging would be for him to have him by the scruff of the neck and say it to his face.

I think he bit him, I thought it at the time. Even if Slater didn't complain (ala Wilkins) the whole incident was on report and it would have been picked up any way.

I will say this though for all Grahams dummy spitting antics over the years I have to admire him as for the last couple of years I thought he carried you lot by himself and the true mark was this year. Before Sunday if you said Graham would do anything like this I would have been very shocked. It is completely out of nature, if it was a swinging arm or mistimed tackle it would help explain sme things.

Only James Graham really knows the truth of what happened, however, in my opinion he did bite Slater's ear, which has really lowered Graham in my estimation. To make it worse, he is now claiming to be innocent, which has lowered him even further. I never took him for a dirty player, but this is the sort of thing that a half wit like Hock would do. Graham will always now be remebered as a biter. That's not to say that I wouldnt have him back here in a flash, but he will never be quite the same person that he was before the weekend.

There has been a massive over reaction about this and more so from the Australian press. Have a read about Les Boyd who is now classed as a legend.

In mine he didn't. So my opinion of him is in tact. I think Jammer is way too honest to be a biter, and by honest I mean he has heart on sleeve. He was well known as a moaner and a ratty person, he didn't hide it. I don't think he is the kind of character to do such a sly thing. He'd more likely punch Slater.

Besides that, of course, the pictures are inconclusive.

Do you still think slater marked his own ear?

I didn't ever think that and so I can't 'still' think it can I?

I think Slater got ear damage in the brawl.

Wouldn't put it past him - but seriously, there was a huge fracas before the Graham incident so he could have scratched it there.

If you read the full report of graham's defence; missing teeth, no bite mark, he was screaming abuse, the dentist report. the doctors report, no history of violence and certainly not of biting etc it makes a good case of him being given the benefit of the doubt.
It looks like minds were already made up though.

Exactly.

Disgusting. I hope the milk bottle ginger chav rots and never plays a game in the red vee again. He belongs at Wigan or any other club that embrace asbos.

Get a grip. We've had players who have done far worse. Didn't we have one who ate a child once?

I am pretty sure we had already shipped him off to Leigh before he took up cannibalism? Being sent to Leigh would mess with anyone's head. Just like living amongst the convicts, no wonder graham has gone feral

I wonder what you would have said if it had been Hock or McIlorum instead of Graham? Would you be so staunch in their defence? No be honest, you would be saying that the sentence wasn’t long enough and they should be banned for life etc. Please don’t come with, “Graham isn’t like them, he wouldn’t do things like that, he’s a good lad” I would think your outlook on the whole incident would be the complete reverse.

As would yours!!!!!

No you’re wrong, as I’ve purposely made no judgment of my own on the incident so I had none to reverse. My comment was on the observation and judgment of someone else. I will say now I did see what happened on the tele at the time and my thoughts are (as if you care) Graham seemed to at worst nibbled, more nuzzle the ear, I couldn’t see lots of blood, or even any. I think Graham was silly and the punishment harsh, but that doesn’t change my original comment.