I think they should bring back hanging just for this - send out a proper message

Are you still here?

Come on, where is your partisanship? All I saw was the HKR player violently assaulting Elliot's teeth with his forearm. should be a 3 match ban for the HKR player

Your pulling my leg right?

3-6 match ban will be given.

Well, we already know it's going to be between 4 and 8...

It was quite clear - Elliott spotted some nasty tick on the other guy's forearm. Realising immediately that only prompt action could ensure the other guy did not risk going down with Lyme Disease, he took the only steps available to him since about half a ton of HKR players were sat on every other moving part.

And that, members of the jury, is what REALLY happened...

I guess before the lynch mob assembles, we need to know:

1 - did he actually do it (I saw no biting on the post incident replay, but others seem to have seen something presumably in the course of play?)

2 - if so, can there be any mitigating circumstances? Bit hard to envisage any that might lessen the seriousness of the offence, although maybe (for example) the other guy being in the middle of trying to rip your 'nads off might come closest?

This is the important bit for me, it appears that the HKR fans (or at least one who's posted in this thread) have seen seperate footage, unless of course they are confirming what happened from their postion in the stands, in which case I will trust the footage I have seen.

Woah, woah, woah. Slow down George.

Are you suggesting some form of trial with consideration of the evidence [i[ubefore[/u[/i sentencing?

Lunacy. It'll never work.

*

*

The replay I saw didn't look particularly like a bite to me but it did clearly show whiteheads mouth on the other players arm.

What makes me suspect he DID bite him is the fact that the other player complained to the ref. I don't think by and large there are many guys who would make that sort of thing up. You might old man the ref to get an on-field advantage but you don't feign being bitten surely.

The arm and face came together (as they would do many times in many tackles) but there was no apparent jaw action. Can't see anything coming of it to be honest.

Given the stage the disciplinary process has got to isn't it too late for that?

I can't remember the last time a player went to a hearing with a minimum punishment of at least 1 match ban and come away with no ban at all.

Except maybe Keith Senior in last year's Challenge cup for kicking out in the tackle.

If he is found guilty then the book should be thrown at him.

When i saw the replay on the big screen i though he was in big trouble. But after watching it on SKY, it didn't look too much. Cox did pull his arm away which didn't look good. But the camera angle was pretty good and clear, Whiteheads mouth is near his arm, but there isn't really any jaw movement. Also he's wearing a gum shield so it would be very difficult to bite someone with a gum shield, so he could only bite with his bottom teeth, which surely would have looked clear as it would be quite difficult with a gum shield.

Am not looking for excuses or anything, as i said, if found guilty, the book should be thrown at him, and the panel will have more evidence then we have. So we shall see.

Bulls Forward Elliott Whitehead was today banned for five games and fined £300.00 for biting by the RFL's Disciplinary Committee meeting in Leeds.
Whitehead was found guilty of biting Hull KR Forward Jordan Cox in the 65th minute of last Sunday's game at Odsal.
Whitehead, who was accompanied by Coach Mick Potter and Football Manager Stuart Duffy, pleaded not guilty to the charge. In his submission, evidence was produced from the Doctor which stated that Whitehead could not have been in control of his actions at the time of the offence as he had been knocked unconscious only four minutes prior to the incident. The Bulls also provided a Cogsport Head Test Certificate, taken earlier today, which showed there was still a degree of concussion that would not have allowed him to play as of today. Whitehead himself informed the panel that he could not remember anything of the game or the incident and apologised for any illegal action he had undertaken.
In finding the player guilty, the panel stated that the fact he had been allowed to stay on the field by medical staff at the time meant that he had to be fully accountable for his actions and whilst there was no doubting he had been knocked out, it wasn't mitigating circumstances in this incident. The panel, which consisted of Judge Peter Charlesworth, Russ Bridge and Nathan McAvoy and had to power to suspend him for up to eight matches, took into account his exemplary Disciplinary Record in reaching their verdict and punishment.
[size=150The Bulls will not be appealing against the decision.[/size

What a tit.

Well done Elliott. Well done indeed.

Idiot.

Well that just puts a tin-hat on what might be the worst halves of rugby I've ever seen from us. 28-nil at home and a five game ban for one of our best players would be some going in eighty minutes, let alone forty.

Whole thing seems plain weird. Can anyone remember Whitehead doing anything like this before? Anyone have any thoughts on the claims of mitigation? Never been concussed myself, suspect my skull is too thick.

McAvoy back to haunt us, also...

Fool. Deserves it then.

So he misses the rest of this season plus the first 2 games of next year.
Unless we loan him out for a couple of weeks to a lower league side who's season starts before ours so his ban is used up before SL starts.

But no SL would be so underhand as to use THAT sort of tactic.

As for deserves it, I've been concussed and I fully believe that Whitehead hasn't any recollection of the events nor was in total control of himself at the time

think your still allowed to use one friendly game towards a ban so he should only miss first game of next season unless that rules changed.

Oh dear. Stupid boy. It is unlike him. But they RFL obviously had the evidence so there can be no excuses.

No defending it really. Concussion or no concussion you cannot justify what he's done.

I'll bet that on top of missing his clubs remaining 3 SL fixtures that he will be allowed to sit out 2 pre season friendlies to clear his ban just in time for the start of SL

wrong. just checked rules. section D 28.d covers it. your allowed to count one pre-season warmup game towards a ban so its like I thought and he will miss only first game of next season.