The fact that the Slater isn’t even needed at the judiciary and the incident hasn’t been graded, it doesn’t look good for Graham and I expect a very lengthy ban. I know it shouldn’t influence the decision but, if he is found guilty I believe the ban will be more severe due to the incident occurring in the GF.

People know pretty quickly if they have rabies. Dogs and professional sports people are usually very different.

If you are so worried about the transmission of disease, there is a much more obvious risk in the fact that many players experience cuts whilst on the field. Secondly, police officers would also like go to hospital if someone tried to break their leg or clobbered them around the face while running full throttle.

Im not saying its ok to do what Graham did, but I cant see why people think it is worse or more dangerous than hitting people in the head or trying to break their leg?

What about Travis Burns' ban? He got 12 weeks, after pleading guilty. Danny Willians and John Hopoate also received longer bans (17 and 18 weeks) for striking/reckless tackles.

Newton probably pled guilty too.
Prior certainly did. He was also sent off in the game.
Suggesting any player was trying to "break" someone's leg is just speculation. One could speculate that Graham was "trying" to bite Slaters ear off, which is arguably worse than breaking a leg, though that's beside the point. Anyone could speculate about intention, but the only assumtion that can be made here is that the bite was deliberate.

Graham pled not guilty, otherwise he probably would have got 10 weeks. And his charge is a very serious one. It's a deliberate act intended to cause damage, possibly permanent damage, to an opponent. It's easy to say there is no risk of illness from biting in a game because in your opinion players are unlikely to carry something that could be passed on. But that cannot be assumed.

I don't think he should have got 12 weeks. Maybe 10. But I don't agree with many suspensions in the NRL. On average they are all too harsh. But that means there can't be much complaint about this one. If the likes of Burns got 12 weeks or Danny Williams got 17 or Hopoate got 18 I don't think it's inconsistent that Graham got 12, especially after pleading not guilty. As I've said before, the judicary is also more harsh now than ever. If anything he can think himself lucky because, as this thread title suggests, there were some who expected far more.

The punishment is entirely consistent with the "crime" given the nature of the offence, the fact that he pled not guilty and the way in which the offence is considered by the average person, both within the game and without, and given historical feelings towards the offence in the sport.

And rightly so, they were much worse than what Graham did,
luke makes a pretty compelling case against himself when he said [i"When you come up against your family you want to outplay them. I didn't outplay him. I tried to break his leg"[/iThe risk that a high shot doesn’t result in a broken jaw, or much worse (see Paul Deacon for an example) shouldn’t be ignored either. It’s a strange risk assessment which states a blow to the head is preferable to a bite on the ear.
I dont have a problem with Graham getting 12 weeks, i just think to say that this bite is equal to what Burns, Newton, Williams, or Luke did is completely wrong, either in damage caused or danger of the action.

Says you. Virtually everyone else disagrees. Including the rule book/judiciary conventions. Even a broken jaw mends. A chunk out of your ear won't. Not only that, but a broken jaw could and does result from perfectly accidental and incidental events in a game of RL. A bite to the ear does not. So don't talk about risk assessments because any and every tackle risks broken bones, but not a bitten ear. You seem willing to extrapolate the POTENTIAL results of a high tackle, but not a bite. If someone said to me they were either going to break my jaw or take a bite out of my ear I reckon I'd go for the jaw. At least there is a good chance that will mend without the need for any plastic surgery or the like and that's without considering risk of infection etc. And once again, you are talking about blows to the head, but choose to ignore that the two incidents I mentioned that received far greater suspensions (17 and 18 weeks) were both blows to the head/face. So to suggest the judiciary is harsher against bites than striking/high tackles isn't even true. They were all deliberate acts and Graham received far less for his than Williams and Hopoate did. And he pled not guilty.

I honestly can’t believe I have read that.

Please, fella, read a book about the human body.