Bloody hell, you must have some SuperHiFiDetail 7500" screen with zoom and x-ray facility! Can you post an image on here? On my poxy 42" all I can see is where Graham's head is in relation to Slater's. Sadly I can at no point see either Graham's mouth, much less what it may be doing, or Slater's ear.

I do see a Melbourne player while all this is going on, for some reason that i can't begin to imagine, push down on Graham's head. Maybe that is what caused the injury.

No, it was definitely Brohman and Johnstone.

As he has pleaded NG all evidence will have to be given and that will mean that Slater will have to attend.

Doesn't work. Burns will miss the first month I think of the season.

Yep just whispering sweet nothings into his ear!

That proves he didn't bite imo.

Those images are no evidence, at all, of biting, though. Nobody so far as I know is suggesting that Graham's face wasn't in contact with Slater's head, because it was. I'm also assuming that it will be also accepted that that contact was what caused whatever injury there was.

What the video from which the images are grabbed clearly shows is Graham's head being firmly clamped by the grip of Slater's left arm, and then they clarly show the Melbourne N.4 O'Neill place his left arm on top of Graham's head.

The video then clearly shows Graham's head and Slater's head going markedly downwards. It is not entirely clear whether that is because of pressure downwards by O'Neill or not.

To me it does look as if Graham's head is pulled closer to Slater's head by this apparent downward pressure but there is no way to tell how hard O'Neill was pressing or pulling. It does look to me like he had hold of the back of Graham's head and does look as if he pulls it forward. I have no clue why O'Neill was doing this, though.

no case to answer should be the decision, they've got naff all evidence to prove Graham bit him and he (Graham) should seek to ensure that the aussie disciplinary have to prove without doubt their case(not disprove your innocense as that isn't how it works) The cut to the ear clearly shows it wasn't made by a bite and there's no other physical evidence to support such. Complete and utter from start to finish.

Guilty, awaiting sentence.

12 matches

Sounds like a fair result, does that include games missed for England and Trials?

it should be 12 games starting on the first round of the nrl... i can see the doggies arranging quite a few trial games this next year

"Graham will miss 12 matches - which will likely include two trial games and two England internationals. The earliest he will available to play NRL is round nine next year."

That’s the same as Clint Newton got for his assault on Ashton Sims, more than twice what Matt Prior got for nearly decapitating Jonathon Thurston. Its also 6 times what Issaac Luke got for intentionally trying to break Rangi Chase’s leg.

I wouldn’t look to defend what Graham did, but if that ban is ‘fair’ we have our priorities wrong imo.

Illegal hits and tackles that are dirty are an unfortunate part of the game being a contact sport.

Biting is in a category of its own, that has no relationship to Elbows, head high tackles etc.
If a person bit you in a fight would you consider getting a blood test afterwards?

Probably not no, the chances of someone having a serious communicable disease, especially a high profile sportsman with constant monitoring of health they have are very very low. And the risk of transfer from a bite itself is pretty low also.

I think it would be completely wrong to think that there was more danger in what Graham did, Clint Newton, Matt Prior or Issaac Luke did.

Fair enough, I would not like to be bitten while playing sport, =#FF0000I would get a blood Test,
Just posing a couple of points.....
If the risk of transfer from a bite is low, why bother getting a Tetanus shot when a Dog bites you? I thought Rabies was spread from bites?
Police officers that get bitten on duty get tested for hepatitis and HIV and have a long worrying wait for the results.

Still if its a RL Player it will be ok, none of them take drugs or have much of a sex life I guess.

The fact the biting did a lot to damage the games image on its biggest day in front of a full house and 40 million TV viewers may have also upset the Management.

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.