1) correct, Slater has an injury to his ear
2) I disagree, it looks nothing like a 'bite'. The shape is wrong for starters, and the angle of the 'cut' isn't possible from where graham was at his head IMO. Think you and others need to check out the physiology of what a bite looks like because a bite causes a 'puncture' wound not a cut like we see here. If it was a tear to the skin of the top of the ear let's say then I'd agree.
3) heresay, no proof whatsoever and given the circumstances I wouldn't put it past someone like Slater to concoct garbage like that
4) Yes, Graham has his face into Slaters head, he is snarling but show me where he actually bites him?

No, it isn't cut & dried at all.

Bollox eh?
Go on then make your fool proof case to prove Graham has bitten him to cause that wound?

His mouth is open next to Slaters ear. Slaters ear is bleeding after he gets up. Slater immediately calls a biting charge. It does not look that complicated, no one is questioning the complaint in the media and the Dogs refuse to talk about it. images.triplem.com.au/2012/09/30 ... 00x400.jpg

His mouth is open next to Slaters ear. Slaters ear is bleeding after he gets up. Slater immediately calls a biting charge. It does not look that complicated, no one is questioning the complaint in the media and the Dogs refuse to talk about it. images.triplem.com.au/2012/09/30 ... 00x400.jpg

I would say the evidence is sufficient to form a reasonable belief that he did - Graham can be clearly seen gnawing on something at the side of Slater's head, who then comes up holding his ear; he immediately reports it to the official, and has a wound that appears consistent with his allegation.

I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in an NRL disciplinary setting, but I don't think that it's 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Given that, I imagine he'll be facing a lengthy ban.

Everyone knows the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.


Not guilty.

I assume Jammer had a gum shield in. If so it would be hard to bite properly.

I think that it can't be decided from the TV footage whether Graham did ora did not bite Slater.

On one side:

[list
[* Graham has his head at the side of Slater[/*:m
[* Slater has a wound to the ear.[/*:m
[* Slater tells the officials that he was bitten.[/*:m[/list:u

However, on the other side:

[list
[* Graham would have been wearing a gumshield.[/*:m
[* The wound, pictured on page 4 of this thread, looks nothing like a bitemark and only the middle of the ear is affected, not the outside. Graham would need to be half-vampire to leave that sort of mark.[/*:m
[* Graham was seen a couple of weeks ago near the ear of King, but he was just riling King up (to great effect).[/*:m[/list:u

Look this this image that appeared on another forum (I didn't make it):
[[/

Arrow 1. The referee is right next to this but did not report any sort of bite.
Arrow 3. Melbourne's #4 is pushing Graham's head into Slater.



So, overall, it's difficult to say. Whilst it looks suspicious, there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I'll leave it to the NRL judiciary to make the decision before I consider slagging him off.
If he is guilty then he deserves all this derision and a lengthy ban.
If he is found innocent then I expect that all of you will be queueing up to apologise.

Looked like he bit him to me.

Why does every body think they're ing Quincy?

People defending the indefensible again.

The title of this thread "Jammer lets himself down" is a small part of what he has done.

He has let his team down, the Storm moved up a gear after this incident just as the Dogs were looking like getting back off the deck.

He has let all of his new Aussie followers in the NRL down (Some Dogs fans are calling for his sacking) Graham had a massive following of Aussie admirers for his first season efforts and they all just walked out of the door.

He has let the game down in general, Alleged Biters and Eye gougers do not sell well to Parents deciding which code to send their kids into.

Running in last man, blind siding a player 30kgs smaller is enough without biting him.

It will be 10-12 weeks for this.

If Graham has bitten him, Slater will turn ginger.

We'll see what the enquiry comes up with.
Its not like he took his ear off, so its not the end of the world.
If he's guilty, give him a ban ( i think it was traditionally 8 weeks/matches) and move on.

I too liked the way the Commentators didn't dwell on it. They got on talking about the game and the positives associated.
Stevo and Eddie would still be talking about it now.

If it's all the same to you I'll let Shaun Wane decide on the appropriate punishment.

I hope, for his sake, his defence is a little more sophisticated then that.

Don't worry, the scouse accent will help the delivery.

The commentators let it roll to an extent because it was a Grand Final and they do not want issues like this to detract from the spectacle and occasion (it does not sell well)

The Media have covered it massively, biting is biting, it matters little that you did not tear his windpipe out.

It's obvious Graham bit him. If he was wearing the gumshield, it's irrelevant as from the angle shown, the bottom teeth would of done the damage.
No place whatsover for this to go on, the games tough enough without stupid acts like this.

he's getting hammered on aussie radio.......he's undone all the excellent work he's done this season the dope..


he'll defo get 10week +

CSI: St Helens

If Graham was pictured with a fully formed ear dripping out of his mouth there would be some on here saying Slater cut it off himself to get their guy sent off.

CSI: St Helens

Thats a department that is a waste of cash. Everyone has the same DNA

That's what I liked. I hate it when your watching a perfectly good game of rugby and S&E keeping talking about a bit of foul play, forward pass or bad PTB that was missed.

I know you didnt make this and took it from somewhere else but people have way too much time on their hands! It does look as if he bit him and its Slaters word against Jammers unfortunately. Graham did right by rushing in to help his team mate after seeing another Melbourne player come into the scuffle but after he poleaxes Slater to the floor he should have done with it and left him on his sorry backside.

The Aussie media of course was all over it, imagine if Tolman had done it, would there be the mass furore? It writes its own headline in their media. Some papers had this sat next to Tyson on Holyfield! Morons!

In an independent National Rugby League judiciary id expect Jammer to be flogged and sent back on a ship to where he belongs, that or given probably 8 games and not get paid for quite some time. It wasnt half as bad as Brad Morrins chomp on Tahu and that copped 8 games.

Very poor from an outstanding player who now has a reputation that he could have done without. I cant imagine what Canterbury are saying about this off the record and behind closed doors.

I don't want my club allegence to bias my veiws, but surely if someone like James Graham bit you ear in anger, it would look worse than this?

To say that the coverage is so big because Graham is English is ridiculous. Had anyone done it would have been the same coverage. He has bitten someone in clear view on one of the biggest games in the sport which was being screened to nearly 4 million people in Aus alone. The media coverage of the NRL grandfinal is blanket in NSW and QLD, and would have had a decent share in Melbourne due to the Storms participation.

I'd call this bite even worse then Morrins, he has gone in quite hard near the face. How anyone can claim that he hasn't intentionally tried to bite Slater are insanely deluded.

It's worse than Morrin's. He bit Tahu's arm and it was a spur of the moment thing because Tahu's arm was in front of him and he reacted to the tackle. Graham went looking for Slater when he wasn't involved and appeared to attack his ear in a sustained fashion. Morrin copped a pasting in the media as well and his suspension basically ended his first grade career, given that he was a fringe first grader as it was. An eight week (what Morrin got) ban won't ruin Graham's career. A 12 week ban probably won't either. But that's about what he'll get because a. it was worse, and b. the judiciary is harsher now than ever.