Disciplinary committee's reasoning now posted.
www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3043

I was under the impression that, for biting to be proved, evidence of bite marks had to be shown. There is no mention of any such evidence.

And there's this www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3042

The panel seems to be following their tradition of handing out bans to Quins players for incidents v. Catalans. Maybe when we have a new name they won't realise that it's the same club?

Disciplinary committee's reasoning now posted.
www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3043

I was under the impression that, for biting to be proved, evidence of bite marks had to be shown. There is no mention of any such evidence.

And there's this www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3042

The panel seems to be following their tradition of handing out bans to Quins players for incidents v. Catalans. Maybe when we have a new name they won't realise that it's the same club?