About 30 seconds before the ref put it on report you can see Berrigans face in Murrels forearm in a tackle, it could have been accidental as there was a Rovers player shoving Berrigan downwards by the head, but where was his shield.

What a bitch he will be pulling hair next lol........

As Tracey says it's very hard to prove.

The last one I saw looked a definate bite but I don't even think it got to head quarters.

Gis a bite pat!



The way he's looking at Richards, seems he may be partial to a bit of arm

This is the way I see it too, as you say you can see Berrigans head on Murrels arm and another player pushing his (Berrigans) head down (which IMO would cause an imprint). Stright from the tackle Murrel doesn't make any kind of fuss so again IMO he can't have thought there was any mallice in the incident.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... inary.html "Inconclusive evidence"

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... inary.html "Inconclusive evidence"

lets face it, if he'd bit Murrell he would need to go in quarantine for fear of catchin rabies

www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/superl ... p?id=19000

www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/superl ... p?id=19000

Put him in quarantine for 4 months for precaution anyway, not as if he's got anything else on is it.

Some extreme knee-jerkery there, Phillip.

Expect nothing less

We thought this - seemed strange he waited a couple of minutes before he decided to wail to Bentham. If you've been bit you know it immediately and make a fuss then.

Methinks he saw a mark afterwards and spotted a chance to make a bit of mischief... "Please sir, h-he [ib-bit[/i me!! Oh [iloooook[/i!".

At least, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was something like this rather than a deliberate attempt to falsely accuse someone of one of the most gravely viewed offences in rugby. Either way, tough chedds Scotty.

Why is it?

He's got the mark on his arm, the DVD was inconclusive. Shaun is a very lucky boy unless the mark appeared on it's own?

looked to me like Vella took him to the ref, not Murrell going running to him.

Either that, because it suits your knee-jerk reaction, or he didn't bite him.

So how does he get the bite mark on his arm?

Phil Bentham
"You can see the teeth mark on his arm, we'll have to put it on report"

Berrigan is very lucky he's got away with it but as numerous posters stated, it'd be impossible to prove so an expected outcome

=#FF0000Stick to the topic please.

And no, you cant start a seperate thread about our finances.


RBA.

2 points for you:

1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain.
2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"2 points for you: 1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain. 2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan.'" www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2224 Like I said, lucky to get away with it

Quote ="Mrs Barista"2 points for you: 1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain. 2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan.'" www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2224 Like I said, lucky to get away with it

There's no evidence and no charge. You said he definitely bit Murrell, despite the lack of evidence. That's libel.

Because there was no evidence he did it

Theres a bite mark on his arm, thats why it was put on report. Watch the game again and you will hear for yourself why the incident is placed on report

Has it magically appeared?

Where did the bite mark come from then?

Allegedly. Have you seen it? Maybe it was a knock/scratch/graze. If it was so conclusive surely it should have been matched to Berrigan via a dental impression. Interesting that the reporting of this is described in terms of "alleged", "claimed" etc in the press but you are allowed to state that Berrigan bit Murrell as a fact on here with impunity.

Provide any evidence what so ever that Berrigan caused this alleged mark.