I've now seen the footage and I don't see Slater's ear going in to Jammer's mouth. I see Jammer's mouth in the vicinity of Slater's ear though but that's as much as the footage actually shows.

Given the gravity of the charge, there should be nothing less than absolute proof that he actually bit Slater's ear rather than assuming he did just because his mouth was in the vicinity. He could have been giving Slater a tirade of abuse in scouse for all we know.

Sorry but this is just cringeworthy, he did it, get over it

There is nothing to get over. Unlike some people who presumably in the days of hanging would be salivating at the thought of watching someone's neck being stretched, I prefer to see proof of something before finding a person guilty.

I feel like I'm talking to the O.J. Simpson defence team.

I wish I was on the same salary.

Hahahaha but I agree with saintsfan, unless the is clear footage of his ear in Graham's mouth then he can't be found guilty.

I never cease to be amazed by the level of proof Saints fans require to condemn one of their own when they'll gladly mash their fingers to a pulp demanding a ten match ban for someone like Hock seconds after he's involved in one incident or another.

I agree with them, until I see footage from James's nostril-cam I'm not convinced.

Sorry but that's not enough to go on.

I'd want to see footage from Slater's ear-cam as well before I'm convinced.

Well it was being said yesterday that there was blood present on Slater's ear. That would be pretty damning if true.

It's a sad part of society when just because of a sporting connection people tend to feel this way! not sure why is similar to a tribal defence?

Anyone who commits wrong on the field or not and there is evidence is Guilty, and should be fully punished to the maximum for this type of offence, the video seemed quite clear and that is why it was reported to the referee immediately and the ear shown to him, but the official had not seen the offence take place or who it was.
Why the video official could not advise I am uncertain!

There are pictures of Slater with blood on his ear,there is video of what looks like a bite and there is the fact that Jammer is pleading guilty www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z283mDhjhL ,anyone need anymore evidence ? Or are we going to have another spate of Slater is a fibber ?

There are pictures of Slater with blood on his ear,there is video of what looks like a bite and there is the fact that Jammer is pleading guilty www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z283mDhjhL ,anyone need anymore evidence ? Or are we going to have another spate of Slater is a fibber ?

I am sure CSI could take a plaster cast of slaters ear nibble and match it a plaster cast of Graham's gob. That whiny bird from csi Miami could do it. Probably take a DNA swab too. And check for gsr...

Not really. There was a mass brawl happening. I'm sure lots of people got blood on them. A game of rugby league had been happening just before the mass brawl and most players get blood on them as a result of the game, never mind a mass brawl.

A bite mark on Slater's ear would indeed be damming. However, Slater/Melbourne Storm has opted not to produce any pictoral evidence to present to the disciplinary committee.