IMO unless the is clear footage of James Graham with slaters ear between his teeth then graham can't be found guilty.

The has to be clear evidence of a bite!

I can also see why billy slater had wanted to stay away from the incident, I think he Made the allegation in the heat of the moment and probably thought about it after the game and decided to leave it on the field.

Couldn't find any incidences of biting or gouging by Bailey then?
No?
Thought not.
All you could find is a history of minor incidents involving niggle, where in the vast majority of cases he wasn't even charged.


3 game ban for deliberately pushing a referee, a 1 match ban for raising a knee, a 1 match ban for applying undue pressure to an opposition players shoulder and a 1 match ban for fighting. A grand total of 6 matches banned and fined a total of £1100 over the same period. And that's all you could find on him? WOW, no really
Im genuinely made up that I have a stalker! I fell asleep during your presentation. Hardest work I've ever had to do for a free meal, free goody bag and free Grand Final match tickets. Mind you, I fell asleep during everyone else's too apart from the fella who had his legs blown off in Afghanistan who was an inspiration to all.

James Graham is pleading not guilty to the ear biting charge. The club has appointed a legal representative for him.

Added to the inconclusive pictures, the disinclination of Slater to provide photographic evidence, attend the hearing and his statement that he wants to 'move on' (how convenient), this whole thing is looking more and more like a trumped up charge.

So, he'll say that he was bear hugging Slater to immobilise him and screaming something down his ear, which could explain the incriminating photos and lack of injury.
It may seem a long shot, but if its a case of reasonable doubt, it may work for him.

I'm not entirely sure I believe him, but innocent until proven guilty.

If that's true, I believe him. I'd believe Jammer over Billy Slater any day. I questioned on here the possibility of it being a false allegation, designed to get him sent off and help them win the Grand Final. Melbourne and Slater himself are more than capable of that level of cheating.

The injury is a nonsense, a nail shaped cut mark. Could have been gum shield, could easily have been a stray finger, even his own.

It'll be interesting to see what Graham actually says about the incident, and what Slater comes out with. Their initial disgust at the incident, turned quickly into them not talking about it, to them refusing to provide evidence to the disciplinary hearing. Me thinks it was all a ruse to get a red card dished out.

He's been found guilty. Length of ban yet to be determined.

It will be interesting to hear what was said at the judiciary.

Edit - 12 weeks. It's really a lot less however as the international and (I think) two trial games will count towards it.

12 match ban. Unclear if internationals count.

Interesting to hear if there's any backtracking on here now all the evidence has been been fully judged.

None from me. It's a civil case and therefore is judged on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary committee have judged that on the balance of probabilities Jammer bit Slater's ear. The evidence is still inconclusive.

Given that this is a 12 match ban one thing is clear: the disciplinary committee wanted to make an example out of him. Previous bans for this have been 8 matches.

William Zillman from gold coast got 8 games for a bite a couple of years ago.

So its 12 games -2 pre season games and possibly - the international games ( yet to be clarified ) it could be as little as 8 and even at 8 i think given the damage to Slater's ear its a bit harsh when you can eye gouge or jaw break and get less.

Was it an ear bite?
No?
Thought not.