Nope.
They aren't ear bites either.

Im not arguing the guilt,but whats worse a broken jaw,the possibilty of getting blinded or a small knick on the ear ? Yes he bit him and yes its a stupid act from someone who should know better,but at the end of the day the damage that was actually caused should be taken into account,

There is no special charge of ear biting and therefore it is irrelevant where the bite is. Blood is pumped everywhere in the body, just in case you didn't realise, so where infection from a bite enters the body doesn't matter, it's the risk of infection that is the issue here not the location of the bite.

As for the earlier request about NRL players and their bans for biting, rlscroll down to the bottom of this articlerl and in actual fact it refers to the previous two players charged getting a combined ban of 12 weeks, so six each.

Banned because he's English. He was found guilty even before the hearing had been done.

He should leave the NRL and return home.

If you are going to suggest that the NRL made an example of Graham by handing out a 12 game ban, you need to cite comparative like-for-like evidence of lesser bans being handed down for exactly the same offence of ear biting. Can you cite that evidence? Yes or no?


Nope, those two cases you cite in that link above aren't examples of ear biting either.

I think even if he had pleaded guilty they would of given him 12 games.A guilty plea would of taken the ban down to 8 and then you could of taken off the pre season and possibly the internationals ( if thats allowed ) leaving him with 4 games,there is no way they would of settled for that with it being the showcase final.

That is just desperate.

Seeing as you're so keen to compare the standards of evidence required for an industrial tribunal and a criminal case, why not ask a lawyer the qualitative difference between the offences of biting on the arm and the ear, and whether or not they'd expect clients to get the same tarriff for both.

I think you have to take everything into account, you can't compare like with like.

1st it was in the GF infront of a maximum TV audience
2nd he did not plead guilty
3rd he's English
4th he has the chance to work some of these games in the off season

So he gets a 12 match ban, you take out the internationals and the 2 pre-season games, that takes it down to about 6.

The difference between a bite and other things like breaking jaws and eye gouging is the parts of the body used. Arms and hands are involved in tackles anyway, so a swinging arm would be expected to be seen in RL as would hands involved in the tackle.

Teeth however have no part to play in the game of RL and so intent is far easy to define. If your teeth have bitten someone, it's harder to argue that it was unintentional, were as a swing arm can be mitigated by, 'I meant to make contact with the ball Me Lord' Or he side stepped me and I just lashed out with a grab.

He should have all his teeth taken out then he can't become a repeat offender!

He is just saying (I think) that he hasn't done ir; not it was an accident?

Certainly the photos and videos on line are not conclusive but do suggest that it is likely he did it. Less likely but possible is that Graham was screaming abuse down slayers ear lug and slater had got a scratch to his ear during the prior fracas.

Didn't he have a gum shield in? If so, isn't it difficult to draw blood with a gum shield?

I can't understand why he pleaded not guilty unless he really believes he didn't? Slater appears to be an obnoxious big headed showboater and I woulddn't put anything past him.

I don't know if this is the end of it - if Graham believes he has suffered an injustice, and wants to appeal, he will need new evidence.

That can depend on how many pints one has drunk.

Yes he had a gumshield on his top set of teeth,his lower one however didnt and its his lower one that would of caught the ear.

rlJammer is maintaining his innocencerl

In terms of balance of probabilities the photo is the clincher. You can get quite alot passed on the balance of probabilities, even without photo evidence, so the photo just makes it nice and easy to judge on. Hence the 10 minute coffee break it took to reach the decision.

If you were to go to the level of reasonable doubt, then sure all the questions raised about the mark, whether it was accidental etc etc etc, would be important. But it's not enough just to raise a doubt. It's balance of probability and it only has to be 51% to 49% likely that he did it. That's the kinda odds you get on a coin toss. Put those photos to any number of people you like and I would guess most would vote yes he did it.

Whether he did actually do it is another matter and not one that can be proven, they are not going to stop a match to take forensics.

He's been a very naughty lad and deserves every game of the 12 match ban. Whatever the justification and provocation (and it must have been severe) a 12 game ban is fair. I only wish to the lords of all that's holy that the disciplinary committee over here started applying the same standards...