https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... nary-cases Search for Taufua's name. Effectively the referee is a careful considered witness (who was in Shock at the incident hence took so long to call time off) and had a good view of the incident despite being 10meteres away and several tacklers involved...

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... nary-cases Search for Taufua's name. Effectively the referee is a careful considered witness (who was in Shock at the incident hence took so long to call time off) and had a good view of the incident despite being 10meteres away and several tacklers involved...

So basically the whole case revolved around that plonker with the whistle who was 'in shock' by an incident of foul play that resulted in an injury that required no treatment or broke any skin.

Ref 'believed' JT was wearing a gum shield? Surely with his 'clear view' he would know 100% and in some detail. If he can see the bite I'd imagine he will also be able to describe that gum shield in some detail with such a clear view from 12 metres away.

Tricky one for the club, they could appeal but end up losing JT for any play offs as a result.

All this talk about his arm being "in front of his mouth". If it was only "in front" as opposed to "in his mouth" then he wouldn't be able to bite it.

As expected the RFL will always back the official no matter what. As mentioned the burden of proof is very low in these cases. Still not clear why the offence was downgraded. Saying for the "reasons above" doesn't really cut it.

The whole thing stinks to be honest.

As Bullseye said, they've basically just backed the official. He's seen an arm in the face, completely panicked when the Barrow player protested and doubled down with excuses like "I was in shock at seeing someone bite" come off it! How did he survive the community game!! A referee in our second tier of the sport "in shock". Jesus christ!

The angle he has, he has a player in front of him blocking him. The touch judge is actually facing Taufua's face, so he should have the best view, yet didn't see anything.

Ian Smith said biting offences are extremely hard to prove. Yet this referee sees through a body (who funnily enough depite being inches from the incident didn't react) but our referee from at least 10m away spots an apparent "clear bite" that not a single video from muliptle angles, including once to what the ref would have, has picked up.

Anyone who has children will know that even their little mouths cause bruising when they bite an arm or leg. I would assume that the Barrow player would have some noticeable bruising immediately after the game, was this evidence recorded by the officials? After all an adult bite is significantly more powerful, so I would expect to see broken skin or bruising of some kind at the very least.

It just seems utterly wrong that a player can plead his innocence but be disciplined without any further evidence other than what was the interpretation of the referee in a split second. I’ve seen the replays multiple times and still don’t see evidence of a clear bite. Madness.

What does anyone make of this bit of the Tribunal report?
Am I misreading it?
"The Tribunal directed themselves in accordance with the relevant burden and standard of proof. The Compliance Manager bears the burden of proof and has to establish that On-Field misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation. The standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, of course, a very serious allegation."
But he's guilty??

This is the point where we needed to have “lawyered up”. An experienced brief would have picked this apart. Where’s FA when we need him

It's ridiculous. He didn't bite him lets be clear and to make it up to get a player banned lower than a snakes belly.
Why didnt the supposed victim recoil and pull his arm away if he'd been bitten? When did the ref develop x ray vision?

Club to appeal.

[i"The standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."[/i

This is basically a "get out clause" for the disciplinary committee. You can have a reasonable doubt the bite occurred and still be guilty - as has been found in this case. Bringing in a lawyer might not have been worth it when you consider this.

The ref was adamant about what he saw and that trumps everything else. The appeal would need to prove the referee is mistaken or bent and that aint going to happen.

Agree with the above. I don't think any of us think there's enough evidence to find him guilty. Unfortunately the disciplinary know they'll be throwing the young ref under the bus due to his insistence he "clearly saw a bite". So unless we have clear video evidence showing the last couple of seconds Via play didn't show of the incident, I don't think we'll have the decision overturned.

I think they club are fighting this on principle and fair play to them. I think a players had a miscarriage of justice from a referee panicking and doubling down on his mistake.

Interestingly he's not refereed since the Barrow game. Maybe he's still recovering from the "shock" of seeing the bite...

Absolutely spot on. Good to see im not the only one who doesnt have rose tinted specs on.
The majority of clueless fans seem to think we are in the high court not the RL diciplinary. Ref says he saw it, end of. Theres no requirement to prove or disprove anything.

That being said its worth an appeal as there s nothing really to lose and with the clowns we have running the game you never know we migh just get him back a game or 2 early

I would have thought the rfl dropping him from reffing due to poor performance in our game would have been enough. But obviously he was 100% brilliant in the minute he saw the bite but was poor the other 79 minutes.
He obviously saw forearm & face in contact, but a bite implies intent, and closing of the jaw. I can’t see how that can be differentiated from forearm pressure onto a tooth from 12 metres away.

Funny how SL teams seem to win appeals and championship clubs don't.