It wouldn't be a valid reason to terminate a contract.

Anyway it is a reason to stick by one of our players and not convict them before the evidence is heard. This is only a charge, nothing has been decided yet. It could be like the other 11 times mentioned above.

If people can't remember David Howell some of the good performances he has put in then that says more about supporters memories than Howell's abilities as a player.

I imagine he has played all if not most of this season injured. It's not his fault we've got a weak squad with barely any strength in depth.

Disciplinary committee's reasoning now posted. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3043 I was under the impression that, for biting to be proved, evidence of bite marks had to be shown. There is no mention of any such evidence. And there's this www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3042 The panel seems to be following their tradition of handing out bans to Quins players for incidents v. Catalans. Maybe when we have a new name they won't realise that it's the same club?

Disciplinary committee's reasoning now posted. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3043 I was under the impression that, for biting to be proved, evidence of bite marks had to be shown. There is no mention of any such evidence. And there's this www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3042 The panel seems to be following their tradition of handing out bans to Quins players for incidents v. Catalans. Maybe when we have a new name they won't realise that it's the same club?

What if a player says he has done it - isnt that another form of proof of evidence.

or evidence on film of him clearly biting

I'm giving up on this one. 6 games without Howell on this season's form will do us no harm at all. And if he has been playing injured, the long rest should have him really up for it early next year.

spot on!

Agree