..... so he's guilty then.

just looked at it, all you can see is walker come in late around his head then have another go , what happens on the floor you cant see,

Thank you vindicating my thoughts regarding your general level of intelligence.

Can't see anything from that shot. Time will tell.

You're welcome. Always willing to support those less intelligent than myself

You really are an embarrassing plank aren't you.I hope you dont feel flattered being called a plank,if watts is guilty of biting its not what we need in our game,and you condone it.

Honestly, who cares what you or anyone else on here thinks? As for biting, it's out of order but 8 matches for biting someone is ridiculous when you could shoulder charge someone in the head, knock them unconscious, give them a concussion and potentially permanent brain damage and get less. Couple of games would be sufficient punishment unless he'd taken a finger off or something.

Given a choice between a clean punch in the face, receiving a head high tackle from some 18 stone prop or being bitten I'd take the bite every day of the week

It's taken 2 weeks because it wasn't the player that's complained. Little Hitler got wind and has gone crying to the RFL over the players head.

Load of , should be thrown out.

If it's anything like the James Graham stitch up with not a shred of evidence aside from the fact JG mouth was near Slater's head (Slaters ear was not the result of a bite as mentioned by medical professionals)then Watts will get 8 games.
There needs to be conclusive evidence of the offence otherwise it didn't happen.

If there was no conclusive evidence I doubt they'd have charged him

So conclusive it's taken 2 weeks to charge?
A charge in itself does not imply guilt which is what you are effectively saying.
Often these cases are prove you are innocent as opposed to we have to prove you are guilty without any doubt but in any case as with some charges they can and have being overturned which by definition makes a charge not so conclusive afterall right?