We thought this - seemed strange he waited a couple of minutes before he decided to wail to Bentham. If you've been bit you know it immediately and make a fuss then.

Methinks he saw a mark afterwards and spotted a chance to make a bit of mischief... "Please sir, h-he [ib-bit[/i me!! Oh [iloooook[/i!".

At least, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was something like this rather than a deliberate attempt to falsely accuse someone of one of the most gravely viewed offences in rugby. Either way, tough chedds Scotty.

Either that, because it suits your knee-jerk reaction, or he didn't bite him.

Stick to the topic please.

And no, you cant start a seperate thread about our finances.


RBA.

2 points for you:

1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain.
2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan.

Quote: Mrs Barista "2 points for you www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2224 Like I said, lucky to get away with it

Quote: Mrs Barista "2 points for you www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2224 Like I said, lucky to get away with it

Theres a bite mark on his arm, thats why it was put on report. Watch the game again and you will hear for yourself why the incident is placed on report

Has it magically appeared?

Allegedly. Have you seen it? Maybe it was a knock/scratch/graze. If it was so conclusive surely it should have been matched to Berrigan via a dental impression. Interesting that the reporting of this is described in terms of "alleged", "claimed" etc in the press but you are allowed to state that Berrigan bit Murrell as a fact on here with impunity.

Provide any evidence what so ever that Berrigan caused this alleged mark.

Anyway, the evidence was inconclusive so i guess the only person who knows the truth is Mr Berrigan.