131 replies to this topic

[Saint Billinge]

I suppose that's the whole thing with a bite to the ear though, isn't it? It's tough to show categorically that a bite is taking place, which makes it the ideal kind of assault for a coward like James Graham.

If you honestly look at the body of evidence and say he hasn't bitten him then I find that mystifying but each to their own.

Whether he did bite Slater or not, he isn't a coward, just stupid if true. How many other incidents do you know of to prove your accusation.?

[Saintslass]

http://www.smh.com.a...1004-271tw.html

[Johnoco]

Guessing you didn't see the game then, or the replays of the incident.

Clear as day I'm afraid. Guilty as charged.

It wasn't as clear as day at all. The commentators didn't know about it for ages. I'm not saying there was definitely not a bite but it was never all that obvious if there was.

I watched it several times and couldn't decide for definite what happened.

[Roy Boy]

Whether he did bite Slater or not, he isn't a coward, just stupid if true. How many other incidents do you know of to prove your accusation.?

Perhaps cowardly act would be more appropriate than coward.

[Saint Billinge]

Perhaps cowardly act would be more appropriate than coward.

I agree if true.

[petero]

I'd agree with Derwent on this. I don't feel there is conclusive evidence that he did bite him (and I did watch the match), there no doubt was contact of some sort, but I couldn't conclusively say he bit him. But he's got a 12 match ban so he'll just have to take the punishment and move on. All the talk on here of 12 month bans, and leaving the NRL in disgrace is utter ######.

So did I (watch the match) and if you are surprised at some of the hysterical comments by some on here, then maybe you have not been paying due dilligence to each and every er, head high, bit of thuggery or any other item of adjudged dirty play by the holier than thou brigade.

I do think that Graham probably did connect his gnashers with Slaters ears, it certainly looked that he was intending to do so, but I have never seen anything of a dirty nature from him previously no matter which side he faced or how high the stakes were.

Someone say's that maybe what prompted this was what Slater did to Graham, well I cannot make any comment upon that but I am amazed that everyone seems to exhonerating Billie from anything in that incident.

Why did Perrit lunge at him with his foot, after he had scored? Slater had gone into that tackle uneccasarily heavily and Perrit obviously thought so by the reaction he made.
When Inu then pushed him, he was also somewhat incensed at the tackle, plus Slaters aggressiveness towards Perrit, why?

In my opinion Billie Slater was the instigator of the incidents that followed because he was plainly irritated by his own inability to beat Perrit to a ball which it seemed he had covered.

I would agree that Graham, if he has committed the said offence, fully deserves the punishment meted out, but to totally exempt Slater from all blame is being a bit silly. That what followed did, was a mystery and I could not understand how Graham even became involved in the first place as he seemed to be taking little interest in what was going on. So there must have been something that incensed him to do what is alledged, what that was I would be most interested to be informed of.

[thirteenthman]

So did I (watch the match) and if you are surprised at some of the hysterical comments by some on here, then maybe you have not been paying due dilligence to each and every er, head high, bit of thuggery or any other item of adjudged dirty play by the holier than thou brigade.

I do think that Graham probably did connect his gnashers with Slaters ears, it certainly looked that he was intending to do so, but I have never seen anything of a dirty nature from him previously no matter which side he faced or how high the stakes were.

Someone say's that maybe what prompted this was what Slater did to Graham, well I cannot make any comment upon that but I am amazed that everyone seems to exhonerating Billie from anything in that incident.

Why did Perrit lunge at him with his foot, after he had scored? Slater had gone into that tackle uneccasarily heavily and Perrit obviously thought so by the reaction he made.
When Inu then pushed him, he was also somewhat incensed at the tackle, plus Slaters aggressiveness towards Perrit, why?

In my opinion Billie Slater was the instigator of the incidents that followed because he was plainly irritated by his own inability to beat Perrit to a ball which it seemed he had covered.

I would agree that Graham, if he has committed the said offence, fully deserves the punishment meted out, but to totally exempt Slater from all blame is being a bit silly. That what followed did, was a mystery and I could not understand how Graham even became involved in the first place as he seemed to be taking little interest in what was going on. So there must have been something that incensed him to do what is alledged, what that was I would be most interested to be informed of.

I'd agree that there's probably more to what went on than we know, or ever will know. Billy Slater did begin to go into the tackle with his feet, but appeared to pull them away at the last minute, but perhaps Sam Perrett didn't realise. His past history for leading with the feet probably went before him. For Krisnan Inu to then push him away after the tackle was certainly out of character for him, and as you say, the subsequent involvement of James Graham is odd as he wasn't involved in the original argument. I'm sure James will learn from all this - and it will add a bit of extra spice when the Dogs and the Storm play next year.

[MrPosh]

Were you abused by an Australian Mate?
Plenty Of Englishmen have been rated by Aussies, Hanley, Ward, Morley, Widdop, Ellis........
You need to get that chip of your shoulder its getting bigger than your Head.

No. I have a number of Australian friends.

Fortunately, even the Victorians know more about rugby than you.

[barnyia]

You could tell by his face he'd done it, just look when the ref was talking to him and putting the incident on report, he was trying to put an innocent what me sir face on!

[my missus]

Never been a big fan of grahams too much of a whinger but i think 12 games is a bit steep also as some say slater has got off scot free when he did cause the ruck in the first place.
also was slater not forcing grahams head ionto his ear he seemed to have him in an headlock.

[GeordieSaint]

Never been a big fan of grahams too much of a whinger but i think 12 games is a bit steep also as some say slater has got off scot free when he did cause the ruck in the first place.
also was slater not forcing grahams head ionto his ear he seemed to have him in an headlock.

It's Graham's own fault for getting himself into that position but I personally don't think he bit him looking at the video and subsequent pictures of the injured ear. But he's been proven guilty so the ban is adequate in my opinion.

[Saintslass]

But he's been proven guilty so the ban is adequate in my opinion.

I disagree. I think it is disproportionate if you consider that previous bans for biting have been a maximum of 8 matches. They're just making an example of him.

I hope he comes home for a long holiday and maybe we can loan him for a few matches to get our new season off to a good start!

[Old Frightful]

Not seen the game but looking at that photograph I wonder why there are no cuts to the entire outer edge of Slater's ear if he was bitten?

Has Graham got some teeth missing?

If so, then that explains it.

[terrywebbisgod]

Not seen the game but looking at that photograph I wonder why there are no cuts to the entire outer edge of Slater's ear if he was bitten?

Has Graham got some teeth missing?

If so, then that explains it.

Gumshield?
if that is the case,then Jammer is really stupid.

Edited by terrywebbisgod, 04 October 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[Old Frightful]

Gumshield?
if that is the case,then Jammer is really stupid.

Do players wear gumshields on the lower set as well?

[terrywebbisgod]

Do players wear gumshields on the lower set as well?

you can get them

[GeordieSaint]

I disagree. I think it is disproportionate if you consider that previous bans for biting have been a maximum of 8 matches. They're just making an example of him.

The guy who got 8 matches pleaded guilty, which gives a 25% reduction in ban length by all accounts. More or less the same length when you take that into account.

[dkw]

Ive never understood this plead guilty leniency thing. Basically they are saying dont bother trying to claim innocence as we will hammer you, but just admit it (even if you didnt actually do it) and you we will definitely let you off a bit. Very odd.

[flyingking]

Perhaps his missus told him that when he has a bite to eat, he must always sort out the Bill.......

[Saintslass]

The guy who got 8 matches pleaded guilty, which gives a 25% reduction in ban length by all accounts. More or less the same length when you take that into account.

But why would you plead guilty if you're not guilty?