Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

James Graham


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
131 replies to this topic

#101 Alfies Thumb

Alfies Thumb
  • Coach
  • 2,510 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:33 AM

Well obviously the NRL judiciary knows something we don't considering they only took 10 minutes to come to a decision.

If we accepted player's pleas of innocence, no one would ever be suspended.

#102 trakl

trakl
  • Coach
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:40 AM

Well obviously the NRL judiciary knows something we don't considering they only took 10 minutes to come to a decision.

If we accepted player's pleas of innocence, no one would ever be suspended.


It is true nonetheless that players have been charged with a similar offence and have pleaded guilty - so to suggest as you did that "of course" Graham would plead his innocence is misguided.

I contend that Graham is telling the truth. I hope he challenges the judiciary's verdict.

#103 L Bow

L Bow
  • Coach
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:20 PM

Well obviously the NRL judiciary knows something we don't considering they only took 10 minutes to come to a decision.

If we accepted player's pleas of innocence, no one would ever be suspended.


That's one interpretation. Another is that they'd already made their minds up before the hearing.

#104 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,404 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

That's one interpretation. Another is that they'd already made their minds up before the hearing.

If this is the case, and Graham is innocent, perhaps he could employ a QC to represent him at an appeal.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#105 Good Omen

Good Omen
  • Coach
  • 643 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:36 PM

Are you joking like? Next you'll. Be tellong me that Tyson didnt bit Holyfields ear.

A ridiculous decision. Nobody can say with absolute certainty from the video footage that he bit Slater. There is not one single piece of footage or photograph that clearly shows he did it. This strikes me as a 'balance of probability' guilty decision, but to then hand out a 12 game ban on the strength of that is ridiculous. It seems that he's paying the price for it being in a Grand Final and involving one of the golden boys of Aussie RL. Had it been in a weekly round and involved an average journeyman player there wouldn't have been half the fuss.

Also, why no inquiry into Slater's part in it ? If Graham bit him then I wonder what Slater did to provoke it - Graham has never been a dirty player and this is very out of character so what was it a reaction to ?



#106 L Bow

L Bow
  • Coach
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 07:11 PM

Are you joking like? Next you'll. Be tellong me that Tyson didnt bit Holyfields ear.


I think the evidence on that occasion was just a tad more compelling!

#107 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 07:49 PM

Are you joking like? Next you'll. Be tellong me that Tyson didnt bit Holyfields ear.


I'll ask again - show me one photograph or piece of video footage that shows conclusively that Graham bit Slater. I've asked a few times now and nobody has produced anything. I've provided a pic of Slater's ear a few hours after the game that shows no bite marks whatsoever, only a small scratch in the centre of the ear.

He might well have bit him, but the point is that nobody can say for absolute certainty that he did. A judicial process isn't supposed to work like that. Innocent until proven guilty based on conclusive evidence. All the evidence against Graham is circumstantial. To find someone guilty on circumstantial evidence is bad enough but to then give them an extreme sentence is ridiculous.

#108 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:54 PM

I'll ask again - show me one photograph or piece of video footage that shows conclusively that Graham bit Slater. I've asked a few times now and nobody has produced anything. I've provided a pic of Slater's ear a few hours after the game that shows no bite marks whatsoever, only a small scratch in the centre of the ear.

He might well have bit him, but the point is that nobody can say for absolute certainty that he did. A judicial process isn't supposed to work like that. Innocent until proven guilty based on conclusive evidence. All the evidence against Graham is circumstantial. To find someone guilty on circumstantial evidence is bad enough but to then give them an extreme sentence is ridiculous.


Disciplinary process decisions are based on the balance of probabilities, as are those of civil legal proceedings. Circumstantial evidence is influential and used in these cases. These processes generally do not require evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Graham may have a case for overturning the decision if the required processes have not been followed, eg witness statements, or testimony, have not been used as evidence correctly, or if he can prove the process was conducted in a prejudicial manner..... but that is, of course, a different matter.

#109 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,052 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:12 AM

Disciplinary process decisions are based on the balance of probabilities, as are those of civil legal proceedings. Circumstantial evidence is influential and used in these cases. These processes generally do not require evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Graham may have a case for overturning the decision if the required processes have not been followed, eg witness statements, or testimony, have not been used as evidence correctly, or if he can prove the process was conducted in a prejudicial manner..... but that is, of course, a different matter.


Taking your point, but then contrasting this, as you say, circumstantial and balance of probability finding, with the Holifield, Tyson incident where a piece of the man's ear was bitten off, where is the justification for the enormous ban?. Guilty, maybe, but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

#110 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:24 AM

Taking your point, but then contrasting this, as you say, circumstantial and balance of probability finding, with the Holifield, Tyson incident where a piece of the man's ear was bitten off, where is the justification for the enormous ban?. Guilty, maybe, but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?


Biting needs to be banned from the game, 12 weeks sends a message.

Edited by AndyCapp, 07 October 2012 - 11:38 AM.


#111 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:53 AM

Biting needs to be banned from the game, 12 weeks sends a message.

Indeed. And I believe that is why he was found guilty. But if he didn't do it then it sends an altogether different message doesn't it?

Edited by Saintslass, 07 October 2012 - 11:54 AM.


#112 L Bow

L Bow
  • Coach
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

Biting needs to be banned from the game, 12 weeks sends a message.


It sends the message that unless you can prove your innocence then you will be presumed guilty and found as such.

#113 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:28 PM

Does that mean you actually have to have the video with his mouth clamped around the ear?
What if it happened in back play and there was no footage? there was enough evidence in this case to find him guilty.
Is there presumption that Slater is a liar?

The Judiciary had their evidence and Graham presented his case which did not make much sense to be honest.
He said he grabbed Slater in a bear hug because he cannot fight? why did he even attack one of the smaller players on the field then, Slater is hardly a known fighter, makes no sense.
He was yelling abuse into Slaters ear, really?

The Video, the bloody Ear, the immediate accusation, enough evidence to make a decision.

Probably time to move on from this one I guess.

#114 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,520 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:07 PM

I watched the footage again. Whilst it looks like he might have bitten his ear, it's far from the cast iron evidence that a 10 minute trial (or whatever) would suggest.

#115 L Bow

L Bow
  • Coach
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:54 PM

Does that mean you actually have to have the video with his mouth clamped around the ear?
What if it happened in back play and there was no footage? there was enough evidence in this case to find him guilty.
Is there presumption that Slater is a liar?

The Judiciary had their evidence and Graham presented his case which did not make much sense to be honest.
He said he grabbed Slater in a bear hug because he cannot fight? why did he even attack one of the smaller players on the field then, Slater is hardly a known fighter, makes no sense.
He was yelling abuse into Slaters ear, really?

The Video, the bloody Ear, the immediate accusation, enough evidence to make a decision.

Probably time to move on from this one I guess.


This video would rather tend to suggest that this player does in fact like a bit of a fight. Indeed rather than allowing himself to be pulled away from the incident he seemed to want to fight everyone who was gathered round. He could have walked away rather than responding to the push.



The evidence you suggest is more than enough is hardly overwhelming. The video shows Graham holding Slater in the same way he held Sam Burgess earlier in the season. The bloody ear was hardly gushing. All anyone has seen is a small scratch on the inside of the ear. We are of course to ignore the fact that he was held in a headlock for several seconds by David Stagg and the resulting wrestling which took place before Slater was flung to the ground. Far more likely that he could have received the small scratch to the inside of the ear at that stage.

The accusation, well he was accused by Slater the man who had to be warned about his consistent tendancy to lead with the feet in a 50 50 situation. Slater seems to have been elevated to sainthood because he rememberered that he'd been warned about this and managed only to land in the middle of the back of Perret. We should also not forget a favourable mention in the rush to report the incident of the man found guilty of the chicken wing tackle, Cameron Smith. To be accused by such impeccable charcteres is compelling indeed.

I agree its time to move on though Graham may well be the victim of the hullabaloo that blew up over this. Personally I would like to see more compelling evidence before a man whose character was held in fairly high regard permanently tarnished in such a way.

#116 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 3,279 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:57 PM

I agree its time to move on though Graham may well be the victim of the hullabaloo that blew up over this. Personally I would like to see more compelling evidence before a man whose character was held in fairly high regard permanently tarnished in such a way.


I think Graham is the victim of being English and too good for the Aussies.

Can't beat him? Ban him.
People called Romans they go the house

#117 Hullfan

Hullfan
  • Coach
  • 695 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:23 PM

i dont agree with what graham did im left bemused as to why he never just punched ###### out of billy slater instead !!!!!!!!!!!

#118 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 07:08 PM

Taking your point, but then contrasting this, as you say, circumstantial and balance of probability finding, with the Holifield, Tyson incident where a piece of the man's ear was bitten off, where is the justification for the enormous ban?. Guilty, maybe, but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?


Of course punishment should fit the crime. There is a scale of punishments available that presumably takes into account any aggravating factors, the player's previous record, any admission of guilt, and relevant mitigating factors. The length of the ban presumably reflects what the disciplinary panel thought about the seriousness of the transgression.

#119 Bearman

Bearman
  • Coach
  • 2,621 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

Love his twitter comment
"I'm not a biter, but if I could chew on anything it would be Paul Woods right testicle"
Ron Banks
Bears and Barrow

#120 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:32 PM

Love his twitter comment
"I'm not a biter, but if I could chew on anything it would be Paul Woods right testicle"

He isn't on Twitter. Never has been.