Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

philipw

James Graham

132 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

af_slater-20121003150556271971-300x0.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gumshield?

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

Do players wear gumshields on the lower set as well? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

To get a lesser ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get a lesser ban.

But you're not guilty so you shouldn't be getting a ban at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you plead not guilty if you are guilty?

Hoping for insufficient evidence ?

Who knows the why's and wherefores - needless to say he is and has been dished out a lengthy ban.

I don't expect he'll ever have a gaping mouth next to an opponents head again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're not guilty so you shouldn't be getting a ban at all.

Unfortunately they have found that he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately they have found that he is.

Indeed. Although he is still protesting his innocence, which is unusual for rugby league players found guilty of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Although he is still protesting his innocence, which is unusual for rugby league players found guilty of something.

Has to take it on the chin and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has to take it on the chin and move on.

Not if he isn't guilty he doesn't. That's a massive smear on his reputation and if he's not even guilty of it then he should make as big a fuss as he can manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The injury on Slater's ear looks more like a scratch than a bite on this photo....

878050billyslaterear.jpg

Can't see any evidence of teeth marks nor any bruising (biting always causes bruising due to the 'crushing' effect on the tissue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if he isn't guilty he doesn't. That's a massive smear on his reputation and if he's not even guilty of it then he should make as big a fuss as he can manage.

John Stankeveitch tried this approach and got slated by most

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I have a number of Australian friends.

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

:rolleyes:

We don't call it Rugby here, that's the game the other blokes play, still you are the know it all MrPosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's got 12 matchs

thoroughly deserved, it was a shocking incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really confused by this now,i too watched it on Sunday,thought after the allegation from slater and watching the replay i thought guilty as sin,But after Slaters refusal to attend the hearing and Grahams subsequent strong denial,maybe his defence that he was giving Slater some serious scouse verbals could be true.

Graham must have been advised by the dogs about the sentencing precident,plead guilty and get a 8 game ban,but he obviously denied the accusation and so pleading not guilty and risked a larger ban.

As for the starting point of all this,Slater had every right to try and prevent the try,what he did was not illegal or over the top,Perritt had a similar reaction in the semi against Sam Burgess which was proven to be legal.What was wrong was Krisnan Inu's reaction to Slater,I'm surprised that after Stagg ( i think it was him) is trying to drag Slater away from the melee no one has actually picked up on Widdop who actually headbutedt Stagg,I didnt record the game but i'm pretty sure of what i saw first off.

Maybe someone who recorded the whole game can confirm this as the replays on the day only shown the start and end of the fracas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see why someone would plead not guilty if guilty, as the case may not be proven against them. I struggle to see why Slater would allege it if it did not happen, especially as it was unlikely that the person would be sent off. Slater is the person best placed to assert that he was bitten, and he did so instantly and was prepared to show the evidence.

I am persuaded Graham did it. What puzzles me is how he came to lose it to that extent in a game more closely watched than pretty much any other he is ever likely to play in... Madness, sheer madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

We don't call it Rugby here, that's the game the other blokes play, still you are the know it all MrPosh.

:rolleyes:

We don't call it Rugby here, that's the game the other blokes play, still you are the know it all MrPosh.

But he is not in Australia though.A lot of people in England call rugby league "rugby"Paley being a prime example :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017