Archived

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

philipw

James Graham

Recommended Posts

Hopefully the NRL will do the right thing For me, this charge should carry a 12 month ban, pure grub tactic. If they give him 8 matches, 4 will be used up by his inability to play in the autumn internationals which is just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something disgusting about a bite. Nothing worse than saliva for infection. This for me is in the same catagory as when Terry Newton elbowed Sean Long in a game, if not worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it is worse than high tackles etc, as often players are going to put a big hit into the chest and get it wrong and go high. Graham had no excuse for biting.

That said, I'm not sure it is worth 12months. A 10 match ban is very substantial and would surely do as much as a 12 month ban in terms of making sure he will do nothing similar again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's got 12 matchs

Sounds right to me - bit of a cowardly act and punished accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleading not guilty was his downfall, he probably thought they were like the soft misguided buggers at Sod Hall!

Or he genuinely believed he didn't do it? Anyway, that's not the point. The judiciary believed he did so his ban is justified. Silly boy... cost himself the England captaincy in my opinion and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds right to me - bit of a cowardly act and punished accordingly.

Not sure it was cowardly - mental, but not really cowardly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember him having a propensity to moan, and my mind may be playing tricks on me, but I don't recall him being a dirty player over here. That said, biting is off the scale for dirty play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will be back in SL sooner than expected I suspect, these things are hard to live down in the NRL.

Your right! the last time a "Dog" was involved a player came to the SL ! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he'll stay in the NRL, even if canterburry decided to let him go I'd imagine another NRL club would sign him IMO. I wouldn't say the act was cowardly, it was more of a brainfart than anything. The incident wasn't helped by the fact it was Slater though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Slater wasn't required to give evidence at the hearing, which seems strange. Does this mean that the hearing haven't seen any evidence of a bite mark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Serious? Slater did absolutely nothing wrong in the whole "shimozzle". He was unjustly rough-housed at least twice even before Graham got a hold of him.

I'm with Oracle. Despicable, cowardly act and I'm going to find it very, very hard to root for him in an England shirt again. And I suspect it has effectively ended his NRL career. Very tough to deal with the stigma of that now, I would think. And rightly so.

As for evidence, Slater made the allegation instantly, there was apparently blood and the pictures don't look good for Graham. What more do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Yeah, no evidence except for the footage of him gnawing on the side of Slater's head and this picture. Immediately after the event, the refs all looked at his ear and Archer put it on report. He even said "We've all seen the damage?"

af_slater-20121003150556271971-300x0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for evidence, Slater made the allegation instantly, there was apparently blood and the pictures don't look good for Graham. What more do you want?

Show me one single picture that conclusively shows Graham biting Slater ?

So Slater had blood on his ear - that does not necessarily mean it was a deliberate bite. In fact, from the pics I saw of Slater's ear, it looked more like a graze than a bite mark.

To give someone the maximum penalty of 12 games without absolute conclusive proof is ridiculous.

Do you really think Graham's offence was 6 times worse than Issac Luke deliberately trying to break Rangi Chase's leg for instance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, no evidence except for the footage of him gnawing on the side of Slater's head and this picture. Immediately after the event, the refs all looked at his ear and Archer put it on report. He even said "We've all seen the damage?"

The footage shows nothing of the sort. It shows Graham's mouth close to Slater's head but it does not at any stage show him biting Slater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



100 Days That Shook Rugby League

League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Oct 2017