1) correct, Slater has an injury to his ear

2) I disagree, it looks nothing like a 'bite'. The shape is wrong for starters, and the angle of the 'cut' isn't possible from where graham was at his head IMO. Think you and others need to check out the physiology of what a bite looks like because a bite causes a 'puncture' wound not a cut like we see here. If it was a tear to the skin of the top of the ear let's say then I'd agree.

3) heresay, no proof whatsoever and given the circumstances I wouldn't put it past someone like Slater to concoct garbage like that

4) Yes, Graham has his face into Slaters head, he is snarling but show me where he actually bites him?



No, it isn't cut & dried at all.

Bollox eh?

Go on then make your fool proof case to prove Graham has bitten him to cause that wound?

His mouth is open next to Slaters ear. Slaters ear is bleeding after he gets up. Slater immediately calls a biting charge. It does not look that complicated, no one is questioning the complaint in the media and the Dogs refuse to talk about it. images.triplem.com.au/2012/09/30 ... 00x400.jpg

His mouth is open next to Slaters ear. Slaters ear is bleeding after he gets up. Slater immediately calls a biting charge. It does not look that complicated, no one is questioning the complaint in the media and the Dogs refuse to talk about it. images.triplem.com.au/2012/09/30 ... 00x400.jpg

I would say the evidence is sufficient to form a reasonable belief that he did - Graham can be clearly seen gnawing on something at the side of Slater's head, who then comes up holding his ear; he immediately reports it to the official, and has a wound that appears consistent with his allegation.



I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in an NRL disciplinary setting, but I don't think that it's 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Given that, I imagine he'll be facing a lengthy ban.

Everyone knows the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.





Not guilty.

I assume Jammer had a gum shield in. If so it would be hard to bite properly.

I think that it can't be decided from the TV footage whether Graham did ora did not bite Slater.



On one side:



[list

[* Graham has his head at the side of Slater[/*:m

[* Slater has a wound to the ear.[/*:m

[* Slater tells the officials that he was bitten.[/*:m[/list:u



However, on the other side:



[list

[* Graham would have been wearing a gumshield.[/*:m

[* The wound, pictured on page 4 of this thread, looks nothing like a bitemark and only the middle of the ear is affected, not the outside. Graham would need to be half-vampire to leave that sort of mark.[/*:m

[* Graham was seen a couple of weeks ago near the ear of King, but he was just riling King up (to great effect).[/*:m[/list:u



Look this this image that appeared on another forum (I didn't make it):

[[/



Arrow 1. The referee is right next to this but did not report any sort of bite.

Arrow 3. Melbourne's #4 is pushing Graham's head into Slater.







So, overall, it's difficult to say. Whilst it looks suspicious, there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I'll leave it to the NRL judiciary to make the decision before I consider slagging him off.

If he is guilty then he deserves all this derision and a lengthy ban.

If he is found innocent then I expect that all of you will be queueing up to apologise.

Looked like he bit him to me.

Why does every body think they're ing Quincy?



People defending the indefensible again.

The title of this thread "Jammer lets himself down" is a small part of what he has done.



He has let his team down, the Storm moved up a gear after this incident just as the Dogs were looking like getting back off the deck.



He has let all of his new Aussie followers in the NRL down (Some Dogs fans are calling for his sacking) Graham had a massive following of Aussie admirers for his first season efforts and they all just walked out of the door.



He has let the game down in general, Alleged Biters and Eye gougers do not sell well to Parents deciding which code to send their kids into.



Running in last man, blind siding a player 30kgs smaller is enough without biting him.



It will be 10-12 weeks for this.

If Graham has bitten him, Slater will turn ginger.

We'll see what the enquiry comes up with.

Its not like he took his ear off, so its not the end of the world.

If he's guilty, give him a ban ( i think it was traditionally 8 weeks/matches) and move on.



I too liked the way the Commentators didn't dwell on it. They got on talking about the game and the positives associated.

Stevo and Eddie would still be talking about it now.