What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bite or No Bite - that is the question

Did Proctor bite Johnson?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 58.3%

  • No

    Votes: 20 20.8%

  • Can’t tell

    Votes: 20 20.8%
  • Total voters
    96
Frailty

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
9,456
Babyface O'reilly said:
A mouth guard only covers the top teeth, though. A bite is when the lower and upper teeth come together so you’d think the lower teeth would’ve left a mark of some description. Like you, I think SJ should be made to give evidence. We need to know if we’re dealing with a bite or gamesmanship or both.
Click to expand...

It did. The referee sighted it.
cc191845f176e2732a74c09a2524ced7

a370f2664563daa08ee53e57956d4918
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-8-17_22-58-32.jpeg
    upload_2020-8-17_22-58-32.jpeg
    46 KB · Views: 3
Frailty

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
9,456
Valheru said:
It was a bite, not sure how anyone can deny that.

Having said that he will get off because Johnson is refusing to testify. He should be made to testify IMO.
Click to expand...

The referee sighted the bite mark, there is video of the bite occurring. You literally say you're not sure how anyone can deny that it happened. Why should Johnson be made to testify?

Slater didn't testify at Graham's judiciary hearing for his bite in 2012.
 
Frailty

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
9,456
Eelectrica said:
No bite.
To me a bite is something like biting into an apple or something. I don't see that.
Johnsons arm was wrapped around Proctors face where it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/league/nrl/proctor-breaks-biting-silence!783136

Watch the close replay from 26 second. There is a clear move and then chomp.

Media likes to show the replay after this occurred because it adds to speculation. It was a clear as day bite.

I like Proctor, but he did a grubby act and deserves a big punishment.
 
Valheru

Valheru

Coach
Messages
19,205
Frailty said:
The referee sighted the bite mark, there is video of the bite occurring. You literally say you're not sure how anyone can deny that it happened. Why should Johnson be made to testify?

Slater didn't testify at Graham's judiciary hearing for his bite in 2012.
Click to expand...

Because he made the accusation.

By not testifying he is essentially revoking the allegation.

If the ref sighted a bite mark he may not get away with it but my feeling is he will.
 
Frailty

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
9,456
Valheru said:
Because he made the accusation.

By not testifying he is essentially revoking the allegation.

If the ref sighted a bite mark he may not get away with it but my feeling is he will.
Click to expand...

Slater didn't testify and Graham got 12 weeks. When the referee has seen evidence, and there is video evidence, a player shouldn't have to testify.

Can you imagine if you applied the same standards to any other charge? Clear evidence of a high tackle - well we better get the player hit in the head to testify. Crusher tackle - same thing.

They don't, because it is stupid - players won't do it, and they don't need to because there is clear evidence.
 
Valheru

Valheru

Coach
Messages
19,205
Frailty said:
Slater didn't testify and Graham got 12 weeks. When the referee has seen evidence, and there is video evidence, a player shouldn't have to testify.

Can you imagine if you applied the same standards to any other charge? Clear evidence of a high tackle - well we better get the player hit in the head to testify. Crusher tackle - same thing.

They don't, because it is stupid - players won't do it, and they don't need to because there is clear evidence.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the Graham one TBH.

Anyways, my opinion is he will get off due to Johnson not testifying. I may be completely wrong but we will see.
 
Miller was a legend

Miller was a legend

Coach
Messages
17,539
blocka said:
His arm is around his face In the tackle, which is part of the head how does it not apply.
Click to expand...
Ask the refs boss! Probably sane reason 30 other tackles a game don’t apply

ffs... you picked the “blocker” name for good reason

anyway, he did bite him and nothing justifies that! He bit down and his bottom teeth left a mark. It’s a bite and it’s scummy
3F17E7A6-1CC8-47D3-A22F-DACEE9FB86E0.jpeg
 
Last edited:
blocka

blocka

Juniors
Messages
360
Miller was a legend said:
Ask the refs boss! Probably sane reason 30 other tackles a game don’t apply

ffs... you picked the “blocker” name for good reason

anyway, he did bite him and nothing justifies that! He bit down and his bottom teeth left a mark. It’s a bite and it’s scummy
View attachment 41116
Click to expand...

im not saying it justifies it
I’m just saying in the era of HIA’s looking after the welfare of players and avoiding the negative impacts of concussion long term. We are blowing up on whether someone closed their mouth on a tacklers forearm but everyone is just blasé about the forearm being around the head in the first place. Surely we should be doing more to penalise tackles around the head if as a game are serious about avoiding concussions and the long term effects.
 
Captain Apollo

Captain Apollo

Coach
Messages
15,489
Perth Red

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,867
I often wonder what the media would talk about if an entire week went by in NRL without any controversy or incident??? Now that they wont question Vlandys or NRLHQ (I do wonder what he has over Journos?) I guess it would be the tried and tested failing coach or unhappy player BS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top