How many weeks should James Graham get?

[The Eagle]

He was named in the England squad on Tuesday, so that's why the tests count in his suspension.

http://www.englandrl.co.uk/article.php?id=26299

I don't think Matai had been named at the time of his suspension, which would explain why his wasn't shortened in the same way.

Still cheating for bronco league clubs, scum club gets preferences...cut it how you like to make yourself feel good but its still bullshit and any honest league fan can see it

Internationals shouldn't count as he did the grub act before the team was announced

 

[Hooch]

So why in the hell did he plead not guilty?

 

[Fire]

Finally aye...who cares anymore.

:BDH:

 

[bottle]

Most of the Dogs fans in here have been fairly sensible and contrite.

And then along comes Ouwet.

Leopards and spots.

 

[bottle]

Btw, do we have any insight into what defense he argued as yet?

 

[Red Bear]

Should've gotten a couple of extra weeks IMO, ensured he missed at least ten weeks of the NRL season. Alternatively dont count the tests.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

Apparently they had a decent argument.

I think 12 weeks is excessive. Yes it was wrong but there argument had some merit.

 

[BunniesMan]

Would have got about 8 if the scumbag just pled guilty.

 

[Fire]

Btw, do we have any insight into what defense he argued as yet?

Defence.
1. Upstanding individual who has Captained his country.
2. 250+ first grade game (ESL included) with only one suspension.
3. When he fights he likes to pull people close.
4. He pulled Slater close to "whisper bad things in his ear" (no joke, that's what counsel said).
5. Damaged ear may have occurred in earlier altercation with Stagg.

Prosecutor.
1. Signed statement from Slater.
2. Signed statements from officials.
3. Video and photographic evidence of ear damaged.
4. Precedents of 8 weeks for previous bites.
5. Biting used to be called "misconduct" but is now called "dangerous contact" so now has a higher punishment attached.

 

[bottle]

Ta Fire.

 

[Fire]

Ta Fire.

No probs mate. Should all be up on the FOX Sports News website soon.

 

[aqua_duck]

Defence.
1. Upstanding individual who has Captained his country.
2. 250+ first grade game (ESL included) with only one suspension.
3. When he fights he likes to pull people close.
4. He pulled Slater close to "whisper bad things in his ear" (no joke, that's what counsel said).
5. Damaged ear may have occurred in earlier altercation with Stagg

gees talk about some dog ate my homework excuses.

 

[aqua_duck]

Apparently they had a decent argument.

I think 12 weeks is excessive. Yes it was wrong but there argument had some merit.

Once he's deemed guilty the strength of their argument is null and void

 

[Apey]

Defence.
1. Upstanding individual who has Captained his country.
2. 250+ first grade game (ESL included) with only one suspension.
3. When he fights he likes to pull people close.
4. He pulled Slater close to "whisper bad things in his ear" (no joke, that's what counsel said).

Apparently they had a decent argument.

I think 12 weeks is excessive. Yes it was wrong but there argument had some merit.

What? No it didn't, if it was as Fire outlined. :lol:

 

[carcharias]

Greenberg reckons the judiciary got it wrong
reckons there was no bite

According to this mornings SMH

Last line
http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...raham-maintains-innocence-20121004-271tw.html

 

[RWB]

Given that this was a civil case the verdict is based upon probability, unlike the legal system where the verdict is handed down 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Whilst they may be right that the footage is somewhat inconclusive I think the majority of people here would agree that the probability of him biting is much higher than him not biting.

Hence I think the ruling was correct and really the dogs have no case to complain (not that Greenberg did).

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

Ha.

They also had a doctor to state the marks on his ear were not bite related based on the damage. This was a good argument as it had a professional explaining the damage.

 

[Canard]

Greenberg reckons the judiciary got it wrong
reckons there was no bite

According to this mornings SMH

Last line
http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...raham-maintains-innocence-20121004-271tw.html

And people wanted this guy to be ARLC CEO? "There was no spin!"

He has done the club and Graham a massive discredit.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Now first off, let me just say that James Graham suspension is not what's at hand here, but rather the delivery of that on the Today show this morning.

At 5:50am during the daily sports report, Tim Gilbert was given the job of giving us the sports update. He started by saying (note, I don't have anything again Tim, he's just reading the notes as they came to him) "James Graham has been given the biggest suspension ever in Australian Rugby League history - 12 games..."

Straight away Ch 9 have told lies to make the Bulldogs sound even worse. 2 things came immediately to mind when they said "Biggest suspension ever"...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopoate#Keith_Galloway_incident
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Williams_(rugby_league_born_1973)#Melbourne

Does the Naan network have any credibility left?

 

[Canard]

Fine, as long as the benchmark has been set and similar acts attract similar penalties.

Having said that how many on field biting allegations end up in the hands of the judiciary. Not many because the on field complainant doesn't follow thru with there complaint and there is not the explicit video evidence which existed in this case.

I am not condoining the act but it surely highlights the issue of the inconsistency surrounding judiciary system.

For mine we need to get rid of the grading, loadings system and refer all 'offences' to a 'judiciary' to adjidicate on guilt or innocence and administer punishment based on the offence and past history. A justice system based on such principles would at least see serial offenders such as Steve Matai rubbed out for more than one week each time he commits an offence.

Previous offences (Brad Morrin) have got 8 weeks, by pleading not guilty that blew out to 12 weeks.

Its very consistent with other cases, so I don't see your argument to be honest?

Now taking into account that he will miss some Tests and Trials, he really only misses 8 weeks of NRL. Thats the real inconsistency, if it happens mid season a player misses 12 weeks of footy.

Trials need to be taken out of the equation.