Put your top set in as well old feller.

Gum shield will prevent any penetration to the outside ear.

I don't follow that. Please explain. First, if there is a gumshield , then there surely won't be any penetration, as there is no cutting edge; any wound would only be caused by extreme pressure, a "squashing" injury, enough to basically split the skin. The gumshield covers the full bite, not just the outer teeth. (Have you ever seen a gumshield which leaves your centre teeth exposed?





My question remains - how can what can be viewed as effectively two blunt curved scissors be brought together in such a way that the central part produces enough pressure to cause wounds, but the outer parts produce no mark at all?



Incidentally I'm certainly not claiming to be some sort of bite expert, just asking what seems to me to be an obvious question. I'm perfectly happy to be convinced to the contrary, and if Graham did bite Slater then he deserves all he gets.



Also interestingly I see that Graham has pleaded Not Guilty to the charge, so maybe the same question will be posed to the disciplinary.

When you mentioned inner and outer ears - i was under the impression that the outer ear represents the back of the ear, and the inner was the inside of the ear. Based on the angle Graham is alleged to bite his 'victim', this would have explained why there were no bite marks on the back of his ear.



If you bite an apple whilst wearing a gum shield, the top teeth will not penetrate, and just leave an indentation. The first point of penetration from the bottom teeth will be the 4 middle ones, as this is where you are applying the pressure.



I was surprised that Graham decided to contest the charge as i thought it looked obvious, but i look forward to seeing what he has to say in his defense.

No, I have no clue about the back of his ear, the only images available are the one showing the injury with blood on it, and another one taken some time post match which apart from one vertical small nick, seem to show no injury at all.





Would surely depend how hard you bite, but anyway that "wound" would be at the back of the ear if there was one and I've seen or read nothing to suggest that there was any wound "behind" the ear.





This is the bit I don't get. We can assume that Grahma has a professionally made gumshield and these are manufactured from a cast in a way which means when your teeth are clenched there is basically equal pressure across the length of the gumshield. The way I visualise it, if you bite a flat object wearing a gumshield then that object will be pretty much "equally crushed" along the whole "bite". I don't see how you could clamp an ear between your teeth in such a way that the front teeth bit, but the side and back teeth didn't.



I don't think an apple is at all a good example, as it is a round object, and when you bite into it, your front incisors hit first because the curve of the apple results in that. A better test would be to cut a 0.5cm slice of apple and test biting into that.







I would be surprised if Graham pleaded not guilty if he knew he had in fact done it, so whether or not he did, he obviously feels whatever happened was not a deliberate bite. I don't think the video evidence I have seen really helps either side of the argument. I am assuming that both prosecution and defence will take it as a given that such injury as there was, was caused by Graham's mouth, and the only issue will be whether a deliberate bite caused it, or whether an injury was caused unintentionally in some other way.



I also know nothing about the procedures for dealing with such a charge in Aus. If I was running their system then for such a serious charge I would have had a doctor examine the alleged bite injury immediately after the game, and take images. I suppose it might be possible for an expert to take an impression of a Graham "bite" with gumshield in, and report whether or not it can be said to "match" the injuries which the images showed.



If there is nothing like that, then all we are left with is

a) a small amount of blood around Slater's ear;

b) a video which whatever it shows, does not and cannot show whether Graham is biting. A lot of people seem to have looked at the video and jumped to conclusions, but the cold hard fact is that it shows Graham's face in close proximity to Slater's ear, and that is all it shows. Anyone who says it shows Graham biting Slater is delusional.



Also, the later image seeming to show no puncture or bite wounds at all. As any such clearly would take days to heal and disappear completely, the conclusion would seem to be that whatever damage was caused, apart from one minor (and seemingly vertical not horizontal) "nick", it was very superficial.



So I will stick my neck out and say if that is all they have got, then Graham will be cleared.

I get what your saying about the pressure applied when wearing a gum shield, also, apple maybe a bad example.



When watching the game live, i did think that Graham bit Slater, before it was brought to the attention of the referee. Just the way in which Graham approached the head of Slater, when then came together.



That said, with all the players surrounding the incident, i would have expected Slater to have given a much larger reaction.

Unless the gumshield itself could have been dislodged and the edge of it caused damage? I don't think the video is as clear-cut as people think it is. The post match damage seems very superficial and also , as FA points out, only on one side of his ear.

What I did see was one Melbourne player seemingly place his hand on top of Graham's head and push it downwards into Slater. It seemed a very strange thing to do. What was all that about? Maybe that's when the injury was caused?

If Graham has bitten him then Slater will turn ginger at the next full moon. That should end all arguments.

Even worse he'll start thinking Johnny Vegas is funny!

What Graham did was vile, can't believe he has pleaded not guilty. There's even video footage showing the incident. On a positive note, I thoroughly enjoyed the match. The highlight for me had to be Slater's try, the way Cronk just flicked the ball up for Billy without looking was incredible. Gareth Widdop was outstanding too.

There's no video evidence of him biting Slater, though. And as he has pleaded not guilty he obviously doesn't think he bit Slater. It's all analysed in the VT thread, you want to have a read of that.