So how does he get the bite mark on his arm?

Phil Bentham
"You can see the teeth mark on his arm, we'll have to put it on report"

Berrigan is very lucky he's got away with it but as numerous posters stated, it'd be impossible to prove so an expected outcome

2 points for you:

1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain.
2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan.

Mrs Barista wrote:2 points for you: 1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain. 2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan. http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2224 Like I said, lucky to get away with it

Mrs Barista wrote:2 points for you: 1) My post was a fact entirely in the public domain. 2) MrPhilb has made a libellous comment about Shaun Berrigan. http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2224 Like I said, lucky to get away with it

There's no evidence and no charge. You said he definitely bit Murrell, despite the lack of evidence. That's libel.

Because there was no evidence he did it

Theres a bite mark on his arm, thats why it was put on report. Watch the game again and you will hear for yourself why the incident is placed on report

Has it magically appeared?

Where did the bite mark come from then?

Allegedly. Have you seen it? Maybe it was a knock/scratch/graze. If it was so conclusive surely it should have been matched to Berrigan via a dental impression. Interesting that the reporting of this is described in terms of "alleged", "claimed" etc in the press but you are allowed to state that Berrigan bit Murrell as a fact on here with impunity.

Provide any evidence what so ever that Berrigan caused this alleged mark.