Tyson Gamble should've been forced to give evidence at Jack Wighton's biting hearing
The Newcastle Knights player backed away from his claims somewhat and didn't appear at the judiciary hearing.
OPINION
Snitches gets stitches is the old schoolyard warning handed out to anyone contemplating dobbing to the principal. In the NRL, if you rat on someone and reverse your story, it should lead to purgatory.
Or at least some sort of official sanction. Newcastle's Tyson Gamble is both victim and villain today after refusing to front the NRL judiciary to explain exactly what Canberra's Jack Wighton was doing when he thrust his left arm in the five-eighth's gob during last Sunday's elimination final.
AWKWARD: Peter Sterling's admission amid Clive Churchill medal talk
'GET F***ED': Kalyn Ponga weighs in amid Willie Mason swipe
At the time, Gamble was in no doubt Wighton had turned Hannibal Lecter sans mask. "That’s slobber, that is not sweat. There’s a bite there, he bit me," Gamble told referee Ashley Klein immediately after the incident.
In the days following, Gamble maintained his stance, telling reporters on Tuesday: "I felt like it was a bite. I also don’t want someone to miss eight games or a long period of time for that.
"I thought it was a bite. That's where I'll leave it. I don’t really want to follow it up. It’s none of my business now. I have other things to focus on."
Should Tyson Gamble have made appearance at judiciary?
Yes, Gamble has bigger concerns, with the Knights heading over the ditch for an elimination semi-final against the Warriors. But he also has a duty to the game. It was his initial reaction and complaint to Klein which led us to where we are. But his bark proved worse than the bite.
Gamble can't just write it off as a "heat of the moment" incident without undergoing some sort of official interrogation. Could he have not spared 20 minutes via video link to tell the NRL judiciary what he told dozens of reporters earlier in the day?
His reluctance to testify has resulted in some fans, who were on his side, turning against him. They are quite rightly asking why all the carry on during the match if you’re not prepared to follow it through? Was it all just a ploy to get Wighton sent off, as was suggested at the judiciary hearing?
Don’t get me wrong, South Sydney's star recruit deserves his three-game suspension. It was a clear nip. But Wighton's defence team should have at least had the chance to question the man making the accusations. The mark on the game cut much deeper than the indent on Gamble's arm.
Sign up to our newsletter and score the biggest sport stories of the week.
