Quote: Cruncher "It disproves intent to foul.
After that what you're left with is an accident.
Accidental contact doesn't always acquit a player, especially if it still looks like a bit of reckless play - but unlike you, the panel did see the incident, and clearly decided that enough was enough. I sincerely doubt the whole thing hinged on this selected bit of defence evidence.'"
I wasn't suggesting it did, and I was very clear that I wasn't discussing the specifics of the incident. If the panel ruled no dangerous contact, I'm content there was no dangerous contact.
It does not, however, disprove intent to foul. There is no "proof" in there. Just to be pedantic. Because it's the internet, and that's what the internet's for.
