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 know what you re saying, but I think that is probably more to do with the poor summaries they put up on the RFL website.

However saying that I think there's more in there than the "I was coached that way, and I didn't want him to offload" you state. That is no doubt just context and there is mention of a number of things, including the influence of two other players and how this make Hansen change technique etc to ensure safety as well as the influence of Lynch's own actions in trying to offload. All of this no doubt done with the aid of slow mo of the incident itself and more detailed explanation than included on the website.

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.

You are no doubt correct.

What I found interesting was the R/L seemed to be having a little dig at Leuluai by infering that it would have been his fault if anything dangerous had taken place. See quote below taken from final decision of not guilty.
They are watching Wigans every move whenever a player goes for the legs.


" A crucial element was the sweeping of the leg by Leuluai which moved all players down into a more dangerous position".