The question isn't whether the robbery happened though is it - it's about who should be punished for it, and clearly there has to be some evidence to justify punishing someone. So much evidence, that it has to be beyond reasonable doubt before anyone is sentenced.

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is significantly lower - 'on the balance of probability' - so the panel has to decide if, on the balance of probability, did Scott Moore deliberately poke Aaron Heremaia in the eye whilst under a pile of bodies and having punches rained down on him. The fact that he's taking proper legal representation should help the panel realise that their decision has to bear scrutiny, which is not always the case.

Yes, there is. And of course it's all maybes at this stage. Point to one single occasion where I have said that I think he did it.
To keep things simple to explain the above there are potentially four outcomes here aren't there? Well three I guess at this particular stage. The first one that seems to have been discounted is that a) there is conclusive proof he didn't do it and he didn't do it. If this was the case it would be listed as a 'no charge'.
b) There is also conclusive prood he did do it and he did do it.
c) There is inconclusive proof and he did do it.
d) there is inconclusive proof and he didn't do it.
But even you need to admit that there is a possibility that c could have been the situation. However remote you think it is and however convinced you are that Scott Moore is a top top guy.

... and nobody has said Moore is a top, top guy. Infact there is a general admission he is a bit of a grub. As for a decent barometer, Carter is a tight sod who hates spending the little money the club has, he'd hardly pay for legal representation for Moore if there was conclusive evidence.

Well logically if you report a crime, surely it's not unreasonable for you to think there is evidence to support your complaint, especially if it's committed against yourself, if there's no evidence at the time surely it would suggest evidence has been fabricated at a later date.

I'm not sure that is logical to be honest. I mean that is a bit of a leap psychologically to suggest you're only going to report a crime if you think there might be evidence.

And in this case I'm not sure why Heremaia or the club wouldn't think there would be evidence considering the game was being recorded and the amount of people around the incident.

So why do all the other items on the list get listed as "charge" until the case is reviewed and then changed to the actual agreed ruling, sometimes, Charge and 8 matches and sometimes No Charge

You are drawing conclusions when you have absolutely no evidence.