The fiery Newcastle back-rower will in all likelihood incur a suspension after being referred straight to the NRL judiciary but, for mine, the Knights have at least some grounds on which to mount a legal defence.

It is undeniable that Barnett struck Smith on the jaw with an elbow in an off-the-ball situation, but after repeatedly watching replays of the incident, it appeared to me to be a high-speed accident, rather than an intentional or malicious act.

Barnett was flying across in cover defence as Penrith tried to convert a three-on-two overlap into a try.

He knew that if he didn't make up ground urgently, the Panthers were almost certain to score.

His focus, presumably, was on the ball and Penrith's attacking players. But then, at a critical moment in the passage of play, Smith cut back inside as a decoy and impeded Barnett's passage.

In a split-second, Barnett tried to change course and veer around Smith and raised an arm to fend him off.

Rather than striking Smith in the chest with his palm, Barnett's elbow clumsily struck him on the chin.

The end result looked ugly but surely Newcastle's lawyer will be able to argue Barnett was not even looking directly at Smith, who loomed out of nowhere in his peripheral vision. Had Barnett's arm been an inch or so lower, striking Smith in the chest, Penrith may well have been penalised for an obstruction play.

Instead the Knights face the onerous task of defending a player who has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.