So basically the whole case revolved around that plonker with the whistle who was 'in shock' by an incident of foul play that resulted in an injury that required no treatment or broke any skin.
Ref 'believed' JT was wearing a gum shield? Surely with his 'clear view' he would know 100% and in some detail. If he can see the bite I'd imagine he will also be able to describe that gum shield in some detail with such a clear view from 12 metres away.
Tricky one for the club, they could appeal but end up losing JT for any play offs as a result.