So looking at the rules, I think the Tribunal will need to decide:
1. when he made the decision to attack the ball at speed (probably at least 10m out to build up momentum)
2. should he / would he have known there would be a contest at the ground ball (probably safe to assume there would be)
3. given that, was the force reasonable and necessary (well, he had eyes for the ball and wanted to be first there so attacked it with speed. Should he have slowed down rather than trying to win the ball at such ferocity because there was a likelihood that someone else would be there contesting it too?)

I think there is sufficient ambiguity in the Rules and the facts of this one that it could go either way. Hopefully it doesn’t result in weeks.