Well, I don't want to get caught up arguing with myself.
I agree that incidents can be accidental and I thought last week's was accidental. But others argue that it was reckless and poor technique and so a foul as it ended up putting dangerous pressure on a player and causing injury.
Here, the panel have concluded that it is not worthy of a ban - however it was poor technique and did put dangerous pressure on the tackled player.
Maybe the difference is whether a player is injured or not, that was stressed as being at the heart of last week's case. I don't particularly like that as I think the action should be the issue, not the outcome.