The Knights should find the charge reasonably straight forward to defend, actually, simply because:
(a) Nobody is even 100% certain what Johns said. Evidence from the touch judge and the referee has been contradictory. Claims that Johns was behind the incident have been contradicted by the refereeing crew themselves, who informed the Daily Telegraph that Quinn had been the one to swear, and Johns had merely refused to rein him in.
(b) It is difficult to prove that Johns swearing was directed at the touch judge, and not at the sky, himself, fate, or any combination of those. A contrary behaviour charge could only be upheld if the judiciary could maintain that Johns' comments were directed at the touch judge. Johns has denied directing any comments at the touch judge, and whether you believe him or not, unless it can be effectively proven that he was lying his charge cannot be upheld.
(c) No microphone recording has thus far surfaced, suggesting that there is none. In the absence of any, the only witnesses to the incident were Johns and the touch judge himself. The case thus becomes a case of Johns' words versus the touchies'. Regardless of who you believe, the judiciary cannot uphold the touch judge's claim without further verification from an impartial witness.
