Both sides in that civil case called household names in the sport as expert witnesses, and the judge allowed video and photographic evidence. He noted, however, “there was complete disagreement about what the pictures showed” and concluded: “My strong impression was that the defendant was telling the truth when he said his intent was only on going for the ball and it was instinct which at the last minute made him take both feet off the ground in an attempt to avoid probable serious injury to himself.”

The case was dismissed and, like the Leicester trial almost 120 years before it, the outcome rested on the fact that proving intent on a mistimed tackle is nearly impossible for judges or juries to decide.

Nevertheless, Smith, 36, and Holmes, 23, might well end up taking their dispute to court. Over the weekend, Smith went online to accuse her opponent of intending to cause serious harm.

“There is no hiding the fact: the tackle was malicious and designed to do one thing only — to do serious damage.” Smith, a former captain on the English women’s national team, said on kicca.com. “I have watched the tackle twice since on video so this isn’t an emotional verdict. It was a disgraceful tackle and one fully intended to hurt me.”

Smith went on to say that the foul has ended her season and could have ended her career. “Sure, she apologized as I got stretchered off, and Sunderland subsequently apologized to Arsenal,” Smith stated. “That’s all well and good, but she should be thinking about how to tackle, not how to apologize.

Smith also said, “She’s clearly not good enough to be playing at this level and while she gets a three-match ban I, in effect, get a 15 game ban in the league as well as cup games on top.

“I am totally laid up, can barely move to make a coffee or have a shower, and face the mental challenge yet again of recovering from a long term injury. Twice before I have been the victim of a seriously bad challenge, once in America and once playing for England against France.”