Tevita Pangai says the judiciary made "the right call" to uphold the five-game ban that will require Brisbane to progress to a grand final qualifier for him to play again this season.
Pangai was handed an extra week on top of his original four-game suspension for his crusher tackle on Penrith's James Maloney last Friday, the NRL judiciary panel taking just five minutes to throw out his bid for a downgrade.
Pangai's original grade two charge was also blown out from a three-game ban carry-over points from three different offences in the past two years, one of which was a grade one dangerous contact with the neck/head charge that his lawyer Nich Ghabar used in Pangai's defence.
Pangai's ban is a hammer blow to the Broncos' finals charge as they cling to a top eight berth, but the impact forward said he accepted the lengthy ban amid an intense focus on wrestling tactics and dangerous contact in the game.
"Obviously the position I play we have to be physical and I watch a lot of players that were physical - Gorden Tallis, Sam Burgess - but the way the game's heading I think it's very important to know that this is an accident and I didn't mean it," Pangai said.
"I apologised straight away to Jimmy Maloney but where the game's heading, I think it was the right call by the judiciary."
Anthony Seibold's side will already be without halfback Jake Turpin for the next two weeks as he also serves a ban for dangerous contact.
Should Brisbane qualify for the post-season, they will have to play two further finals games for Pangai to be available again.
If the Broncos are knocked out before his ban lapses Pangai will also be forced to sit out Tonga's World Nines campaign, and potentially an end-of-season Test as well.
NRL counsel Peter McGrath described Pangai's contact on Maloney as "completely avoidable" in prosecuting the Broncos big man.
McGrath argued that Pangai could have completed the tackle on a seated Maloney in several different ways, rather than propelling his body onto the five-eighth and creating an "excessive inflection of the head and neck".
"Player Pangai has exhibited carelessness bordering on recklessness," McGrath said.
"The contact was completely avoidable, [Pangai's] lack of awareness was very high.
"[Maloney] was virtually with his back turned and no way to protect himself, or even had the awareness of the need to protect himself."
Pangai's defence unsuccessfully contended that as Maloney had not yet been tackled and could potentially have offloaded to nearby teammates, he was "entitled to commit to the tackle".
Ghabar also cited the official referees' report of the incident, which described Pangai's contact as coming in an attempt to complete a tackle, and argued that Pangai's main point of contact was across the Penrith half's right shoulder and upper back.
"It's one of those low level, accidental contacts that occur in the game," Ghabar said.
"[Pangai] is coming from side on and not directly behind Maloney, and as a result did not directly apply pressure to the back of his head and neck".
Ghabar also argued that Pangai's previous crusher tackle charge on Taumalolo actually saw more force applied in that tackle than the grade 2 offence on Maloney.
Pointing to the fact Pangai was off his feet in both tackles, Ghabar said "the level of force exhibited is almost identical.
"The full weight of Pangai was on Taumalolo in this instance," he said.
"But because of his own size he could withstand that reasonably well."