.Intentional, body contact, low impact imo (based on that vision, I didn’t actually see the incident, nor do I know what happened afterwards. If the stk played had a ruptured spleen, the impact grading would probably be higher.) According to the mro table, intentional, body, low = a fine, not a suspension.
That said, Cunnington seems to do it week in week out, I wouldn’t mind the mro taking prior incidents into account and upgrading the fine into a suspension, but that won’t happen.
Edit; the ball appeared to be in play and in close proximity, so it might not even get looked at. It could be called a shepherd or a bump, rather than a strike. I’m sure the AFL will find a way to justify whatever decision they make. The guidelines have “catch-all” options (eg rough conduct) if the AFL want to go after someone who does something that is a bad look for the game, but technically isn’t against the rules. They also have the option to upgrade things using the “potential for injury” justification. However they’re only guidelines, and don’t have to be followed all the time.