The question is, why was he using a swinging arm in the first place? There is categorically NO merit in doing what he did. If he was lining up the player for a swinging forearm to his opponent's kidney area then the only reason he could be doing that is to intentionally injure his opponent, and that action is still striking according to the Laws. Swinging your arms to strike a player is absolutely no part of making a tackle.
Just bloody well watch this...
I find it impossible to believe that his intention here was to clean out or tackle. He was trying to injure his opponent. Pure and simple.
Please read again, I am actually agreeing with you on all of these counts. I think he is illegally swinging his arm, he is doing it intentionally and that he does strike the head. Regardless of whether it is aimed at the head, it deserves some kind of punishment.
But I do not think he's trying to swing for SOB's head. He swings for a body shot - which is still illegal, but a much lesser offence - but accidentally connects with the head. See 22s in, keeping in mind it is in slow motion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kvJy7dg9U&t=22s
Now suppose it was just a body shot, what would we be looking at? A yellow card and no ban arguably? Maybe a week or two? The question is - how much do you punish Hartley for the recklessness that led to his arm connecting with SOB's head? tbh, I'm okay with mid-end for this, where high-end is reserved for intentional or repeatedly smacking someone in the face.
Fair enough, but we are talking about Hartley here who has now had, count 'em, SEVEN appearances in front of the judiciary in nine years (SIX of them in the last four years) . Do you not think that someone who as appeared so often before the courts charged with such violent offences as biting, punching and head butting, should at some point lose their right to lenience for being polite and remorseful, particularly when they have a proven track record of going right back out onto the field and doing it again. A what point does the judiciary say enough is enough?
IMO, its high time WR introduced a three-strikes-and-you're-out regulation... three Citings resulting in guilty verdicts and suspension should get you 12 months out of the game.
I mean, yeah possibly. I'm with you that punishments in general need reviewing, some sentences are too harsh, but more commonly, some are far too lenient. Guilty pleas cutting your sentence in half is ridiculous. My own personal pet bug: players serving half their punishment during breaks in the season, or through minor tournaments that they weren't going to be playing in anyway. There are improvements to be made.
re: guilty pleas, even for repeat offenders, I'd rather keep the guilty plea incentive. The point of it is that people who know they are guilty will take the plea and reduce their sentence, leaving only those with strong cases contesting their punishments. If you take the incentive away, people who are guilty and know themselves to be may contest their punishment aiming to get off on a technicality.
