On Friday night, Jacob Saifiti was sin binned for an intentional head butt to Canterbury Bulldogs' hooker Reed Mahoney.
There was nothing accidental about it. Mahoney may be gaining a reputation as one of the game's best nigglers, but that doesn't excuse Saifiti for going after him with his head.
It was even sillier given the Knights had had a dismal evening, losing the game to Canterbury 32 points to 2, despite the Bulldogs being forced to play without Matt Burton who was locked up in State of Origin camp as the New South Wales Blues' 18th man.
An intentional head butt is only carried out for one reason - to inflict injury or discomfort at the very least on the opponent.
The decision to sin bin him as a result was the bare minimum. You'd have no problems finding many who would argue he should have been sent off by referee Grant Atkins and review official Ashley Klein who was stationed in the bunker.
In fact, if there was more than two minutes remaining in the match, it could well have been the case for a stupid incident.
But, in a game during the Origin period which - for obvious reasons - doesn't carry quite the same amount of attention around it as others may during other parts of the season, Saifiti has gotten away with a Grade 1 striking charge which leaves him only facing a fine and free to line up with his Newcastle teammates during next weekend's crunch clash away from home against the Melbourne Storm.
Whether the NRL and Match Review Committee like it or not, claims of inconsistency around charges levelled against players follow them around like a bad smell.
Claims that charges are influenced by the level of injury sustained to an opposition player also follow the game around and won't be going away anytime soon with the charge levelled against Saifiti.
What Saifiti's head butt - whether it actually caused injury or not - has done is created a precedent. All intentional head butts can now only be viewed as a Grade 1 striking charge, allowing the player to play a fine and line up next week.
If there is a significant head butt next weekend that had the same force as the one which Saifiti delivered, but instead causes a player to sustain a broken cheekbone for example, then the charge handed down can still only be Grade 1.
Unfortunately, changed policies are unlikely to change that perception, but it's clear the MRC need to be told a harsher approach to serious offences - and yes, an intentional head butt should be counted as one - is needed.
Don't get me wrong, rugby league is a contact sport with a lot of accidents and even those accidents must be charged appropriately. Very rarely will a player try to go for a high shot, a crusher tackle or a hip drop. That the NRL have fines in place for a majority of Grade 1 charges now is a step in the right direction.
But Grade 1 charges should be reserved for accidents. Nothing intentional with the intent to cause injury should ever be viewed in that vein.
Grade 2 and 3 charges are of course for more serious offences, and while under current policy, Saifiti should have been hit with a Grade 3 charge, for mine, that isn't enough.
For an offence of that nature - an intentional head butt - there must be another category available to the match review committee panel, which they not only need to use, but the NRL need as a serious deterent for players committing these type of acts.
When it comes to charges for high tackles, there are six grades available to the MRC, being careless one, two and three, followed by reckless one, two and three.
Reckless high tackles are reserved for the worst of the worst - the intentional ones which involve swinging arms and significant danger to the ball carrier.
What should be brought in is a more standard "reckless intent" type charge across three grades which always carries a suspension with no possibility of a fine. It covers everything not covered by the current judiciary policy, and would have included Saifiti's head butt.
While it would be used rarely, it saves the match review committee outright referring players to the judiciary, and gives them a blanket offering to player which also helps on the consistency front.
The other incident that would fit into a category such as that which immediately comes to mind this season was Taane Milne's Anzac Day cannonball tackle against Cameron Munster.
The South Sydney winger dropped off a tackle, only to line up Munster's knees and slam into them should first.
He was given his marching orders and quite correctly hit with a Grade 3 charge, but even then, that charge simply wasn't enough for an intentionally reckless act.
A new category of charge covering reckless acts would have seen Milne sat down for a longer period, and made it clear to NRL players that acts such as that simply won't be tolerated on field.
What the actual length of suspensions are - that's up for dispute. But it goes without saying that it would allow the MRC to take charge of situations, not deflect to the judiciary and ensure players are clear of the consequences of such acts before running onto the field and committing them.
It would also allow the MRC to (hopefully) disregard injury in determining penalties. It's either reckless, or it's not, whether it caused injury or not.
If the policy exists for high tackles, there is no reason it shouldn't exist for other charges.
Whichever way you dice it, a fine for Saifiti and an intentional head butt simply doesn't cut it.
