To come back to the original topic, I do find it quite amusing Bridge's advocates doubt him capable of malicious intent on the grounds that he isn't a dirty player.

This is the same Chris Bridge who was cautioned for affray after punching a bouncer who justifiably refused to let him into a club because he was too drunk isn't it? Just checking...

I think it is less conclusive of the 'intent' by Sammut given the circumstances I highlighted. The lack of contact also sets the incidents apart. Both fouls, but hardly comparable and certainly not deserving of the same punishment in my opinion.

Sorry to disagree but I think it will be adjudged as similar offence as Bridge and that we will have to do without Sammutt next week. Hope I'm wrong

On watching again this morning I was wrong about that. There was contact. Still not worth more than one week though.

My view on the incident. Sammut deliberately hit his forearm/elbow in Hall's face. 1 game ban.

All the Bulls have to do is plead guilty, Sammut doesn't have a hearing and he gets his ban reduced so that will be 0 games. It's the new hearing system Tony Smith was raving about last week, which IMO stinks.

The Sammut incident is 1 game ban, no more no less, but he can just plead guilty and he should get it reduced like Bridge did last week.

Sammut deliberately used his elbow on the opposition player. The sort of incident that was common place before VR & I remember fondly. Penalty, end of. Bridge appeared to have far more intent (& possible damage) behind it but I gave him marginal benefit of the doubt that he was not aiming for the head. Bridge was more stupid & can't argue with the one game. If the rules still permitted it a 10 minute sin bin would have been sufficient. But then you would get the usual paranoid fans screaming about consistency.