It's possible. I might be mis-remembering but wasn't there a guideline put out to refs (and communicated to the RL community, which itself is a rarity) by Cummings that persistent high tackle offences were no longer subject to being penalty or straight red card, but that players could be sin binned for it? Or is my memory just making that up?

And now that (a) someone has put up a screen grab proving where the impact was and
(b) Bridge himself has pleaded "GUILTY" to the offence,

... are you going to add the Sky cameraman and Chris Bridge to the people you disagree with?

TBF, you get 1 match off for pleading guilty.

Why no out cry with sammut`s elbow to the head?

It was more of a messy facial whilst he was already making the tackle; not in the same league as Bridge.

He purposely hit him with the elbow in the face

There wasn't any contact I don't think but I agree there was intent. No problem if there's a ban from me.

Amazing that that was obvious enough for the touch judge to get involved but nobody at all saw Bridge raise is arm above his own head and aim it squarely at a man on the ground.

But he didn't drop on a prone player from a standing position with an elbow across the jaw.

It was a grubby tackle with a facial - he could still be cited but I don't think he'll get a ban; if he does, it would open the floodgates - that kind of tackle happens many times per game, but not always with the benefit of 4 or 5 slo-mo replays.