Intent was there, without question. He admitted it in his guilty plea.

Your last sentence doesn't warrant a response.

I think you will find he pleads guilty to reckless behaviour, not intent which he certainly doesn't appear to admit. Any arguments about his degree of responsibility lie with the disciplinary panel that charged him and we know how we can rely upon them.

Nope. He was charged with reckless behaviour, so all he's admitted to is being reckless.

That is so obvious yet some people still don't seem to get it.

To use their logic, if you plead guilty to manslaughter you're admitting you committed murder.

Wilf states in his Weekly post that a head butt can not kill

Early guilty plea was for recklessness. at no point is the word deliberate or intentional in the charge.

My previous last sentence is fully justified if intent could be proved.

You dont appear to have enough knowledge of the meaning of Murder and manslaughter. You certainly dont have a great deal of understanding of the legal system to use that as a comparison.

I wonder how many mind readers there are not using their talent fully. People seem to know what Hauraki was thinking at the very moment of the incident.

Its in his weekly cut and paste

I still think its a pretty good analogy. To be convicted of murder there needs to be intent ("malice aforethought"icon_wink.gif but a conviction for manslaughter can be based on gross negligence.

Hiowever I don't understand your point.

We both agree that it was not intentional and that he didn't admit that it was.

He was charged with making a reckless tackle. By pleading guilty he was not admitting it was deliberate or intentional. Those who disagree need to look up the definition of reckless.

By the way where did you get your law degree from?

eBay. Same as Doctor Koukash.

Other than the referees growing bigger balls and dishing out the red card on the pitch (I acknowledge there will always be unsighted incidents that need to be put in report), we're always going to be disappointed with a player who subsequently gets a ban at the disciplinary. This belated ban doesn't benefit the team that suffered as a result of the misdemeanour. To that end, the team that would have been playing against the 12, 11 or whatever men of the opposition (had there been a dismissal) should be awarded a point by the RFL to try and restore some advantage.

So after last week, we draw, get one competition point, Huaraki gets a subsequent ban and we get another disciplinary point. I know it's a ridiculous proposal but it's in keeping with many of the ridiculous decisions made at Red Hall whether that be splitting the league or unfathomable disciplinary outcomes

Just noticed it mentioned that he's appealing the 2nd match of the ban. Hearing tomorrow night.

I've only just watched it, I think 2 matches is harsh, I wouldn't even call what happened reckless, careless yes, reckless..no.
He had no way of knowing his knee was going to come into contact with Abdul's head when trying to regather his feet and frankly I'd say the RFL have no legimate way of proving otherwise in the split second it all happened in.(though being the RFL they make shiate up as they go along)
For those saying he had two 'attempts' at kneeing Abdul in the head and that he 'looked' at him whilst doing so (as if to say he was aiming his knee) are way off the mark.