Actually what I dont get about this decision, is that the reason it went to the judiciary was
- Contact with the head
- Shoulder charge (Which the NRL have said they are clamping down on)
I can understand that the contact with the head was not entirely his fault, simple because Anasta fell. But that does not make the shoulder charge any less reckless or careless.
It should still be the tackler's duty to try to avoid dangerous contact, if they hit someone with a shoulder and that goes wrong, then they need to be punished according to the current policing.
The only reason I am ok with the decision, is that if Hunt were punished for it then Matai has no chance.
The problem is that I think the players on the judiciary, could not separate the hit to the head from the reckless shoulder charge.