South Sydney Rabbitohs five-eighth Cody Walker is facing a week on the sidelines over one of the silliest acts in modern rugby league history.
The NRL's match review committee confirmed on Saturday morning that his kick - where he lashed out at Jack Cogger and cost his own team a try in the corner - had been ruled a Grade 2 contrary conduct charge.
Walker, who had no other offences on his record with the NRL judiciary, was, as a result, eligible for a single week on the sidelines with an early guilty plea, or risk a second by heading to the judiciary on Tuesday evening.
Some were suggesting in the immediate aftermath he should have had the book thrown at him both on and off the field for the blatant offence which, while not likely to cause injury, was as silly and intentional as it gets.
In the end, he was only sin binned on the field, with the MRC then electing to charge him with contrary conduct instead of striking.
To put a bow around the whole situation and potentially make it look even sillier, Cogger, who did commit a blatant high tackle in the closing stages of the game that got him sin binned, copped two matches for his Grade 2 careless high tackle charge, although was up to a second offence on his rolling record.
The game Walker will miss is a big one, with the Rabbitohs heavily involved in throwing the world's biggest birthday party for one of Walker's great mates Jai Arrow.
But that doesn't excuse the offence, or the idea that just maybe, he should have been hit with a striking charge that would have ruled him out for longer.
According to the NRL's own judiciary operations policy documents, striking does not need to be an action carried out by fists or hands, although it is the most common.
"Striking is when a player strikes another player with forceful contact that is unfair, excessive and dangerous," the document reads.
"Striking is most commonly charged where one player deliberately punches another. The clearest cases of “striking” occur with a closed fist, but there may be an illegal striking with an elbow or another part of the body; for example, a “kneeing” may be a “striking”. Similarly, a deliberate or reckless “head-butt” will constitute a striking."
The NRL goes on to clarify that the contact must be deemed intentional or at least reckless, and that the contact made must be forceful in nature.
The contact from Walker in the act of the kick was certainly intentional and reckless, although the level of force could potentially be argued.
Still, some of the headbutts which have been charged for striking over the years could easily be argued against being forceful in nature, so consistency - or a lack thereof - is rearing its head again at match review committee level.
In the case the MRC didn't go for the charge of striking, then contrary conduct was really the only way around it, but whether you could argue that Walker's kick brought the game into disrepute more than it was striking, or in the same way that other charges classified as contrary conduct - like making avoidable contact with the referee or using foul and abusive language - is debatable.
Given Walker is on a first offence, the only way he was looking at a significant ban for the kick was if he was referred directly to the panel, which plenty argued he should have been.
A two-match ban with an early guilty plea would have been waiting for him if he had of been hit with a Grade 3 contrary conduct charge while Grade 1 striking would have resulted in a fine, with Grade 2 and 3 offences resulting in either two or three-match bans respectively.
I suppose that the MRC thought that a fine would be meaningless, and inappropriate for what was clearly intentional. Hence, Striking Grade 1 was no good.
Conversely, a Striking Grade 2 would have been a two week suspension, which would have been over the top,
So a Grade 2 Contrary Conduct – with its one week suspension – was just what the doctor ordered.