Intent is completely irrelevant. If you make contact with the kickers leg it’s a penalty. It’s very black and white.
You don’t have to like the rule, but there’s no argument against it being the correct call.
"Intent" is just a word they use to determine who they want to apply the rules to. How does one determine what a players intent was?
I keep coming back to that tackle from Crichton on Setu Tu in Round 1.
Whether the intent was there or not, Chrichton should of been sent to the bin or had 1-2 weeks on the sideline. He got away with a similar shot which ruled Taylan May out for the game (and I think 1 extra match).
Reece Walsh slipped in the tackle when Joseph Sualili took him out - there was no intent to take his head off, if Walsh doesn't slip, its one of the all time great SOO big hits. Sualili was sent off and received 4 weeks. Crichton hasn't even been sin-binned let alone received a suspension.
A lot of these issues could be easily fixed but are not.
The NRL isn't just the top tier of professional Rugby League, it's a TV production. It's in the NRL's best interest for there to be drama every week; if there wasn't there'd be a lot less to talk about. So the NRL will keep it the way it is, with the drama, because the net result is $$.