Well, you're partially correct.Your miss understanding the meaning of intent in this case.
Both Galvin and Sezer ‘intended’ on pulling the player back over them using their body weight to get the player to the ground.
Klemmer ‘intended’ on holding onto the player and wrestling him to the ground.
Holmes ‘intended’ to lunge at a passing player and attempt to pull him to the ground.
Intent is not in relation to causing harm. It’s the intent in the manner of which the player tries to make / complete the tackle.
The two at the top of the list, have the greater margin of error and hence would be classified as careless or even reckless contact.
You're correct in your summation of the concept of intent in situations where it is relevant. Where you said 'margin for error', I'd call it likelihood/risk of injury; basically the same concept.
I don't, however, agree that Holmes' tackle carried with it clearly less risk than all of the others, particularly at a magnitude indicated by the forthcoming penalties for each of the examples we're discussing. And the differences in punishment is a key factor here.
It is that, which I heavily dispute.
But you're also proving my point that intent is irrelevant, or, and I'll correct myself, is far less relevant, to the outcome of both the execution of the tackle and the outcome overall, pertaining to injury. If we're fair dinkum about eradicating dangerous tackles from the game, then an outcome that causes injury, whereby the tackler had the power to execute a defensive decision in a safer manner, even if it is to the detriment of their team, must be considered.
It was charged as a 'dangerous tackle' and Papali'i has severely injured his ankle as a result. So if the judiciary claim its dangerous, isn't the injury some small factor, at least, in determining how dangerous?
If there's nothing the tackler could have done, it is not foul play and therefore no charge. And I think that's where the differences of opinion arise here; that is, some feel Holmes was simply executing a tackle with no other options, whereas others feel that, having been wrong-footed, the feet-losing lunge that he committed carried with it an element, or percentage point of risk to the attacker.
I'm not going to argue that it was blatant, cut and dry and deserved 4 weeks. But, considering all the factors and the rhetoric around this type of tackle, a fine is the incorrect punishment in my opinion.