It seems to me that there is a lot of muddled thinking on here. For example, that 8 matches may be sufficient (that is the absolute minimum under a grade F and so it is likely to be much more, in my personal opinion). As to the idea that a big punishment could affect BF's mental health: that is almost certainly the case and will already be doing so, just as is the case for anyone in similar circumstances (eg celebrity offenders, etc). That is, however, a separate issue from punishment for an offence and it is up to his club, the RFL, family / friends, whoever to support him, and provide him with access to professional support, as appropriate but it should not come into the equation for considering the sanctions.
Looking at the bigger picture it seems this moment, if handled inappropriately, potentially constitutes an existential threat to professional rugby league in this country. The Press are saying a minimum of a 6 months is likely (and that anything else would probably be unacceptable) and that he could potentially get a life ban. Personally I think a 12 month ban is likely (as a minimum). A short ban increases the risk of the few sponsors the game has dropping it (the game markets itself as family friendly, etc) and of a disastrous Court case should Saints / the Police press charges, which would have enormous reputational and indeed financial consequences.
What about about LH's mental and physical health? A powerful blow to the head when possibly / probably already concussed is quite probably going to cause depression and possibly, but hopefully not, long-term problems. As I understand it he is a due a scan which hopefully will not reveal too much damage. But what if it ends his career?
The footballer Duncan Ferguson was jailed for 3 months (out after 44 days) for head-butting an opponent. I can't fully remember the incident but I do not recall being as shocked by it. Maybe that is a point of reference? Against that, it is probably clear that a professional RL player would know and accept a higher physical risk from that sort of thing than a footballer. But did when LH when he was a kid dreaming of being a RL player anticipate being punched when lying of the ground by such a bigger / stronger player? Would any parent want their boy to play a game that doesn't totally reject such behaviour? These are big issues and bigger than just our love of the game and a "bit of biff."
It is to be hoped that the disciplinary panel get it right in all the circumstances (which will be no mean feat with the Press on the case). If they don't I think it will be dreadful for the game as a whole in this country. I am concerned that if the decision is considered too lenient that questions could be asked about the composition of the panel - which as I understand it includes Danny Sculthorpe (who played for Wigan) and Neil Turley (who started off at Wigan). I am sure they and the judge will act correctly but perception will be everything.
As to the incident - probably the most shocking I can recall. The other one Was Big Jim Mills' infamous stamp on John Greengrass but even that didn't shock me as much.
I would agree with CI in The Times that the game has not adequately dealt with and punished head high shots which have become routine again. Given the pace of the game and the strength of modern players this is something that urgently needs addressing. For me we need to start sending people off rather than worrying about the effect on the particular match. Head shots should as a rule (exceptions for slipping into tackle, etc) warrant an automatic red card. Coaching / tackling styles would soon adapt accordingly and everyone would be better off.
If we had more red cards the game would clean up quickly and we wouldn't have the obscene spectacle of people trying to judge Saturday's incident by reference to other recent incidents that caused damage to others and stop this upward creep of normalised / 'acceptable' on field violence.
That all said, I think that the discipline and ethics of the average RL player is first class.
