lol nice tryLook, I explained this in depth, along with images as evidence, in the injuries and suspensions thread here so I suggest you go and have a look at that.
But just briefly, NRL rules state that for a tackle to be deemed reckless, it must be obvious the defending player foresaw contact with the head but went through with it anyway. When you actually look at the facts, there is no way Latrell could have foreseen contact with the head. it was Manu dropping 30cm in a split-second that caused Latrell to contact the head.
Careless? Yes, 100%. Reckless? You're dreaming.
There was only ever one outcome likely with the action taken.
Now that I look at your explanation though, i have to agree the grading is wrong. If reckless means "it is obvious the defending player foresaw contact with the head but went through with it anyway" then by definition that is intentional and I couldn't agree more with you that it was intentional.
Out of interest, where are you getting that definition from? I can't find any documentation that says that. The 2018 judiciary code of procedure says
“Reckless High Tackle”
on the part of a Player constituted
by, when he is effecting or attempting to effect a tackle, making contact with the
head or neck of an opponent recklessly;
The NSWRL operate under the same Judiciary Code of Procedure as the NRL with the following amendments with have been adopted and approved by the NSWRL board. 1. All references to the NRL are replaced by
I will concede that is an annoying definition as it uses the term reckless to define itself.