I get that they are different offenses, but the whole point of a judiciary system is to compare apples with oranges and make some sort of fair judgement from that.
I agree that tripping is a bad look, I've always hated it and the league used to be hard on it. And I agree that teams would definitely employ tripping as a defensive tactic if they can get away with it (like kicking the ball from a players hands was used as a dangerous but legitimate defensive tactic for a while). But without wishing to sound too much like Cole Porter, in this modern era, "anything goes".
In that context, a trip getting a week (even as a repeat offense) seems harsh, when eye gouging and shoulders to the head (to think of recent events) don't get a week.
I don't mind the idea of using % of payments as a potential deterrent to some players. I like that foul play is more and more earning a sin binning, as that really hits the team and coaches where it hurts, and if the player won't change their own behaviour, they might be under pressure from their team to change. And it properly compensates the actual team who suffer from the foul play, as opposed to boosting their rivals, which doesn't help them at all (and can be detrimental to them).
