Not sure why you quoted me specifically as I agree with you and my post criticises the decision, how it was arrived at and how it has been delivered.
Most topics here lately have become increasingly binary - folk getting labelled as 100% pro or con something.
However I think we are all in agreement that this decision is not reflective of either what is fair and proper or what is consistent with the severity of previous bans this season for other offences. But we can debate and criticise that without it needing to be vitriolic or histrionic (not saying you haven't been doing that) - some of the wording I have seen on Twitter has been, erm, 'decorative' regarding the decision.
There are two glaring errors in this decision for me:
1) Keefe's previous form for dirty hits has been ignored. Whether this is or is not viewed as a hit to the head it is late, blind and dangerous. That should mean more games added as his last ban for a dangerous hit was only as recent as 21st September.
2) THe original ban Keefe received was arguably way too soft. He was assessed a 2+10 checking to the head penalty, it was reviewed and the MINIMUM tariff of 3 games was assessed. The only reason we weren't going bananas then is it was against Dundee of course. Still wrong though.
So what Moray has effectively said here is this:
A Hit to the head warrants less games (3) than a late body check (4).
The likelihood of any repeat offender not wearing #23 or #26 for Cardiff having a significantly higher ban for a dirty hit less than one month after his last one is pretty low.
I do wonder if the same legal team Doug used to use to threaten the League when they were looking at giant's players (or opponents) bans ihas been inherited by Adey. And sadly no, I am not making that last part up
WD