Because when an intentional headbutt gets two weeks, an accidental head clash gets three, and a dangerous elbow to the back of the head gets six, rarely have the inconsistencies in rugby's foul play committee been so apparent.

Jone Koroiduadua has been hit with a two-game suspension for a headbutt while Drua teammate Frank Lomani will spend six games on the sidelines for a mind-blowing brain snap in a 41-20 loss to the Melbourne Rebels on Friday night.

Lomani was red-carded for his strike on Melbourne lock Josh Canham and was lucky not to spend up to 10 weeks watching from the stands. Koroiduadua was sent off for his headbutt late in the game, but Super Rugby Pacific's foul play review committee didn't come down nearly as hard.

Koroiduadua's saving grace? He missed.

Limited contact with the head, a clean record and "off-field mitigating factors" saw Koroiduadua's ban reduced from a potential six weeks to two.

You've got to wonder how Valetini feels when he considers he was banned for three weeks for a head clash when attempting to make a tackle while playing for the Wallabies in 2021. Or Len Ikitau, who copped the same penalty for a high tackle against the Hurricanes in 2022.

How about Queensland's Sef Fa'agase or Marley Pearce from the Western Force, both banned for four weeks for a head clash? Jordie Barrett copped a three-game ban for a high tackle while Reds scrumhalf Tate McDermott wasn't even cited for a hip drop tackle on Lachlan Lonergan, which left the Brumbies hooker with a fractured and dislocated ankle.

Nobody is arguing these aren't worthy of suspensions. But if rugby is serious about cracking down on foul play and protecting players, how is a headbutt worth two weeks, and a dangerous king hit to the back of the head worth six when accidental head clashes are getting four weeks?

If we're serious about eliminating foul play, officials need to take a harsher stance on intentional headbutts like the one we saw from Koroiduadua - whether he connected or not.

"The FPRC deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point of six weeks primarily given that the player and victim player were 'head to head' prior to the incident, and that the player's head appears to have made limited contact with the head of the victim player and rather made contact with the chest area of the victim player. There was also no injury to the victim player," FPRC chair Stephen Hardy said.

So now we're getting into that grey area? Super Rugby officials are entering dangerous territory if they begin to let the extent of the injury determine the sentence for foul play incidents.

"The foul play review committee emphasised that had there been more forceful head contact made, the entry point may well have been higher than low-end. The entry point for the offence is six weeks," Hardy said.

The foul play review committee applied a discount of three weeks for entering an early guilty plea (and other relevant mitigating factors including the player's otherwise unblemished disciplinary record), reducing the suspension from six weeks to three weeks.

"... The foul play review committee considered a sanction of three weeks would have been wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved, and applied a further reduction of one week to the sanction, resulting in a total sanction of two weeks."

Lomani would have been hit with an even larger suspension but for his guilty plea.

"The entry point for the offence was 10 weeks, assessed as top-end range for intentional and deliberate physical abuse of striking with an elbow to the back of the victim player's head and causing injury," their statement read.

"The victim player was in an incredibly vulnerable position with limited ability, if any, to defend himself.

"The player was given a discount for entering an early guilty plea and other relevant mitigating factors.

"In providing the player the sanction, the committee emphasised that this sort of incident is not tolerated in any form of the game."

What we need now is consistency.