That's like saying just about every other code in world sport that sends players off has it wrong. AFL is one of the few that doesn't have a send off rule.
For all those advocating that there is too great a margin for error is ignoring the fact that those for sending players off only want it implemented for instances such as thuggery acts such as Bugg.
Seriously, who is going to get that wrong?
Do you then separate the Houli and Bugg incidents?
If yes, because Houli threw an arm back, then it's a fine line if someone lines up their victim with their peripheral vision.
If no, then it's possible we see someone sent off for being reckless rather than malicious.
There is always a line, and you're asking umpires to find that line. You're asking them to determine guilt or level of guilt, in which case, why do we have a MRP and tribunal?
Sure, other sports have send off rules, but they are also constantly either sending someone off unfairly, or leaving a player on who should be binned.
Such a rule, like others is open to interpretation, and they will get it wrong from time to time. I'd hate for a player to be rubbed out of a game, because the umpire thought he meant to hit someone, but didn't. I'd equally hate it if one of our players was hit and despite a send off penalty being available, wasn't implemented because the umpire thought it was accidental.
There are 2 things at play here. As a deterrent, I don't think it would work. These incidents are very much heat of the moment these days. I don't think Bugg laid that punch with the thought that "Oh well, I'll only get a month off". It was a week after the Houli hit, and punishment never entered his head. The existing penalties act as a deterrent to pre-meditated violence, so we have "melees" instead of all in brawls, and players aren't deliberately taken out as a strategy.
The merit to the idea is the punishment aspect. As discussed, it's an eye for an eye approach so that the victim's team is impacted less. Hard to argue against that, except for the reasons above, that the umpire suddenly becomes judge and executioner, where we currently rely on a tribunal with lawyers to determine the level of guilt.
Do other sports have it wrong. I think so, because they do get it wrong.
It's similar to the arguments for and against the death penalty. In extreme cases you have to be either guilty or innocent. We can say it is only for blatant offences, but what constitutes blatant? And are those who aren't sent off, therefore innocent? There's a lot of grey in there.