Wales v NZ

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#1
Yes, I see it as a defence against a striking charge!

A high-tackle would not normally get a red card whereas striking could get a red card (and therefore a suspension)

Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, I'm saying that is how I would be defending it.

(Putting it this way allows me to have an opinion without being continually misrepresented. The additional bold emphasis to assist those who habitually skim posts without reading them fully)
I didn't want to chime in...but as the prosecutor I would be saying the "clenched fist" in frame 2 is the first point of rebuttal against your claim that it wasn't a 'strike'. QED! The prosecution rests. Guilty as charged.