This discussion has ALWAYS been about consistency in the current refereeing interpretation of the 'dangerous play' laws as seen in the climax of that match Daveaitch, but to do that you are obliged to at least start from 'the basic framework' of the laws themselves. One or two early responders didn't seem to know the relevant law, which was my only reason to post a link to the current laws and to quote them, having also been criticised for merely posting a link to a blog article about the progressive tightening of foul play law interpretation, which i reckon commenced around 2018.
IF the driving force behind the recent refereeing edicts, and the focus on cutting dangerous play (reducing head and neck injuries in particular), is primarily about improving player safety, then location on the pitch, or the efficacy of the intent of the dangerous play, shouldn't really be significant factors. Obviously they currently are....so there's really no need to try and turn it into a point-scoring contest.....(hence pedantry.)
Yes, of course, many other inconsistencies also exist/persist in the interpretation of the laws of the game, but I didn't see any of them particularly in the climax of this match, and as there is so much emphasis on reducing "dangerous play" these days, perhaps that's where there should be primary focus in improving consistency.