The NRL judiciary stands accused of handing down one of the most expedient and spineless rulings imaginable with its clearing yesterday of Parramatta's Jarryd Hayne for Sunday's Grand Final.

How else to explain a decision that allows a player to take the field a week after sliding knees-first into another player's temple, an action that had the potential to cause untold damage? That's precisely what Hayne did in the preliminary final on Friday night when he crashed into the head of Bulldogs winger Bryson Goodwin after Goodwin had crossed for a try.

The NRL match review panel met on Sunday, understanding full well the gravity of the situation that confronted them - for this was the Dally M Player of the Year they were sitting in judgment on - and decided after some deliberation that Hayne's reckless and dangerous act did not warrant a suspension. A 20 per cent loading from an earlier guilty verdict was added to the 100 demerit points for a grade-one dangerous contact charge, but that total was reduced by 25 per cent for Haynes' early guilty plea, meaning he was left with 90 demerit points - enabling him to play.

What was most worrying over the weekend was the talk from many NRL pundits and luminaries - in print, on TV and radio - who conceded that, had the incident occurred in round 12 or round 17, Hayne would definitely have received a ban of one or two matches. The same people also said what a shame it would be if Hayne, one of the game's superstars, was not available for league's showpiece event. And how his absence in the showdown against the game's other great full-back, Melbourne's Billy Slater, might cost the NRL 10,000 people at the gate.

The logic was warped, but the implication clear: penalties in rugby league are malleable and shaped according to the circumstances in which the NRL finds itself. That the competition's principles are flexible and its morality rubbery: ‘We'll come down hard on miscreant players in the middle of the season but lash them with a limp lettuce leaf during the finals series, especially if they've got a massive profile'.

Players miss grand finals through suspension in every sport, every year. And, in the AFL anyway, those suspensions have been handed down without fear or favour (with the notable exception of Barry Hall in 2005). They have hit both the good and the great. In 1951, Essendon's champion full-forward John Coleman was suspended for a grand final; the same thing happened to Melbourne captain Ron Barassi in 1963 and then to Collingwood's flamboyant forward Phil Carman in 1977.

NRL match review chief Greg McCallum said he was braced for criticism about the panel's decision and the apparent preferential treatment given to one of the game's biggest drawcards. He was also aware of the apparent double-standards after Storm captain Cameron Smith was rubbed out of last year's grand final for a grapple tackle.

For Melbourne Storm players and administrators, the Hayne decision must have been a difficult one to swallow. Melbourne chief executive Brian Waldron, who lambasted the judiciary after Smith was suspended for last year's decider, put on a brave face yesterday and praised the decision to clear Hayne. "Great games need great players," Waldron said. "It's a great thing for the game." And he appeared to be genuine - not chewing on his knuckle at the time he said it.

So the NRL has got what it wanted: a Grand Final featuring the two in-form teams and their respective superstar full-backs. But, one must ask, at what cost to the game's reputation?