ADAM Selwood's head was a sore point. Adam Goodes' liberty to play next weekend despite inflicting the hurt on Selwood was, for some, an even sorer point. Long before the final siren in Perth on Saturday night, the hanging judges were in emergency overnight session.

Above Matthew Warnock's eye at the MCG on Monday, the scar was livid. So were those yesterday who could not believe that Travis Cloke was not suspended for opening up Warnock's wound. In the absence of summary justice on the day, they wanted poetic afterwards; they wanted an eyebrow for an eyebrow.

Little in football prompts more impassioned response than its judicial system. It follows a law of physics: for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Sometimes it is indignation, sometimes dismissal, sometimes outrage.

Often, there is a ripple effect. Contemplating a previous Goodes reprieve, Brisbane coach Leigh Matthews called him a "protected species". This time, he was more circumspect. But when Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse was asked for his thoughts on Monday, his sense of seething affront that the question even was asked was so great that he might find himself before the match review panel. Our assessment of the look he gave the reporter was: deliberate (three points), high impact (two) and high contact (two).

At very least, he said, he would do fewer press conferences henceforth, which is a shame because the first item on the AFL's news list yesterday was that Malthouse this week reaches 750 games as player and coach. Looks like we will have to talk among ourselves.

Generally, reaction is knee jerk. Some of it comes through the prism of club allegiance and can be ignored. Mostly, it is visceral; Robert Murphy was unlucky to be suspended the previous week, Goodes lucky not to be suspended this week. "That's weeks, surely", but "there's nothing in that".

The AFL cannot be so unsophisticated, and isn't. Once, each case was considered in isolation, which made for absurd discrepancies. Clubs, players and fans demanded consistency, so the AFL devised a system to attempt to deliver it. It is byzantine, but functional.

Last week, the AFL published its annual injury survey, which showed a decrease in head and neck injuries. Chief executive Andrew Demetriou was only too pleased on the weekend to attribute the improvement partly to the overhaul of the judiciary.

The trouble is that no two cases are exactly alike. Prima facie, Goodes was spared a penalty for his attack on Selwood because it was not head-on. Murphy's on Xavier Ellis the previous week was. But such a nicety did not help Peter Burgoyne recently.

Consequences seemed to figure in the match review panel's deliberations. On Saturday Selwood got up, took his free and kicked a goal. On Monday, Warnock was soon back on the ground, patched up, but play-worthy. It has always been a principle at the tribunal that a player is responsible for the outcome of his actions on the field.

The least helpful contribution to the debate is a presumption that the match review panel is protecting some players, especially the higher profile. This ridiculously impugns its integrity. It must be remembered that neither Goodes nor Cloke were exonerated, but rather charged with offences that, calculated according to the panel's guidelines, did not add up to a suspension.

Both are now under notice in the form of carryover points should they offend within 12 months. Except for habitual thugs, of whom few remain in football, this seems right and fair in a heavy-contact sport. If either does re-offend, the consequences will be severer and longer-lasting.

Selwood also was charged on Saturday, with striking Sydney's Amon Buchanan, contested the charge last night, failed, but was spared a suspension because of his five-year record of good behaviour. Same charge, same system, different process, same outcome. But this was Selwood, not Goodes, and the hanging judges had long ago adjourned.