So lucky a reprieve has Chris Judd been given by the AFL Match Review Panel this week that, once again, disillusionment with the competition's judicial process abounds. It's imaginable that all bar irrationally blinkered Carlton fans see this as an incomprehensible decision.

No explanation has been provided for the outcome other than a statement that "Contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence." Yet the public knows the blow delivered by Judd to Fremantle's Matthew Pavlich split enough facial flesh that five staples were required for the wound to be pulled together.

Unless the Dockers' skipper bleeds more easily than Henry Cooper, he copped a fair whack. And the head, we're told, is sacrosanct. The AFL wants it protected at all costs. Its judicial bodies and those who man them are well aware of this priority.

It's hard to see the contradiction of evidence to outcome in this case as anything other than an affront to the football public's intelligence. Video evidence has long been central to the AFL's judicial process and the game is cleaner, and better, for it. But as well as putting players under scrutiny, such extensive coverage also exposes those entrusted with delivering judgements about on-field misconduct. The fans see it all and make up their own minds. Sometimes they're misguided and influenced by partisanship, but they shouldn't be taken for fools.

It's not as though the panel that acquitted Judd found some item of evidence the rest of us missed. Its explanation acknowledges that contact occurred, and the fact that it was mentioned in the AFL's weekly release is evidence the panel knew the incident couldn't go unacknowledged. The acquittal of Judd related purely to the amount of force involved in the blow to Pavlich's face.

So bemused are the scribes and commentators that explanations are being sought for such an incongruity. Some attribute the decision to the panel's judgement being blurred by sympathy for Judd. He is targeted weekly by taggers, some of whom use tactics more borderline than others. Those of Adam McPhee last Saturday night were at the extreme end of the scale and clearly frustrated the Carlton captain.

As a creator who is constantly, and often unfairly, frustrated by negators, certainly Judd is deserving of sympathy. But the match review panel is not there to consider such niceties. That an explanation like this would be offered speaks only of the utter confusion the panel's decision has caused among onlookers. This is a body whose judgements must be made in isolation. If broader consideration of a case is required, it should be investigated accordingly or sent to a tribunal hearing.

The other explanation being offered is that, because he is a champion, the Blues' skipper is a protected species. The game needs players like Judd on the park, goes the theory, and perhaps he and his like are judged a little more generously than others at times like this.

Such a theory, in effect, speculates about a class-based justice system. So objectionable is the notion that one could only hope that anyone who ever encouraged it would be quickly despatched by time capsule to 19th century Britain.

When inexplicable findings like this week's give rise to criticism, the AFL's stock response is that its judicial bodies are independent and, therefore, beyond its powers of intercession. And that's how it should be. But for bodies to have the power of independence invested in them they must be demonstrably responsible and competent. The evidence of Monday's decision raises serious questions about the match review panel's capacity to deliver coherent and credible football justice.