Former AFL match review panel chairman Peter Schwab has stoutly defended the current set-penalty points system but conceded that by far the hardest part of the job was assessing the culpability of the defendant.

Schwab said during his two-year stint in 2005-06 he had found this the toughest issue to grapple with each week - deciding whether the aggressor's action was negligent, reckless or intentional - because it was so subjective and so difficult to assess.

His comments come in a week when the panel, now under the directive of chairman Mark Fraser, has been criticised for its rulings on a number of head-high incidents from round two. Many commentators, supporters and, privately, some clubs have felt the panel had been overly lenient in meting out penalties to several players.

"You are always debating at match review panel, and this is the hardest area - was it negligent, was it reckless or was it intentional?" Schwab told backpagelead.com.au.

"I think you can cover off all the other things. That's one that is always a subjective judgement.

"There are always going to be ones that are borderline or ones that you are arguing was it a reckless act or did he mean it. Probably every week you'll get incidents which you are not sure which way to go."

That appears to have been the case this week in wake of the brutal Easter Monday clash between Hawthorn and Geelong.

The fall-out resulted in four reports with both teams losing two players to suspension - Michael Osborne and Liam Shiels for the Hawks, Cameron Mooney and Matthew Scarlett for the Cats.

It was Osborne's hit on Cat Joel Selwood which attracted particularly fierce scrutiny. That he escaped with a one-match ban for a high bump to the face - apparently with an elbow - astounded backpagelead.com.au and many observers.

The incident was deemed "negligent" - the lightest level for contact - and of medium impact. Yet Selwood, as tough a player as there is, had his eyes only on the ball, was bloodied by the impact and had to be helped from the field (pictured, above) at a key stage of the final quarter.

The one-week ban immediately sparked questions as to why St Kilda's Justin Koschitzke had been rubbed out for three weeks for his head-high hit on Swan Nick Malceski a week earlier.

West Coast's Shannon Hurn was also lucky to escape, this time with a two-match ban, for a high bump on Port Adelaide's Paul Stewart, who required a stretcher to leave the field.

Hurn's bump was deemed negligent as well and the force high but not severe.

Despite the odd flaw, Schwab maintained the current system "is as good as you can get".

"I think in my first year, the way it was set up, it needed some tinkering with the penalties," he said. "I think we got that better. In the second year there were still some anomalies with it but I think they have improved it.

"It's the head-high stuff that causes all the angst more in the media and footy world rather than internally.

"My understanding was no matter what sort of hit to the head it was - whether you meant to or not - you were going to be found guilty, whether it was reckless, intentional or negligent.

"Whenever you see incidents that might slip through for head-high contact, you get people arguing, saying: ‘Hang on, you said the head was sacrosanct, how come it isn't in this case?'

"I think that's where they might feel the heat occasionally if they let through a head-high one."

That, unfortunately, may have happened this week. Osborne, surely, should have received a four-week ban reduced to three with an early plea.

Remember, it was only two years ago that AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson wrote to all clubs making it clear that the head was "sacrosanct".

Clearly, that's not quite the case now.

And these somewhat muddied waters aren't going to make life any easier for Fraser, a former Essendon and Collingwood midfielder and AFL umpire.

Fraser has good all-round credentials but the jury is still out on his decision making.

"He has got a good balance. He has been on both sides. But I don't envy him," Schwab said.

"It's a bit like umpiring, no matter what you do, you are going to get criticised. Everyone has an opinion on the incident."

Especially when the punishment appears lenient.