FYI on the main board's Houli thread in the Umpiring,MRP, Tribunal sub board - the one before the AFL appeal's Houli decision thread - I put the facts down for the Silvagni case in 2015, the Stephen May and Tom Jonas cases in 2016 and Houli's case, all of which went straight to the tribunal post the 2015 changes to the system.
The big difference is the starting point by the AFL counsel. In the first 3 cases the counsel was Jeff Glesson QC who used to love getting stuck into players and wanted at least 5 in the May's case (got 5), 6 in Silvagni's case (got 4) and 7 in Jonas' case (got 6). In Houli's case it was Andrew Woods who was acting for the AFL and was a little soft. Houli had the same charge as Silvagni ie Intentional + High impact to the head and Glesson's starting point was 6 games compared to Woods' in Houli's case was 4. I think Woods and the AFL might had built in the good bloke factor into the starting point of 4 where as Glesson would have ignored it.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...t-with-jed-lamb.1169402/page-53#post-51055700