The man with the hardest job in football, Match Review Panel chairman Michael Christian, has conceded that 2017 has been especially tough for his five-man team because so many cases have involved gun players, including Patrick Dangerfield, Dustin Martin and Toby Greene.
The former Collingwood premiership defender, who has been on the panel for three years, said the high-profile nature of some of the 'defendants' this year meant there had been an extraordinary media focus on the MRP and, as a consequence, some uncomfortable Monday meetings.
"If that had been Daniel McStay of Brisbane, rather than Paddy Dangerfield of Geelong, driving Matthew Kreuzer into the ground, then no-one would have batted an eyelid," Christian told ESPN.
"Because it was the Brownlow Medal favourite, of course it became a much bigger story than it would otherwise have been.
"The same with Dustin Martin when he grabbed Nick Robertson, and Toby Greene last weekend [where his foot made contact with Luke Dahlhaus' face], and Trent Cotchin's jumper punch: if those incidents involved Johnny no-name, then they wouldn't have attracted anything like the attention they did.
"So in that respect it's been a difficult year - but an enjoyable one. We all still love doing the job even if you don't necessarily enjoy all the commentary around some decisions."
The panel's job was made trickier mid-season when now-departed footy operations boss, Simon Lethlean, insisted they get tougher on jumper-punch cases, such as the ones involving Cotchin, and the stomach punches, such as the one dished out by Ben Cunnington to Bernie Vince.
"He wanted to lower the bar on those kinds of incidents," Christian said.
The former player and media veteran launched a robust defence of his team, which has occasionally come under fire this year, saying criticism of the MRP's rulings has often stemmed from a lack of understanding of tribunal guidelines.
He said while many journalists and footy fans understood the complexities and differences involved in each case, some pundits who should know better sounded off without doing their research.
"The word 'consistency' gets thrown around by some commentators and it really gets my back up," he told ESPN. "They all say: 'all we want from the MRP is some consistency'. But each incident is different; no two are exactly the same. They might be similar in many respects, but not the same. So the concept of 'consistency' is redundant - you have to judge every case on its merits.
"Having said that, there are times when we just laugh on the panel and say to each other: 'we're in a no-win situation here.' Whatever we do, we're going to get criticised."
In an attempt to educate leading commentators about the workings of the MRP, Christian said they had invited some of the high-profile journalists to sit in on their deliberations on Mondays. One particularly well-known reporter said he'd be there - but never bothered to turn up, frustrating the heck out of Christian and his team.
Christian is joined each week by all or some of his fellow-panellists, Jimmy Bartel, Michael Jamieson, Nathan Burke and Jason Johnson, as they review the contentious incidents from the weekend's action.
Sometimes, they view the same piece of video 40 or 50 times just so they get an accurate picture of exactly what has happened. Then they debate it at length and deliver a ruling.
"We can say, hand on heart, that for each case we have endeavoured to do the most accurate, honest job possible in making our ruling," he said.
Christian has the deciding vote if the debate is deadlocked; very occasionally his view is vetoed by the others, which is what happened earlier in the season when Melbourne's Jordan Lewis decked Carlton's Patrick Cripps behind play at the MCG.
The incident left Cripps with a hairline crack in his jaw. Christian wanted the impact to be graded as high; his colleagues felt medium was more appropriate because they'd received word that Cripps would probably play the following week, which he duly did.
Christian had to go along with the majority view, even if that still rankles: "If I had the same set of circumstances in front of me today, I'd still say that was high impact."