TOBY Greene's boot to the face of Western Bulldogs midfielder Luke Dahlhaus will be one of the strangest cases the Match Review Panel has assessed.

For the majority of the Panel, including first-year members Jimmy Bartel and Michael Jamison, it'll be a case with no real precedent. So what questions do the Panel ask when they sit on Monday to decide Greene's fate? 

1. Did Greene intend to make contact to Dahlhaus's face?

Replays suggest Greene's eyes were on the ball and he takes possession cleanly. It is a leap to accuse the forward of intentionally planting his foot into Dahlhaus's face, and it would be difficult to sustain that grading on the MRP table of offences. Without vision of Greene watching Dahlhaus as the action was carried out, the answer to this question has to be no. In the unlikely event the MRP decided his actions were intentional, Greene would be looking at a three-week suspension.  

AFL to investigate Greene beer incident  

2. Was his action unreasonable in the circumstances?

This is the question that will decide if the MRP proceeds with a charge. Greene was receiving a handball and was likely to be crunched in a tackle if he didn't protect his space. He chose to do that with one leg while he was in the air taking possession. What the MRP might decide is unreasonable is how high Greene's leg elevated, making contact with Dahlhaus's face. It was "not a football action", Paul Roos said on Fox Footy, and "you cannot allow that to happen on a football field". Former Tribunal member Daniel Harford said: "Most fair-minded people would think it wasn't unreasonable to protect himself". Greene knew Dahlhaus was closing in and he used the studs of his boots to protect himself. If the MRP think that is reasonable the case is closed here.   

3. What specific charge is he guilty of?

If the MRP proceed there is the technical matter of what charge he is guilty of. The 23-year-old was reported on the spot for rough conduct, but that can be adjusted by the MRP on Monday. Rough conduct is appropriate, while kicking is another option. Then there is misconduct. Misconduct is described in the Tribunal guidelines as "any conduct which would be regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike by other participants in the match". Misconduct can be punished with a fixed financial sanction determined by the MRP, skipping the grading process.

4. If charged, how should it be graded?

This might be the easiest question for the Panel to answer if they get this far and charge Greene with rough conduct or kicking. Greene's conduct would surely be deemed careless rather than intentional, given he is in the act of play and his eyes don't appear to be on Dahlhaus. Contact is made to Dahlhaus's head, while the impact sits somewhere between low and medium. That Dahlhaus was cut and had to leave the ground to have stitches suggests a grading of medium impact is more appropriate. Once Greene's bad record and an early guilty plea are applied, that would result in a two-match suspension. 

5. Would this be an issue if it didn't involve Greene? 

It would be an issue for the MRP to address, but with nowhere near the same "hysteria", as GWS coach Leon Cameron described it. Greene has been charged four times this season, with another headbutt going unpunished because of insufficient force. He has missed four games through suspension, carries a bad record loading for the next two seasons, and is a key player in a premiership-contending team. Greene's record also means he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of some. All he can ask from the MRP is to be treated as any other player would when the Panel sits on Monday.