IT WAS labelled a 'crackdown' on striking.

But in reality, the harsher interpretations on intentional punches will have little effect on how the Match Review and its head honcho Michael Christian will operate in 2019.

Instead, the AFL's clampdown was supposed to come from the umpires. For every punch this season, the game's officiators had been instructed to pay a free kick.

For all of the talk and public commentary on harsher penalties for striking offences, there were no actual changes made to the way the Match Review interprets them.

Perhaps it's where the confusion surrounding Ben Cunnington's fine stems from.

As the rules currently stand, blame for Cunnington's relatively lenient penalty – a $2000 fine, rather than a one-match suspension – shouldn't fall at the feet of Christian.

Rather, according to the League, it was an error on behalf of the deepest umpire closest to the North Melbourne goal during that incident, who should have spotted the infringement.

The AFL publicly acknowledged that mistake on Tuesday.

Such a change came about after AFL coaches suggested that free kick for off-the-ball strikes would act as a bigger deterrent for players than fines.

While they might not care if their players are hurt at the hip pocket, coaches certainly would if one of their misdemeanours changed the momentum of a game.

In turn, you can assume the resulting bake from a coach would certainly make a player reconsider whether they would commit such an act in the future.

However, would simply paying a free kick quell those baying for a heftier punishment?

Sydney premiership coach Paul Roos and Melbourne champion Garry Lyon were among the voices demanding for a statement to be made on strikes following the Cunnington incident.

It's unlikely their stance would have been softened just by an umpire paying a free kick.

IN THE MIX Who's in line for a round two recall?

But rather than calling for a complete overhaul of the way the Match Review deals with incidents like Cunnington's, perhaps a routine minor change to the guidelines might be a more reasonable request to finally eradicate intentional strikes and calm fan dissatisfaction.

While clubs across the competition – and, in particular, the coaches – unanimously agreed on the current approach over the summer, the commentary in the 24 hours since the Match Review's decision on Cunnington makes it clear that the footy public isn't on the same page.

However, in terms of the way the Match Review has been instructed to interpret incidents like Cunnington's, there was little scope for Christian to upgrade his penalty on Monday.

His job, quite simply, is to work within the guidelines given to him by the AFL.

It's believed a favourable medical report from Fremantle certainly helped Cunnington's case, ensuring there was little means for Christian to upgrade the level of impact from low to medium and subsequently handing him a harsher penalty.

Again, this points to the need to change those guidelines to stamp out intentional strikes.

INJURY LIST Who's in your medical room ahead of round two?

As of Tuesday, AFL.com.au understands that a number of options to ensure that heavier punishments from the Match Review can be handed down are being considered.

It's believed that one such option currently being contemplated at AFL House is to immediately bump the level of impact by one grading for any strike deemed intentional.

Should that particular approach be adopted, it would mean Cunnington's strike would be automatically upgraded from low to medium impact, equating to a one-match ban.

For now, any immediate change appears doubtful.

However, until those guidelines are amended, it's highly unlikely discontent from footy fans will subside when the next punch is dished out.

Find In the Game on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or Spotify