Geelong champion Jimmy Bartel says the Match Review Panel was quite disappointed with the AFL Tribunal's initial decision to ban Richmond's Bachar Houli for two matches.

Bartel, who was a member of the Panel that sent Houli's case straight to the Tribunal, said he was astounded by the Tribunal to let Houli off the hook with just a two-match ban, which also allowed Eagle Will Schofield to successfully challenge his ban, in a flow on effect according to Bartel.

"We were pretty disappointed. I'm not sure if we lost confidence, because there's not much more we could have done really," Bartel told RSN927 on Monday.

"As we keep saying, it's just a box ticking exercise. We did it and it was left in their hands. Maybe the fact they had given Houli two, and the Schofield case was straight after, they were left with no room to move."

Houli had his two-match ban challenged by the AFL after they labelled the decision "manifestly inadequate", and the 29-year-old Tiger then had his suspension doubled to four matches.

Bartel was pleased Houli was given the chance to explain himself at the Tribunal, but didn't understand how he could be found guilty but be let off due to character references at the same time.

"We clearly weren't on the same page with the Houli one, that's why we sent it to the Tribunal. But we also thought that gave Bachar a chance to explain himself, which I think was the right thing to do," Bartel added.

"But once you plead not guilty to any part of it, I think you lose all right to bring in character references and everything like that. Part of the MRP and the Tribunal is, if you plead guilty, then you get your discount. But if you plead not guilty and still get found guilty of what boxes were ticked, then you're done. That's what surprised me the most."

Bartel was also a little surprised at Will Schofield's case, after the Eagle successful fought his case at the Tribunal and avoided suspension for his elbow that floored Melbourne's Clayton Oliver.

The three-time premiership player at Geelong believes Oliver should have been called up to the witness stand during the case, to put the argument about the force to bed.

"I was a little bit surprised with the Clayton Oliver-Schofield one that Clayton Oliver wasn't called up and we could've just sorted it all out and said, 'Well, Melbourne put in a medical report that you had jaw soreness, talk us through it'," Bartel said.

"And Schofield said he collected him on the chin, so we would have found out either way."