Not really. The number of referrals is linked to the number of incidents, pure and simple. The video panel only decides whether the incident needs to be looked at by the judiciary, not how bad any given incident may be.

Have you seen the Bailey incident? Do you know, as fact, that there was any contact between his forearm/elbow and his opponents head? The comments of the disciplinary panel suggest not. Hence the difference in sentence.

Oh, ignore them, FFS, they're only in possession of the full facts. It's much more fun to rant on a forum in complete ignorance of that sort of irritating factual stuff.