When the Football Association considers changes to its disciplinary process this summer, one wonders how it will reflect on a season that has exposed the present system as woefully flawed.

The FA will discuss, among other topics, introducing retrospective punishment for serious fouls that have been seen by officials but not dealt with sufficiently. It would be a significant step towards a more consistent and fair approach from the governing body following a season when a disparity in suspensions across a number of high-profile decisions has been stark.

During a Premier League season that has seen John Terry banned for four matches for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand and Luis Suárez suspended for 10 games for biting Branislav Ivanovic, it is a cause for concern that reckless and dangerous tackles capable of career-ending injuries can still escape punishment if the referee reports that he or his fellow officials saw the incident in some way at the time.

Liverpool criticised the Suárez verdict on Thursday, Brendan Rodgers saying the punishment "was against the man and not the decision" and Pepe Reina describing it as "absurd and unfair".

Suárez's act was so outrageous that the decision to act swiftly and decisively was an easy one for the FA. The debate on the length of the ban will rage but the more serious issue is why his biting offence warranted a suspension more than double the one handed out to Terry for abusing Ferdinand. The confusion is compounded by Suárez being suspended eight matches for racial abuse the previous season.

The FA has acknowledged that a change is needed regarding disciplinary tariffs for racial and discrimination offences. It is due to be implemented before the start of next season after ratification by the semi-autonomous Football Regulatory Authority. It will include a including a minimum sanction for offences.

It would be an important step towards a more transparent process that currently sees an independent regulatory commission, comprising a three-man panel, investigating each case.

However, while the FA has moved to confront the issue of racist abuse, the system that rules out retrospective punishment for serious offences which have been seen in some way by officials, though without the appropriate action being taken, remains inadequate.

Viewed on its own, Suárez's 10-match ban seems fair but Liverpool arguably have every right to feel aggrieved with a system that was powerless to punish the tackle from Wigan Athletic's Callum McManaman on Newcastle United's Massadio Haïdara last month. The challenge was seen by the referee, Mark Halsey, and therefore escaped further action, despite Newcastle describing the FA's disciplinary process as "not fit for purpose".

There have been other challenges this season that have passed by the disciplinary commission. Chelsea's David Luiz left the Brentford teenager Jake Reeves concussed following a reckless shoulder charge in the FA Cup, before the Brazilian was on the receiving end of a two-footed lunge by Sergio Agüero in the semi-final of the competition against Manchester City that was seen by the referee, Chris Foy, but not deemed even a booking. Only last week Andy Carroll flew head-first into David de Gea and escaped retrospective punishment.

Suárez's biting incident fell under the FA's umbrella of "exceptional circumstances" and was open to later action. The exceptional circumstances, though, only include off-the-ball incidents, meaning challenges such as Wayne Rooney's reckless elbow on James McCarthy the season before last are exempt. The only exception to that rule came in 2006 when Ben Thatcher shoulder-charged Pedro Mendes and left the midfielder on a stretcher and requiring oxygen – Thatcher was banned for eight games.

The difficulty lies in this grey area of exceptional circumstances. After the McManaman incident the Premier League chief executive, Richard Scudamore, said: "I don't think anybody in the Premier League, perhaps bar Wigan, would have complained had they decided this was exceptional … it looked to most of us that was an exceptional incident."

The FA fears that any rule changes would open the floodgates for hundreds of cases to be heard every season. Any shift in policy would have to be agreed by Fifa, one of its stakeholders, and the FA stresses that every case is uniquely different – how can one compare biting with racism, or racism with an elbow to the face?

There may not be a one-size-fits-all approach but Germany and France operate a system of retrospective action. Last month the Nice player Valentin Eysseric was banned for 11 matches for a leg-breaking tackle on Saint Etienne's Jérémy Clément.

The FA deserves praise for its swift handling of the Suárez case. Yet, when more serious challenges continue to be overlooked, changes need to be made to avoid another season of confusion and conflict.