‘Confusing incidents’: AFL clears umpires over controversial non-calls in North Melbourne’s loss to Collingwood

The AFL has cleared decisions in the dying minutes of North Melbourne’s close loss to Collingwood on Sunday. JON RALPH has the latest on what AFL footy boss Laura Kane has to say on the matter.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA – JUNE 16: The Kangaroos look dejected after a loss during the 2024 AFL Round 14 match between the North Melbourne Kangaroos and the Collingwood Magpies at Marvel Stadium on June 16, 2024 in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

The AFL has moved into protection mode for its whistleblowers as it cited confusion as the reason a 50m penalty was not awarded to North Melbourne’s Bailey Scott in the final minute of Collingwood’s 54-point comeback.

AFL football boss Laura Kane said on Monday the umpire was right not to pay a 50m penalty because Scott had moved four or five steps inboard after taking his mark.

She said at that stage the umpire should have called play on.

Collingwood’s Beau McCreery and Steele Sidebottom rushed over the mark with just 40 seconds over the clock in what was a clear case of encroaching across the mark.

But in a left-field explanation, Kane appeared to suggest the umpire was attempting to regain control “from a series of confusing incidents” in not paying the 50m penalty.

It ignores the fact the umpire did not call play on, so McCreery and Sidebottom were not allowed to rush over the mark.

Players cannot decide an opponent has played on, they must wait for the umpire to call it.

Kane said the umpire had made the right decision not to march Scott to point blank range but should have called play on in the first place.

The Kangaroos look dejected after a loss to Collingwood. Picture: Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images.

“It was a confusing situation and I understand why people are confused and left wanting to understand what happened,” Kane said.

“You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid.

“Neither of these two calls were made in the immediate moment after the free kick has been blown, and Bailey takes four steps or so inbound and looks to play on. So the correct call should have been play on initially.

The AFL says this shouldn't have been a 50m penalty... because the umpire should have called play on. They say in the 'confusion' he did the right thing not to pay the 50m penalty. This is reverse engineering at its finest. He didn't call play on. So it's a 50m penalty. https://t.co/l9sf0Dzri7

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) June 17, 2024

“That has caused confusion for the players in the immediate vicinity, the Collingwood players, that there was a delay whistle-to-message and that communication was the error, I guess you could call it.

“The important part for the umpire then is to make sure he or she has control of the situation and the decision to regain control from a series of confusing incidents was to pay the mark and bring the ball back.”

“It was a confusing situation and I understand why people are confused and left wanting to understand what happened,” Kane said.

“You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid.

“Neither of these two calls were made in the immediate moment after the free kick has been blown, and Bailey takes four steps or so inbound and looks to play on. So the correct call should have been play on initially.

The AFL also ticked off this call. Which seemed as blatant a touched call as you would see https://t.co/4X9AL4Cduypic.twitter.com/Sdn8E7JDAa

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) June 17, 2024

“That has caused confusion for the players in the immediate vicinity, the Collingwood players, that there was a delay whistle-to-message and that communication was the error, I guess you could call it.

“The important part for the umpire then is to make sure he or she has control of the situation and the decision to regain control from a series of confusing incidents was to pay the mark and bring the ball back.

“So Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle. A really common discussion around players is ‘play the whistle’ and when you hear it, wait for what’s next. What’s next didn’t come quick enough so the confusion for those Collingwood players was what to do, as was probably the level of confusion that sat with Bailey himself.”

Kane also refused to label as a mistake the ARC decision that saw Jack Crisp’s goal upheld despite clear evidence that Scott’s finger bent back as he went to smother the ball.

“It’s a line ball call in the moment. Our score reviewers have to make a decision with what they have available to them, which is the vision and the images that they had. In an absence of being completely certain, they went with the umpire’s call.

“We’re happy with the process. I understand how you could get to either outcome, but their job is to make a decision and they’ve made one to back in the umpire because they didn’t have definitive vision or a definitive image to make that call.”