AFL football boss Laura Kane admitted there was a refereeing error but defended a crucial last-minute decision not to award North Melbourne’s Bailey Scott a 50m penalty in the harrowing one-point loss to Collingwood.
Kane said the indecisiveness, which denied the Kangaroos a goal kick from about 30 meters out to win the game at Marvel Stadium, was correct but the referee should have continued “to play” when Scott first took the target and ” took four steps” back into the game.
The Kangaroos defender intercepted a kick from Collingwood star Nick Daikos with 41 seconds left but took steps outside his spot in the middle of the field without being called on to play on.
He was immediately attacked by Collingwood’s Bo McCreery and Steele Sidebottom for an apparent marking breach, but Kane said the referee was right to clear up the mix-up without paying a 50m penalty.
“It was a confusing situation and I understand why people are confused and left wanting to understand what happened,” Kane told the AFL website.
“You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the tag, the referee blows the whistle and one of two calls can be made. It can be played immediately, or it can stand, which would mean that the mark has been paid.
“Neither of those two calls were made in the moment after the free-kick is away, and Bailey takes four steps or so and looks to play on.” So the correct call should have been made at the start.”
Kane backed the referee’s attempt to “regain control” of the game without paying a 50m penalty.
“The first call, the initial mistake, was not calling a play on.” It should have been called play on. So the Collingwood players (expected) to hear the call after the whistle. “A really common discussion around players is blowing the whistle and when you hear it, wait for what’s next,” she said.
“We’re focusing on the time between the whistle and the communication and making sure the refs understand that the original call should have gone ahead given that he took four steps or more and all the objective play markers were there.”
Kane said she was “satisfied with the process” of an earlier review in which Scott claimed he touched Collingwood’s Jack Crisp, which was eventually called a goal.
“We need certainty in the ARC and our scorers need to see and be sure that the vision is very clear that the ball was touched and we didn’t have that certainty,” she said.
“At this point it’s the line of the ball.” Our grade reviewers have to make a decision based on what they have at their disposal, which is the vision and images they had. In the absence of complete security, they retreated at the call of the judge.
“We are satisfied with the process. I understand how you could have come to any outcome, but their job is to make a decision, and they made a decision to support themselves in the referee because they didn’t have a definite vision or a definite image to make that decision.”