A mid-season rule-change has already come back to bite the AFL, with Geelong winger Ollie Dempsey denied a clear goal.
And with the game decided by two points in a major upset victory for Carlton, Dempsey’s score could have been match-defining.
WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: AFL score review rule-change backfires
Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today
Dempsey kicked two goals in the first quarter of his side’s clash with Carlton on Friday night, and should’ve had a third if not for the behind that was called when he cleverly shinned a ball from the goal line to register the first score of the game.
The goal umpire — former player and fan favourite David Rodan — was impeded by Carlton’s Blake Acres, who made accidental contact with him from behind, but still made the definitive call that the ball came off hands.
Any contact below the knee is considered a kick, and an ARC review would have found that Dempsey clearly guided the loose ball onto his lower leg and awarded him a goal.
It was a clear miss that should have, at the very least, been sent upstairs to the ARC — particularly given Rodan was off-balance, through no fault of his own, when he made the call.
But the correct outcome would have still been reached if not for a rule-change after Round 7, when almost a minute of play unfolded before the ARC ruled that a St Kilda behind should have been a mark to Rohan Marshall on the goal line.
In the wake of that incident, the AFL changed the rule so that could no longer intervene on an incorrect call once the ball was back in play.
Before Round 7, an incident like Friday night’s would have been stopped at the next stoppage and a goal awarded to Dempsey.
Asked about the error after the game, Geelong coach Chris Scott said it was an “howler”, but that it didn’t decide the game.
“We were denied a goal, mistakes happen, there should have been a review called, but they’ll (the AFL) work through those processes,” he said.
“But that’s one minute into the game, and then the rest of the game didn’t work out the way that we would’ve liked.
“If there’s a howler like that, you kind of want it in the first minute, not the last, to give you a bit of time to make up for it.”
Scott added that someone should have been able to intervene.
“The technology’s there for the howler, and someone within the ARC should have seen that that was a howler within seconds,” he said.
“But again, you guys will talk about it more. I don’t think I really have that much more to add. All I would be doing is making the observation that’s as plain to you as it is to me.”
