1 week Ago
A bemused Chris Scott says the AFL’s decision to publicly clarify late-game umpiring calls is “an overreaction”, suggesting the league can’t “cherrypick examples because of public pressure”. Scott’s comments come after the AFL on Sunday confirmed Adelaide star Izak Rankine should’ve been awarded either a mark or holding free kick in the dying stages of his side’s thrilling one-point loss to Gold Coast. It means the league has now conceded an umpiring error has gone against the Crows in the dying minutes of four of their last 37 games, with all incidents occurring inside their forward 50 when trailing by less than a goal.
FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.
“What’s rare is that the AFL voluntarily come out and clarify it (costly late-game umpiring mistakes). Most of the time that clarification happens behind closed doors,” Scott told reporters. “But I would say it happens a lot – I’m going to say at least a few times a game, especially in close games, you look back and they might not be egregious errors, but they’re errors nonetheless.
That’s the nature of our game. “The idea that this is a remarkable situation because a mistake was made in a close call, a 50-50, is laughable. Those sort of errors when you get the benefit of slow motion replays and you say ‘OK, based on what we can see now, that’s an error’ – that happens a lot.
I don’t think you should isolate it and say: ‘Hey this is one of those ultra rare examples where a team was cost a game.’ “So I don’t understand the overreaction from the AFL, personally ..
. I think they’ve got a choice. They can be completely transparent and clarify every single mistake so everyone knows, or don’t do it at all.
But when you cherrypick examples because of public pressure, I think that’s an error. “It’s a bit like Richmond being the victim, if you like, of the change in interpretation of pushing into a marking contest. It’s like: ‘How has that helped us? How’s that helped our No.
1 draft pick (Sam Lalor)?’ And you come out and say: ‘Hey guys (Adelaide), we probably cost you a little bit with the decision, which by the way happens regularly.’ And Adelaide go: ‘So what?’ All that matters is you fix it this week. “I’d prefer they waited a week before they fix it – or don’t fix it at all, because you can’t.
” It was put to Scott that the AFL’s view is to only clarify late call that have a material impact on the outcome of a game. Scott replied: “Well the behavioural economists would have a field day with that, because when does it matter when in the game does it cost you? All it is is caving into public pressure. “Nine-and-a-half times out of 10 we should support the AFL in their decision-making – and I think they’re trying to do the right thing here, I just disagree with it.
It doesn’t make me right, but if you think through it logically, ‘we’re only going to clarify the ones that happen late in games because they’re the only ones that influence the outcome of the game’ – well, that’s not true. “I’ll give you an example: We gave up the first goal against St Kilda, which was a clear push in the back not paid. Is that any different if it was in the last 30 seconds of the game?” Scott also defended Melbourne superstar Christian Petracca following external criticism of his emotional response to the Demons’ loss to Geelong last weekend.
“We might err a little bit in this overall philosophy occasionally, but we’re aspiring to say ‘be yourself’,” Scott said. “Now if being yourself sort of veers into putting more pressure on your club or teammates or yourself for that matter, maybe we need to think about your behaviour. But we as an industry want it every way, don’t we? ‘Show more emotion, show less, be yourself, put on a facade’ – like, which one is it? I think when in doubt, if you feel it, within reason, what’s wrong with showing it? “I never thought when Roger Federer was effusive of his praise of (Rafael) Nadal after losing a Grand Slam final that he was going to go any easier on him next time they played – and I feel the same way about Petracca.
I don’t think ‘oh yes, he’s a weakling, so next time we’re going to kill him’. I suspect it’ll be the opposite, because he’s a passionate guy who really cares.”.
