AFL boss Kane admits umpire error late in Pies' win

The AFL has conceded a mistake was made, only not the umpiring decision that many people think should have happened.

North Melbourne's Bailey Scott was denied a 50m penalty late in Sunday's one-point loss to Collingwood at Marvel Stadium.

He took a mark outside 50m, then Magpies pair Steele Sidebottom and Beau McCreery immediately moved on him as he tried to kick into attack.

There's a widespread feeling that should have cost the Magpies a 50m penalty, which would have given Scott a golden chance to put North back in front with less than a minute left.

But AFL football boss Laura Kane says the crucial error was in what the umpire did immediately after Scott took the mark.

"It was a confusing situation and I understand why people ... are left wanting to understand what happened," she said on Monday.

"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 those two calls occurred in the immediate moments after the whistle was blown and Bailey takes four steps or so inbound, and looks to play on.

"The correct call should have been 'play on' initially - that has caused confusion for the players in the immediate vicinity, being the Collingwood players, that there was a delay. The communication was the error, I guess."

Kane said if the umpire had called "stand" immediately and the two Collingwood players had closed on Scott, then it would have been a 50m penalty.

"The initial mistake, if you like, is that play-on wasn't called," she said on the AFL website.

"'What's next didn't come quick enough ... every objective marker of 'play on' was there."

Kane also backed how another incident was adjudicated earlier in the game, also involving Scott.

Collingwood's Jack Crisp snapped a goal, but a replay shows Scott might have touched it off the boot.

Kane said the goal was reviewed in the league's video hub.

"We need certainty in the ARC (AFL Review Centre) and our score reviewers need to see, and be certain, that the vision shows very clearly that the ball was touched," Kane said

"We didn't have that certainty - it is a line-ball call.

"We were happy with the process  - I understand how you would get to either outcome.

"They didn't have definitive vision or a definitive image to overturn the call."