The AFL has privately admitted to a string of umpiring mistakes from Saturday's Round 16 game between Essendon and Geelong that shouldn't have been paid against the Bombers.
The contest was somewhat marred by a number of contentious officiating decisions that left players, coaches and fans perplexed and bemused.
A rushed behind decision against Jye Menzie and a holding the ball call against Jordan Ridley were among the decisions seen as most questionable in the eyes of coach Brad Scott and Essendon fans.
The AFL decided against publically addressing contentious umpiring calls in the wake of Round 16; however, it did reach out to Scott, who did not agree with some of the explanations, to clarify some decisions made in his side's 45-point loss to the Cats.
"I was pleased, the AFL actually got on the front foot and contacted me directly," Scott confirmed on AFL 360.
"I wasn't necessarily intending on contacting them, unless there was something our players needed clarity on going forward.
"Their explanation helped. I didn't necessarily agree with all of it, but whether I agree or not is irrelevant. What I want to know - particularly around holding the ball - is what the umpires are looking for and how they want to adjudicate the rule, and how do our players play to that.
"We can get caught up in the debate. I'm not interested in the debate anymore, I'm interested in how they adjudicate it."
While confirming the AFL told Essendon that errors were made, Scott said his leading concern was how fans are understanding the new holding the ball interpretation.
The former AFL general manager of football addressed the Ridley decision at length, drawing focus to the fact the Dons defender could've dropped the ball instead of taking it to ground and therefore wouldn't have been penalised.
"It's not a witch hunt, it's not about seeking vengeance, Mistakes are mistakes. The deliberate rushed behind, the AFL admitted that was a mistake," Scott added.
"Around holding the ball, what my interpretation is on what are and aren't free kicks, the umpires had a different view. The Ridley one, for example, had no prior opportunity, but in the umpire's view there was insufficient intent to dispose of the ball. That's a mistake and the umpires have said that.
"I find it very hard with two arms pinned to dispose of the ball. I wasn't sure how he was supposed to do that. If Ridley had dropped the ball and threw his foot at the ball and missed it, it would be play on.
"My concern with that is that fans in the stadium would all think that's holding the ball."
Going forward, the AFL is set to address questionable umpiring decisions privately unless a match-defining decision is made and required to be explained to the public.