Carlton’s Mitch McGovern is incorrectly penalised at the SCG on Friday night. Pictures: CHANNEL 7

The past couple of weeks have brought into sharp focus like never before how much the use of technology in AFL games needs to be overhauled.

If Melbourne livewire Kysaiah Pickett’s unrewarded free kick for being legged in the goal square against Hawthorn last week wasn’t bad enough, then the umpires outdid themselves on Friday night at the SCG.

Despite Carlton defender Mitch McGovern clearly kicking the ball into the ground first before it went out of bounds, he was outrageously penalised for booting it out on the full. The mindboggling decision gifted Isaac Heeney a free shot at goal, which the star Swans utility duly slotted.

Making that decision even more maddening was the fact that between the officiating boundary and field umpires, neither one of them were able to make the right call.

And this is in the era when there have never been more field umpires officiating games. Despite four sets of eyes scanning the play, the standard of umpiring seems to be as bad as it’s been for some time. What’s the solution? Add more umpires to the field of play? (That was a sarcastic suggestion and should definitely not be taken seriously by the AFL higher-ups if they happen to be reading this!)

But umpire standard aside, what the Pickett and McGovern stuff-ups prove is that in this technological age where every angle of play is scrutinised to within an inch of its life, catastrophic umpiring howlers, wherever they may take place, are becoming increasingly unacceptable for a digitally-savvy audience.

The time has come for the AFL to catch up to other major sporting codes around the world, such as the NBA, ATP/WTA and ICC, and give each side a number of unsuccessful challenges per game.

Let’s go with two per team per game as a starting point, and they shouldn’t be restricted to just score reviews either.

Critics of this proposal will say that the game goes for long enough without additional delays being added into the mix. Well, the counter-argument to that is simple: in this proposed scenario, goal and field umpires would be able to dramatically cut back their meddling, excessive score reviews, because the power would now lie largely with the competing teams to decide whether or not they should challenge decisions they disagree with.

Of course, there would still be scope for umpires to send line-ball score reviews upstairs, just like cricket umpires do regarding catches taken low to the ground.

But there’s no question that micromanaging umpires are using the score review system far more than needed. A prime example was Saturday night’s game between the Bulldogs and Essendon, when Buku Khamis and Xavier Duursma both clearly took marks before crossing the behind line, yet the umpires couldn’t help themselves but needlessly waste minutes of time combined by sending both decisions upstairs so the score reviewers would belatedly arrive at the very decision that was already so obvious to the 47,000 in attendance, and scores more watching on TV.

PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE TO THRIVE BY BECOMING AN OFFICIAL FOOTYOLOGY PATRON. JUST CLICK THIS LINK.

And if teams run out of challenges, and are unable to contest a blatant howler later in the game, it would actually add more drama and intriguing storylines to the match, much like what occurs in Test cricket. Teams would need to use their challenges wisely.

Fears that sides would potentially abuse the proposed system are also misplaced, because with only a few unsuccessful challenges available per game, a team would quickly burn through them if they planned to cynically use them purely just to waste time, for example.

There was another instance that occurred late in Sunday’s match between Richmond and North Melbourne that wasn’t as clear cut as the Pickett and McGovern incidents, but would surely have produced high drama if the challenge system was in play.

With only 1:28 remaining, and the Kangaroos leading by just four points, North’s Luke Davies-Uniacke deliberately sent the ball out of bounds with a handball in Richmond’s forward pocket while being tackled, yet wasn’t penalised.

Given how red-hot umpires have been on that rule this year, it was staggering that Davies-Uniacke was given the benefit of the doubt.

If the Tigers were able to send that non-decision upstairs, they would very likely have had it reversed and would’ve had a shot on goal to potentially re-take the lead in the dying stages.

Richmond coach Adem Yze certainly thought his side was hard done by and was confident there would have been a stronger chance of the free kick being paid if it occurred earlier in the match.

“Well, whether it is (not paid) because it is a tight game (I don’t know). But it’s always a hard one,” Yze said.

“But I reckon ‘Clarko’ (North Melbourne coach Alastair Clarkson) would’ve heard me yell out.

“Yeah, you get frustrated with that sort of stuff because if it was early in the game, they might’ve paid it, but it is what it is. It’s a hard one to umpire at the best of times that rule.”

Maybe if an official in a remote control room in a sterile environment, without the pressure of the crowd impacting him, had a second look at it, Yze would’ve got his wish and the Tigers might just be celebrating their fourth win of the season.