out of a scrimmage which was interfered with by a small boy who had crossed the fence and was standing near one of the goal posts. Goal umpire Handley had ruled that the ball had hit the goal post, then hit the boy, resulting in a behind; Essendon presented witnesses who stated the that ball never hit the post, or that it hit the boy before the post. Essendon also noted that its goalsneak Lang, who was behind the scrimmage and could have gathered the ball and ensured a goal was scored without interference, elected not to due to its trajectory towards goal. Each club produced a separate boy to give evidence, each claiming theirs was the one who interfered with play. The second attempt, immediately afterwards, saw the ball kicked back into play, and gathered by Rout of Essendon, who kicked the ball high towards the goal and was awarded no score. There was conflicting evidence on three matters of this attempt: whether the ball had been legally kicked off by a South Melbourne player or illegally by a spectator; whether Rout's kick had been between the posts or not; and whether or not Essendon appealed for the goal. The motion to award a fourth goal and the game to Essendon was carried at a special meeting on 28 August by a margin of 14–7, temporarily inflicting South Melbourne's first loss for the season. The opinion of the newspapers was overwhelmingly that Handley had erred; and, the new practice of goal umpires being appointed by the clubs rather than appointed and paid by the association was called into question – Handley was South Melbourne's appointed goal umpire in the match, and did not have a good reputation for his proficiency in the role. However, there remained a view that the Association's actions were ultra vires, and South Melbourne then retained counsel to demonstrate this. The original decision was made based on Rules 1 and 8 of its constitution, which collectively stated that all disputes could be referred to a special meeting of the Association for resolution. However, the counsels' opinion was that later provisions in the Laws of the Game served to exclude umpiring decisions from the scope of such disputes: specifically, Rule 8, which stated "the goal umpire shall be sole judges of goals"; Rule 11, which supported the indisputability of an umpire's decision by penalising a player