THE AFL says it is not considering introducing a 'captain's challenge' to review contentious umpiring decisions as the fallout from Fremantle's last-minute loss to Carlton continues.

The League has conceded Matthew Cottrell's mark (which led to a late goal that put Carlton in front against the Dockers on Saturday) should not have been awarded, with replays clearly showing the ball deflected off Fremantle's James Aish before being caught by Cottrell.

The incident has sparked calls for video technology to be expanded beyond just goal reviews, with one idea floated being that of a 'captain's challenge', where each club can call for an incident to be reviewed by the video officials.

But Laura Kane, the AFL's executive general manager of football, says such a system is not on the League's radar.

"It's not something we're looking at," Kane told Footy Feed Extra on Monday.

"We're focusing on making sure that our technology is as good as it can be for score reviews. It's not something we're looking at extending into the game itself in terms of officiating the game."

A challenge system has long been a part of sports like tennis, cricket and rugby league, while sports like football and rugby union allow video technology to be used to adjudicate in general play, not only when a goal or try is scored.

While the League has conceded the umpires erred in awarding Cottrell the mark, Kane and AFL CEO Andrew Dillon say a contentious dissent ruling late in the game against Fremantle's Jordan Clark was correct.

After a crackdown on dissent towards umpires last year, Kane said she wants to see the rule enforced more consistently than it has been at times this season.

"We're always looking at consistency. It's something we coach our umpires on and something we're training all of them on," she said.

"We review all decisions and the decisions you're referring to over previous weeks (where a dissent free kick has not been paid) are something we want to see applied and officiated consistently."

On Monday, Fremantle footy boss Joe Brierty maintained Clark had been admonishing himself when he swore in the direction of an umpire, which triggered the dissent free kick.

"The conversation that we've had with Jordan is that he was frustrated at himself," Brierty said on ABC radio.

"He's swearing at himself at that point in time, but obviously from an umpire's point of view when they are looking at each other, he feels as though it's directed towards him.

"That's where the umpire has paid the dissent free kick."