In 1904, North was set to face Richmond in the VFA Grand Final. It had already defeated the Tigers in the semi-final but under the rules at the time, Richmond (as minor premiers) had earned the right to 'challenge'.
It was in the semi-final where tempers first flared and it was with the central umpire in the middle of proceedings. Prior to the finals series, umpire Allen was regarded as one of the premiere umpires in the competition.
However at half time of the spiteful semi-final, Richmond requested Allen check the boots of North players, believing illegal iron spikes were underneath. Captain Paddy Noonan flatly refused to allow Allen to inspect and 15 minutes later play resumed without scrutiny.
North eventually won the game by two points. In the following fortnight before the side faced Footscray, Allen was the centre of attention.
On September 14, four days after North defeating Richmond, Allen was appointed as the umpire for the eventual Grand Final. When the announcement was made, there were no complaints from the Richmond delegation - or so it seemed.
At some point over the next two days, Allen received what was described as a 'sarcastic letter' from the Richmond secretary. There was also a rulebook enclosed as an added punch line to the delivery. Allen immediately submitted the letter to a VFA general meeting on September 17.
Then, three days later, the Association received its first correspondence from the Tigers about the contentious boot-checking incident. It was dated September 13 - the day before Allen was appointed as umpire for the Grand Final, but it wasn't raised by the Richmond delegates at the VFA meeting.
On September 24, Allen officiated the preliminary final between North and Footscray. Although North won by a comfortable 17-point margin, it was on this afternoon where the umpiring situation became even more complicated.
Allen came under heavy criticism from several spectating Tigers about his lack of control over the preliminary final and apparent allowance of too much rough play. The Argus also reported there was disquiet over Allen seemingly permitting North 'to engage in persistent time-wasting tactics'.
Therefore on September 28 - three days before the scheduled Grand Final - the Richmond committee informed the VFA that it would not take the field unless Allen was replaced as umpire.
The drastic move resulted in negotiations which stretched deep into the evening of Friday September 30. With the Grand Final planned to take place the very next day, the majority of opinion was against Richmond.
The VFA refused to overturn the decision, largely because there hadn't been any 'procedural irregularity' in Allen's initial appointment. It was at this stage the silence of the Tigers' delegation likely cost them any chance of a new umpire, given there was no dissenting voice on September 14.
So with Richmond refusing to give any ground, it ultimately forfeited the 1904 VFA Grand Final to North Melbourne. It was North's second VFA premiership, while the Tigers would only play three more seasons in the competition before jumping across to the VFL.
As a post-script, The Australasian condemned Richmond saying:
"There is an aspect of Richmond's disloyalty to the VFA that will have considerable weight with the majority of delegates. It is that the biggest opportunity of the season has been thrown away. Big it was in many senses.
"First it was an occasion on which an enormous attendance must have been recorded. Next, it would have given the rival team a chance of playing fair, manly football, and compensating in the eyes of beholders for the exhibition of poor and spiteful play that had been witnessed when they met in the final of the previous year.
"But there is still another point to be considered in weighing the loss through Richmond's refusal to keep their engagement. A low estimate of what the gate receipts might have totalled on so fine an afternoon, and with practically no other attraction, would exceed 300 pounds. Delegates will not require to have it pointed out to them that their clubs are today poorer by at least that amount."?
