COLLINGWOOD coach Mick Malthouse believes the AFL needs to urgently review its rules, in particular the controversial hands-in-the-back interpretation, after another match marred by contentious umpiring decisions.

The Magpies' thrilling nine-point win over St Kilda, on a day when persistent rain created an old-fashioned physical contest, was overshadowed by some highly technical and inflexible officiating.

These included a dubious, and soft, free kick for hands in the back to Dale Thomas that enabled the Magpies to seal the win.

Thomas himself had only just been denied what was potentially the goal of the year after another contentious call.

This one was by the boundary umpire, who ruled the Magpie forward had taken the ball out of bounds as his teammates, and many in the 57,000-strong crowd, celebrated.

They were only two examples of a series of debatable decisions, in which Collingwood mostly drew the short straw, with the three-quarter-time free-kick count 23-12 in St Kilda's way.

Malthouse, while careful not to be seen to be criticising specific decisions or yesterday's umpiring performance, was clearly frustrated after the game.

He implored the assembled media to address the umpiring issues themselves, as well as the AFL, by looking at the current rules and interpretations at the end of the season.

"Until we get something that's a chorus that sings the same song and at the end of the year then perhaps it's opened up and perhaps we can revisit it … my observation of this so far is that there's been a shoulder put up against the wall (by the AFL) to say it won't change," Malthouse said.

"There are little things I suppose that do get under your skin when they're so contentious and everyone's bewildered by it. We have to revisit those things. I could say a lot of things … I think the umpires are under enormous pressure.

"I"m not a fan of certain rules, you know that. And I am a fan of umpires being given every opportunity to umpire in a manner that gives a little bit of common sense, and I don't know whether we've actually done that with certain things, and it has changed the rules.

"I don't care what anyone says, it has changed the rule book, and that wasn't the intent, surely, of some of the things we've seen today and other times during the year."

Malthouse agreed that yesterday's difficult conditions had helped expose current rules and interpretations as inflexible, and didn't address the courage required by players on the slippery turf.

"I think dry weather football is terrific, but you've got to have that mix of wet weather football, which just brings in so many other elements, bravery for one," he said. "The courage aspect is critical in these sort of conditions, and brave men deserve to be allowed to be brave."

Brilliant youngster Thomas said he wasn't sure whether the ball was in or out before his disallowed goal. "I had my back to the line, so I wasn't too sure where I was but the umpire's call is the right one, as you learn as you grow up," he said.

"I'd given it the fist pump and a few high-fives and turned around, and the (goal) ump's crossed his flags and said no goal. We were lucky enough to get away with it in end."

But Malthouse clearly believed Thomas should have been given the benefit of the doubt, while not endorsing a call for four boundary umpires. "We've just got to get things right," he said.