Odd that neither of the newspapers in this town name the umpire who made what Garry Lyon said was probably the worst umpire decision ever, and a more polite McAveney called "a howler", and that the AFL website said suggested the official was "channeling the NAB cup" when he gifted Carlton its only goal of the first half last night.

You can read it here first: Robert Findlay. Murdered us in his first game three years ago and I have dreaded him ever since.

On the Fox commentary it was suggested he would not be umpiring next week. My guess: we'll get the donkey because we get the worst flogs most of the time.

I know we have much bigger things to worry about, but fools like Findlay just add to the burden.

Well he may be a Carlton Supporter and wanted to give them a helping hand.

Well he may be a Carlton Supporter and wanted to give them a helping hand.

Or, he was on the take. Worst decision of the millennium so far.

Edited June 28, 201312 yr by TheoX

Or, he was on the take. Worst decision of the millennium so far.

We have been told that criminals are getting involved in a big way with AFL from game fixing etc.

So maybe you are right or he just not suited to umpiring at the top level.

I'm looking forward to KB justifying it on Monday morning, pity the 'Geish' is away at the moment.

I'm looking forward to KB justifying it on Monday morning, pity the 'Geish' is away at the moment.

Just having a look at his profile, he's a pretty smart cookie, aerospace engineer among other qualifications, just bad umpire.

Just having a look at his profile, he's a pretty smart cookie, aerospace engineer among other qualifications, just bad umpire.

Newtonian physics is not gonna help him umpire a game of footy. The problem with contemporary umpiring is that the personnel generally have little or no feeling for the spirit of the game and make decisions which are based upon temporary and variable instruction. If he was looking to make a name for himself he has done that. Not a good career move though.

Just having a look at his profile, he's a pretty smart cookie, aerospace engineer among other qualifications, just bad umpire.

Aerospace Engineer ?? Is that referring to the "space" between his ears ? That "space" would qualify him into the umpiring ranks.. and maybe a touch of diminishing eyesight...

I'm looking forward to KB justifying it on Monday morning, pity the 'Geish' is away at the moment.

No doubt he will... in his mind anyway.. Has Malthouse complained this time ?? ha ! ha !

No doubt he will... in his mind anyway.. Has Malthouse complained this time ?? ha ! ha !

He claimed to have not seen it.

No doubt he will... in his mind anyway.. Has Malthouse complained this time ?? ha ! ha !

Funny how the nastiest Coach hooks up with the club so many hate.

He claimed to have not seen it.

absolute bollocks, he's a [censored] and just doesn't slag off anything that's a bonus for the Boos.

The whole rule was a very bad knee-jerk reaction by Vlad to a non-problem.

I can only ever recall it being used once before - please enlighten me if there are more.

Then in a tight game in appalling conditions the maggot pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

Shocker.

I thought those Swans defenders were going to put that umpire over the fence!

Melcheski was so close to letting him have it.

Do not blame him either.

I think he was under a fair bit of pressure!!!

So the precedent has been set, having two hands on you at the time does not constitute pressure. We need to remember that.

i wish we could get just one goal gfted against us every week.. last week for example the Saints got 4-5 total gifts

So the precedent has been set, having two hands on you at the time does not constitute pressure. We need to remember that.

I was debating this with someone (a Carlton supporter, go figure) who thought it was the right decision on the basis that Malceski had opportunity to dispose of the ball, faced the play, realised he had run out of options and walked backwards across the line (he was actually pushed but whose counting). I asked him if he thought the numerous other instances of players rushing behinds in similar circumstances were therefore all incorrect decisions, and he said he hadn't seen any others like it. At that point I ended the discussion.

If Malceski had been facing he other way and walked (no pushing required) over the line then the umpire wouldn't have thought for a micosecond that it would be a free. For some reason seeing the pressure on you and reacting is worse than just feeling it behind you.

We have been told that criminals are getting involved in a big way with AFL from game fixing etc.

So maybe you are right or he just not suited to umpiring at the top level.

when is this town going to get criminals that barrack for the demons?????

when is this town going to get criminals that barrack for the demons?????

We have them, but they're not the sort to stoop to match-fixing. They're more into corporate fraud.

Geeshplanation time. "Malcheski did indeed step back across the line, so on balance I rate it a 50-50 call."

We are unlikely to cop Findley next week, since we are playing Sydney.

So the precedent has been set, having two hands on you at the time does not constitute pressure. We need to remember that.

It's not a precedent.

AFL has admitted it was an error.

Expect him to be dropped for next week

when is this town going to get criminals that barrack for the demons?????

Sorry Mate I think they are all Collingwood Supporters

Umpiring AFL is a thankless and horrendously difficult job. There are too many rules and far too much subjectivity in their application.

The rushed behind rule is ridiculous. Just like the interchange infringement rule, it was a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent problem. The fact that an umpire thought that incident was worthy of a free kick is a disgrace.

Both rules should be abandoned.