Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

Remove this Banner Ad

Meteoric Rise said:
Why keep asking questions that have already been addressed on the thread? You are lurching from one ludicrous claim or question to the next with all of them on repeat.

Michael Christian does not make any autonomous decisions as MRO in terms of deciding outcomes. So the question of COI is nowhere near as pressing in his case as Hocking’s. Still, I think a person in Christian’s position should not be reviewing matches involving his old club for possible incidents.
Click to expand...
Listen, my question wasn’t addressed to you!!!!!!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Meteoric Rise said:



Now isn’t that interesting when you consider that S Hocking is conflicted by his secondary interest in the Geelong FC and he is the final decision maker in all MRO cases?
Click to expand...

The same Steve hocking who got danger rubbed out for 4 weeks for an effing bump. The same Steve hocking who keeps scheduling Geelong home games against richmond at richmonds home ground? That one.
 
Seeds said:
The same Steve hocking who got danger rubbed out for 4 weeks for an effing bump. The same Steve hocking who keeps scheduling Geelong home games against richmond at richmonds home ground? That one.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. It was the independent tribunal that gave Dangerflop a (widely agreed minimally appropriate) three week suspension. Tell me, was it SHocking who let him play VFL games while suspended though?
 
Meteoric Rise said:



Now isn’t that interesting when you consider that S Hocking is conflicted by his secondary interest in the Geelong FC and he is the final decision maker in all MRO cases?
Click to expand...

Wrestling? It almost always a fine. As I keep saying your unhealthy obsession knows no bounds
 
BF Tiger said:
Incorrect. It was the independent tribunal that gave Dangerflop a (widely agreed minimally appropriate) three week suspension. Tell me, was it SHocking who let him play VFL games while suspended though?
Click to expand...
Why was Williams allowed to play vfl the week prior?
 
BF Tiger said:
Incorrect. It was the independent tribunal that gave Dangerflop a (widely agreed minimally appropriate) three week suspension. Tell me, was it SHocking who let him play VFL games while suspended though?
Click to expand...
He didn't play vfl games while suspended.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BF Tiger said:
7news.com.au

‘Wouldn’t allow it’: Loophole raises eyebrows after surprise Dangerfield announcement

The AFL has been accused of destroying the purpose of its own rules after approving Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield request.
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. The article says,

“AFL rules dictate Dangerfield could receive permission to play because it is a practice match, not a VFL home-and-away game.”

Once again, a feeble and tenuous attempt at trying to demonstrate a conflict of interest that doesn’t exist
 
Gaborone said:
Why is it that the only commentators on this site defending Steve Hocking's apparent conflict of interest area Geelong supporters?
Click to expand...
Because the OP admits his hatred of Geelong is clouding his judgment.
 
Sttew said:
Thanks for clarifying. The article says,

“AFL rules dictate Dangerfield could receive permission to play because it is a practice match, not a VFL home-and-away game.”

Once again, a feeble and tenuous attempt at trying to demonstrate a conflict of interest that doesn’t exist
Click to expand...
If it’s not bias then it’s incompetence.
 
Gaborone said:
Why is it that the only commentators on this site defending Steve Hocking's apparent conflict of interest area Geelong supporters?
Click to expand...
Because no one has defined any way in which he can actually affect a decision with this supposed conflict of interest. The whole thing is just nonsense
 
BF Tiger said:
Incorrect. It was the independent tribunal that gave Dangerflop a (widely agreed minimally appropriate) three week suspension. Tell me, was it SHocking who let him play VFL games while suspended though?
Click to expand...
Also on this. You're right Hocking gave him nothing, because Hocking is not the MRO. Michael Christensen, a supposed stooge through which Hocking controls the universe apparently, referred him to the Tribunal with the exact same grading and punishment that the tribunal landed on. Almost d if he was being treated like any other player
 
CatToTheFuture said:
Also on this. You're right Hocking gave him nothing, because Hocking is not the MRO. Michael Christensen, a supposed stooge through which Hocking controls the universe apparently, referred him to the Tribunal with the exact same grading and punishment that the tribunal landed on. Almost d if he was being treated like any other player
Click to expand...

This is deceptively put by another Hocklodyte Geelong supporting poster.

The Tribunal is effectively limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for. Who decides what the AFL argues for?

You guessed it, Steven Hocking.

So we know the Tirbunal landed on 3 weeks when Hocking argued for 3 weeks. What we don’t know is what the Tribunal would land on if the Hocking had argued for say 4, 5 or 6 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Frederico_WA
Rules Official 2024 season rule tweaks
Replies
22
Views
1K
D-N-R
D
Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Hoops
Hoops
HairyO
Umpiring The Purpose Of Boundary Lines - Pies v Cats Game Discussion
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
161
Views
6K
Doc Hattori
Doc Hattori
C
Death of the 50?
Replies
2
Views
503
_Mike_
_Mike_
PieLebo87
List of suspensions handed
Replies
0
Views
337
PieLebo87
PieLebo87
LordLucifer
MRP / Trib. Rampe Gets Two Match Suspension For Off The Ball Bump
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
.Shotties.
.Shotties.
lethalsax
Umpiring Out of Bounds
Replies
6
Views
629
Adelaide Hawk
Adelaide Hawk

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top