Then how do you explain Cats players being the most suspended? Yet Lynch has multiple similar incidents and only gets fined? Surely if there was a conflict of interest Lynch would have got multiple weeks and your captain would have missed the GF for his little indiscretion. As Pauline would say please explainIf you know what a conflict of interest is then why are you asking me to prove instances where bias was shown?
The rule changes obviously hampered Richmond’s game plan through a period where other teams were struggling to score against them. In 2017 Richmond conceded 22 goals in 3 finals. In 2019 Richmond conceded 20 goals in 3 finals. And in 2020 is was 29 goals in 4 shortened finals.
How confident are you that if Geelong had that same record the same rule changes would have been introduced? How confident could anybody be? This is the whole point. The rules have the appearance of dismantling the grip Richmond’s defensive system alone had on the rest of the League, especially in finals. Geelong themselves scored 21 goals in their 3 losing finals against Richmond in that period. Hocking was during 2020 reported to be wanting to legislate the Richmond defensive tactics out of the game. Thus the stand rule. Who was the highest marking team in that period? Geelong. So if you were wanting to introduce a rule to hamper Richmond and help Geelong, the stand rule mightn’t be a bad place to start. I read a post the other day saying that Geelong are now the highest play on team in the AFL so the stand rule doesn’t help them. Of course this does not make sense. Without the stand rule it was not as effective or as easy to play on from a mark or free kick when the man on the mark was standing on the line where you would want to play on to. So you got forced down the line.
Anyway, who knows if this or other rules were brought in to benefit the Cats or hamper the Tigers. But there should never be any doubt about something like that. And this is where the conflict of interest should have been handled better, to remove any doubt.
For the record I don’t have an issue with a club CEO being appointed as AFL CEO, but again they should stand aside from decisions that directly affect their former club in any way that could be seen to be giving them an advantage. But the AFL CEO does not deal directly with football operations and rules so you would think it is a lot less of an issue. But if Brandon Gale was AFL CEO and he alone had to decide whether Richmond or another club got a particular AFL grant, then of course he should not be making that decision, nor influencing it.