Rules Brad Scott Conflict of Interest….

[ThatsjustDappa]

 

[golions]

Can anyone recall a game in the recent past where Geelong have actually copped a shocking umpiring decision that cost them a game? Or any particular game where they were significantly had the rub of the green against them?

 

[Wojcinski]

Can anyone recall a game in the recent past where Geelong have actually copped a shocking umpiring decision that cost them a game? Or any particular game where they were significantly had the rub of the green against them?

maybe this:

Damning vision shows umpire ‘gave up’ on Geelong’s last-gasp mark

Damning vision shows umpire ‘gave up’ on Geelong’s matchwinning chance

www.foxsports.com.au

or this:

 

[Sttew]

Can anyone recall a game in the recent past where Geelong have actually copped a shocking umpiring decision that cost them a game? Or any particular game where they were significantly had the rub of the green against them?

Yes. Cats v Swans in R9 2021. Cameron marked ball. Umpire called play on because kick wasn’t 15 metres, denying Cats a certain goal in dying seconds of game. AFL later acknowledged umpire got it wrong.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

maybe this:

Damning vision shows umpire ‘gave up’ on Geelong’s last-gasp mark

Damning vision shows umpire ‘gave up’ on Geelong’s matchwinning chance

www.foxsports.com.au

or this:
View attachment 1519740

The period 2010-2017 has no relevance whatsoever to Brad Scott’s or Steven Hocking’s clear conflict of interest whilst in the role of MRO final decision maker. But you knew that prior to posting. Typical Geelong chicanery.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes. Cats v Swans in R9 2021. Cameron marked ball. Umpire called play on because kick wasn’t 15 metres, denying Cats a certain goal in dying seconds of game. AFL later acknowledged umpire got it wrong.

Umpire probably sacked and made to sign non-disclosure agreement to send a clear message it was never to happen again under any circumstances.

 

[STPer18]

Gotta love when a plan comes together.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Gotta love when a plan comes together.

View attachment 1519751

There is only one thing anyone else would want in that picture.

By the way, how shyte are the men’s apparel stores in Geelong these days.

 

[Wojcinski]

Now that Gale has left Richmond it looks very likely that he'll replace Gil as the AFL CEO. Can you please link me to your conflict of interest thread for this staggering appointment Meteoric Rise

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Umpire probably sacked and made to sign non-disclosure agreement to send a clear message it was never to happen again under any circumstances.

That obviously never happened. But you knew that prior to posting. Typical Meteoric Rise chicanery.

 

[hawkman]

Got his brother a flag and then jumped out of the AFL

I'm surprised Richmond supporters aren't already running with this conspiracy theory

 

[Sttew]

Got his brother a flag and then jumped out of the AFL

I'm surprised Richmond supporters aren't already running with this conspiracy theory

They are. Its being intermingled with the rule changes; the ARC decision; and a general argument that the team that finished 7th was the rightful premier

 

[Patronus]

Imagine the melts when Selwood is named the next AFL Football Operations Manager.

 

[Wojcinski]

Got his brother a flag and then jumped out of the AFL

I'm surprised Richmond supporters aren't already running with this conspiracy theory

I'm sure Dimma would be going by his obsessive rant about Geelong at the Richmonds BnF

 

[STPer18]

Job well done. Thanks for your service, Brad.

 

[Wojcinski]

 

[Wojcinski]

Bartel admits interest in freshly vacated AFL head of football position

“Yeah, I think I would be interested.”

www.sen.com.au

It doesn't get better than this

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Cats supporting posters galore lining up to try to claim Brad Scott’s conflict of interest was a conspiracy theory. It was not. It was a plainly obvious fact. And like the mess that was Hocking’s conflict of interest beforehand, it gives us no confidence whatsoever in AFL governance.

 

[Hoops]

Can anyone recall a game in the recent past where Geelong have actually copped a shocking umpiring decision that cost them a game? Or any particular game where they were significantly had the rub of the green against them?

You just have to look back to the preliminary final against Brisbane to see Geelong were absolutely reamed by the umpires. Imagine wining the game by 70 odd points and be only 3 down in the tackle count but have a free kicks 13 to 22 against you.

But sometimes you get the rub of the green, sometimes you dont.

 

[Sttew]

Cats supporting posters galore lining up to try to claim Brad Scott’s conflict of interest was a conspiracy theory. It was not. It was a plainly obvious fact. And like the mess that was Hocking’s conflict of interest beforehand, it gives us no confidence whatsoever in AFL governance.

I'll take your bait...

Prove that it was not an unfounded conspiracy theory. Give us tangible examples where Brad Scott committed acts that amounted to conflict, not scenarios where he could theoretically have done so, but actual cold hard facts. The onus is on you, not others, as you are making the accusations. You can keep saying there was a conflict, as you have done for three years ad nauseum.

The one that really amuses me is the Steve Hocking rule change one. You are yet to demonstrate why the rule changes only favoured Geelong and why Richmond didn't adapt.

Heaven help us when Jimmy Bartel gets the nod as the new Football Ops Manager

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Cats supporting posters galore lining up to try to claim Brad Scott’s conflict of interest was a conspiracy theory. It was not. It was a plainly obvious fact. And like the mess that was Hocking’s conflict of interest beforehand, it gives us no confidence whatsoever in AFL governance.

When did you ever have confidence in AFL governance???

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'll take your bait...

Prove that it was not an unfounded conspiracy theory. Give us tangible examples where Brad Scott committed acts that amounted to conflict, not scenarios where he could theoretically have done so, but actual cold hard facts. The onus is on you, not others, as you are making the accusations. You can keep saying there was a conflict, as you have done for three years ad nauseum.

The one that really amuses me is the Steve Hocking rule change one. You are yet to demonstrate why the rule changes only favoured Geelong and why Richmond didn't adapt.

Heaven help us when Jimmy Bartel gets the nod as the new Football Ops Manager

Your post tells me you do not understand the difference between a conflict of interest and biased decision making. The difference has been explained clearly on these threads.

The biased decision making or actions is near impossible for me to prove, or you. It may have occurred or may not have. If it did occur it may have been deliberate or unconscious. We would not know. But if acting properly, you remove any doubt by keeping yourself at arm’s length from any decisions where you could potentially be seen to be biased, or conflicted.

The conflict of interest is very easily established. From 2018-2022 the people chiefly responsible for making the rules, guiding interpretations on a weekly basis, and overseeing adjudicators, and acting as the final decision maker in all MRO cases, and with access to all club’s TPP ledgers, were known to be the twin brother/best mate of a current club coach, namely, Chris Scott. Before Brad Scott was in the role, it was the best friend of the same coach in the role and as if anyone needs reminding, Hocking was clearly carrying on this role whilst speaking to Geelong FC about being their next CEO, and outrageous breach of even the most lax of conflict of interest standards. These were clear conflicts of interest and it requires no proof other than accepting that Chris Scott and Brad Scott/Steven Hocking were actually twin brothers/close friends to establish the conflict. Given all these connections are on public record, what further proof do you seriously require?

In my eyes this will forever create a stain on the role of the AFL Football Operations Manager over this period 2018-2022. And sadly for you, some of that stain covers your club's achievements. And to me, that is a shame, because there was absolutely no need for it.

But putting our own potential biases aside here if you want to be serious about it, do you think the following statements are more likely to be true or false:

- B Scott/S Hocking discussed rule changes with C. Scott to get his input to a greater extent than they did with other coaches before they were implemented. More likely T/F?

- B Scott/S Hocking fed back intel on coming and interpretation changes, other club’s TPP situations, and other matters of interest to C.Scott and or others at Geelong FC while performing the role of AFL Football Operations Manager. More likely T/F?

- B Scott/S Hocking fed back intel to C. Scott/Geelong FC to a greater extent than they did to other clubs on such things the manner and method if any the AFL use to detect payments made to players and coaches outside a club’s declared TPP and Soft Cap spend? More likely T/F?

- B Scott/S Hocking discussed live MRO cases where Geelong FC was an interested party with C Scott or others at Geelong FC before handing down their MEO decisions. More likely T/F?

I am sure there are other possible ways Geelong could have gained an advantage from these relationships, but those are just some I can think of. And then let’s say you think all of those statements are more likely false. How certain could you, me, or any other club or supporter be that none of these things ever occurred? My reading of posts on this forum by supporters from a variety of clubs tells me a lot of people have a lot of doubt about the conduct of this role. Which in itself is enough to tell you that something should have been done to deal with at least the perception of conflict of interest.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

When did you ever have confidence in AFL governance???

I used to believe, mainly due to lack of knowledge, the AFL was a reasonably run organisation. I now believe that was wrong.

This conflict of interest stuff is as clear a sign as you could get that there is no endeavour by the AFL to meet even moderate standards of ethical behaviour in governing the competition.

 

[Sttew]

Your post tells me you do not understand the difference between a conflict of interest and biased decision making. The difference has been explained clearly on these threads.

The biased decision making or actions is near impossible for me to prove, or you. It may have occurred or may not have. If it did occur it may have been deliberate or unconscious. We would not know. But if acting properly, you remove any doubt by keeping yourself at arm’s length from any decisions where you could potentially be seen to be biased, or conflicted.

The conflict of interest is very easily established. From 2018-2022 the person chiefly responsible for making the rules, and overseeing adjudicators, and acting as the final decision maker in all MRO cases, and with access to all club’s TPP ledgers, was known to be the twin brother/best mate of a current club coach, namely, Chris Scott. Before him it was the best friend of the same coach in the role and as if anyone needs reminding, Hocking was clearly carrying on this role whilst speaking to Geelong FC about being their next CEO. This is a clear conflict of interest and it requires no proof other than accepting that Chris Scott and Brad Scott/Steven Hocking were actually twin brothers/close friends to establish the conflict. Given all these connections are on public record, what further proof do you seriously require?

In my eyes this will forever create a stain on the role of the AFL Football Operations Manager over this period 2018-2022. And sadly for you, some of that stain covers your club's achievements. And to me, that is a shame, because there was absolutely no need for it.

But putting our own potential biases aside here if you want to be serious about it, do you think the following statements are more likely to be true or false:

- B Scott/S Hocking discussed rule changes with C. Scott to get his input to a greater extent than they did with other coaches before they were implemented. More likely T/F?

- B Scott/S Hocking fed back intel on coming and interpretation changes, other club’s TPP situations, and other matters of interest to C.Scott and or others at Geelong FC while performing the role of AFL Football Operations Manager. More likely T/F?

- B Scott/S Hocking fed back intel to C. Scott/Geelong FC to a greater extent than they did to other clubs on such things the manner and method if any the AFL use to detect payments made to players and coaches outside a club’s declared TPP and Soft Cap spend? More likely T/F?

- B Scott/S Hocking discussed live MRO cases where Geelong FC was an interested party with C Scott or others at Geelong FC before handing down their MEO decisions. More likely T/F?

I am sure there are other possible ways Geelong could have gained an advantage from these relationships, but those are just some I can think of. And then let’s say you think all of those statements are more likely false. How certain could you, me, or any other club or supporter be that none of these things ever occurred? My reading of posts on this forum by supporters from a variety of clubs tells me a lot of people have a lot of doubt about the conduct of this role. Which in itself is enough to tell you that something should have been done to deal with at least the perception of conflict of interest.

I know what a conflict of interest is.

You still haven’t answered my question about the rule changes. Why did they favour Geelong and nobody else and why didn’t Richmond adapt?

Can one deduce from your post that the AFL Commission should not appoint Brendon Gale as CEO of the AFL?

 

[iBeng]

Its Geelongs game, the other teams are just playing it.