- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #26
Thread should be renamed 'Ramblings of a madman'...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No current season stats available
No current season stats available
Thread should be renamed 'Ramblings of a madman'...
Their father died when Chris and Brad were at schoolBrad just needs to realize no matter how hard he tries, his parents are always going to love Chris more.
Time for a new thread, Meteoric.
Acting AFL CEO's own son is a Tiger's fan. Get onto it, man.
Excerpt from today's paper:
View attachment 1384585
Background article:
View attachment 1384581
When I saw this thread title, I expected something about Larkey's dog act and Young's fair bump being given the same penalty. Boy did I get that one wrong.
It would be a mistake to expect too much from this thread.
Did you say similar on the S Hocking conflict on interest thread that proved bang on the money F2S?
My grave fear is that this thread will be scuppered by Brad Scott’s insanity and/or incompetence before his conflict of interest comes properly to the surface.
Strange how Chris Scott made comments in advance of the relaxing of the dissent rule over the last couple of rounds predicting this would occur though.
OK, well the AFL seems to have taken umpiring off Brad Scott and given it to a person who probably knows absolutely nothing about umpiring. She can’t do a worse job, that is for sure.
But what is happening here? Scott seems to retain the following suspicious sounding items in his ever-shrinking portfolio:
1. Club education
2. Game analysis
along with the items for which we already know he has accelerated their descent into a dumpster fire:
3. MRO
4. Rules of the game
I wonder here what “club education” and “game analysis” mean? They sound to me like they could be umpire related. The AFL needs to get this puss weeping festering sore of an incompetent f*ckwit right away from anything of any importance before the whole thing collapses.
If they keep going as they are we will be talking break away leagues before too long.
AFL Football Department appoints General Manager Umpiring
Lisa Lawry has been appointed to the newly created position of General Manager Umpiring within the Football Operations Departmentwww.afl.com.au
This is a shambles. Hocking couldn’t handle the job so they split it into smaller parts, and gave Brad Scott one of those parts. Now Brad Scott cannot handle even a part of he job Hocking had so they have started employing more people to do part of Scott’s job.
I am gaining a new found respect for Hocking here given he was able to f*ck up so many jobs single handed, whereas it now seems to take at least 3 people to f*ck them up.
My god does that organisation need a clean out.
You've drifted away from your original premise of this thread, MR. Maybe it wasn't a thing after all.
Suggest you start two new threads:
1. Brad Scott something something something ruining the game
2. Lisa Lawry Conflict of Interest
View attachment 1409657
...and I can play that game too ;-)
Let it go! You and your conspiracy theories. Tom Stewart will cop a suspension but whatever he cops won’t be enough to satisfy youWell here we go.
Brad Scott is the man who must take the initial decisions in the Tom Stewart case. he has a clear conflict of interest as his twin brother coaches Stewart’s team. So his first act should be to remove himself from playing any part in this process.
But will he?
Let it go! You and your conspiracy theories. Tom Stewart will cop a suspension but whatever he cops won’t be enough to satisfy you
I wouldn’t be fazed like you. As I said 12 months ago when you started banging on about conflicts, I give people like Hocking and Brad Scott credit for being able to avoid conflicts. For whatever reason you see the worst in people.You would be happy with Damien Hardwick’s twin brother sitting in judgement of this incident?
I wouldn’t be fazed like you. As I said 12 months ago when you started banging on about conflicts, I give people like Hocking and Brad Scott credit for being able to avoid conflicts. For whatever reason you see the worst in people.
FWIW, Brad Scott wouldn’t give a s**t about Geelong
It could work the other way. Brad Scott could be so hell bent on proving that he is impartial that subconsciously he may push for an even harsher penalty. But considering Brad Scott says one things and means another and pretty much lied through his teeth (when he told everyone that there was 'no acceptable form of dissent' only to almost completely abolish the 'hands out is dissent' rule) I would have no idea what he'll do. Fair to say that both twins are some of the most annoying people in AFL football.So your policy for dealing with conflicts of interest is to assume the person in the conflicted position is able to avoid conflicts.
That is also my position, so we agree.
The difference is you seem to think they can avoid any conflict of interest by carrying on as if no conflict exists. I think they should absent themselves from any process in which they are conflicted or could be seen to be conflicted. You know, according to sound conflict of interest principles.
Out of interest, do you think conflict of interest principles should be invoked in any sphere of decision making?