Rules Brad Scott Conflict of Interest….

[Meteoric Rise]

Geelong supporters hilarious on this thread.

Previous thread Steve Hocking conflict of interest, they argued no conflict exists, everyone is conflicted anyway, everyone has some ties to some club or clubs, I am a nutcase, I am a conspiracy theorist, Steve Hocking had no tie to the Geelong FC, Steve Hocking was a person of high integrity, albeit low competence, Steve Hocking would not risk his job, Steve Hocking is not the MRO, Leigh Fisher

Leigh Fisher

Age

39

Ht

188cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.7

4star

K

7.5

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.7

4star

No current season stats available

D

13.4

4star

K

8.2

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.4

4star

umpires St Kilda Matches, Gil barracks for the Saints, Brendan Gale might be CEO of the AFL one day, inter alia.

It turns out Steve Hocking was indeed effectively the MRO. He was not in fact a person of high integrity. He was making MRO decisions about Geelong players whilst he knew himself to be the Geelong FC CEO-in-waiting. So it turned out that he did have a lot bigger conflict than Leigh Fisher

Leigh Fisher

Age

39

Ht

188cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.7

4star

K

7.5

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.7

4star

No current season stats available

D

13.4

4star

K

8.2

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.4

4star

has when he umpires Saints matches, as if anyone needed to be told that in the first place.

So now these same punch drunk finals failure fatigued Cats fans are here on the Brad Scott conflict of interest thread, telling ME I am crazy. Oh dear.

“Chris, what would you like for your birthday this year?”

"Nothing Brad, just knowing that you are my twin brother is the biggest gift I could possibly get.”

Anyway, very pleased to see the Geelarious mafia finally turn up to this excellent thread in number. I just knew they wouldn’t be able to stay away.

 

[Sttew]

Geelong supporters hilarious on this thread.

Previous thread Steve Hocking conflict of interest, they argued no conflict exists, everyone is conflicted anyway, everyone has some ties to some club or clubs, I am a nutcase, I am a conspiracy theorist, Steve Hocking had no tie to the Geelong FC, Steve Hocking was a person of high integrity, albeit low competence, Steve Hocking would not risk his job, Steve Hocking is not the MRO, Leigh Fisher umpires St Kilda Matches, Gil barracks for the Saints, Brendan Gale might be CEO of the AFL one day, inter alia.

It turns out Steve Hocking was indeed effectively the MRO. He was not in fact a person of high integrity. He was making MRO decisions about Geelong players whilst he knew himself to be the Geelong FC CEO-in-waiting. So it turned out that he did have a lot bigger conflict than Leigh Fisher has when he umpires Saints matches, as if anyone needed to be told that in the first place.

So now these same punch drunk finals failure fatigued Cats fans are here on the Brad Scott conflict of interest, telling ME I am crazy. Oh dear.

“Chris, what would you like for your birthday this year?”

"Nothing Brad, just knowing that you are my twin brother is the biggest gift I could possibly get.”

Anyway, very pleased to see the Geelarious mafia finally turn up to this excellent thread in number. I just knew they wouldn’t be able to stay away.

Baseless allegations is your modus operandi? Say things often enough and you actually believe what you write.

Simple fact with you is that one thing motivates your posts about the Cats and that is your unashamed and often admitted hatred of the Geelong Football Club. So how can you be taken seriously? Your thought process is conflicted.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Geelong supporters hilarious on this thread.

Previous thread Steve Hocking conflict of interest, they argued no conflict exists, everyone is conflicted anyway, everyone has some ties to some club or clubs, I am a nutcase, I am a conspiracy theorist, Steve Hocking had no tie to the Geelong FC, Steve Hocking was a person of high integrity, albeit low competence, Steve Hocking would not risk his job, Steve Hocking is not the MRO, Leigh Fisher umpires St Kilda Matches, Gil barracks for the Saints, Brendan Gale might be CEO of the AFL one day, inter alia.

It turns out Steve Hocking was indeed effectively the MRO. He was not in fact a person of high integrity. He was making MRO decisions about Geelong players whilst he knew himself to be the Geelong FC CEO-in-waiting. So it turned out that he did have a lot bigger conflict than Leigh Fisher has when he umpires Saints matches, as if anyone needed to be told that in the first place.

So now these same punch drunk finals failure fatigued Cats fans are here on the Brad Scott conflict of interest, telling ME I am crazy. Oh dear.

“Chris, what would you like for your birthday this year?”

"Nothing Brad, just knowing that you are my twin brother is the biggest gift I could possibly get.”

Anyway, very pleased to see the Geelarious mafia finally turn up to this excellent thread in number. I just knew they wouldn’t be able to stay away.

Ha ha - gotta admire your persistence.

Your previous thread - "He (Hocking) has professional connections to GFC" was all about professional connections to the club.
This thread - "He (Scott) has family connections to GFC. Professional connections such as those mentioned by other posters apparently now irrelevant.

Good for you, though. I admit, I keep an eye on this thread - it's one of the more amusing threads here.

p.s. If Michael Christian (MRO) has a boss (Brad Scott), does Brad Scott also have a boss? And what potential COI exists for Brad's boss? Asking for a friend ;-)

 

[caveman72]

Geelong supporters hilarious on this thread.

Previous thread Steve Hocking conflict of interest, they argued no conflict exists, everyone is conflicted anyway, everyone has some ties to some club or clubs, I am a nutcase, I am a conspiracy theorist, Steve Hocking had no tie to the Geelong FC, Steve Hocking was a person of high integrity, albeit low competence, Steve Hocking would not risk his job, Steve Hocking is not the MRO, Leigh Fisher umpires St Kilda Matches, Gil barracks for the Saints, Brendan Gale might be CEO of the AFL one day, inter alia.

It turns out Steve Hocking was indeed effectively the MRO. He was not in fact a person of high integrity. He was making MRO decisions about Geelong players whilst he knew himself to be the Geelong FC CEO-in-waiting. So it turned out that he did have a lot bigger conflict than Leigh Fisher has when he umpires Saints matches, as if anyone needed to be told that in the first place.

So now these same punch drunk finals failure fatigued Cats fans are here on the Brad Scott conflict of interest, telling ME I am crazy. Oh dear.

“Chris, what would you like for your birthday this year?”

"Nothing Brad, just knowing that you are my twin brother is the biggest gift I could possibly get.”

Anyway, very pleased to see the Geelarious mafia finally turn up to this excellent thread in number. I just knew they wouldn’t be able to stay away.

For all you know it might not have been Brad that made the decision on Stewart. Maybe Chris invited him over for dinner drugged his food then tied him up and held him, hostage, at his place then went into AFL HQ and passed himself off as his brother and made those decisions himself

 

[Private Hudson]

Who gives a flying *?

 

[Wojcinski]

threads going well, OP having a great old discussion with himself

 

[Meteoric Rise]

threads going well, OP having a great old discussion with himself

View attachment 1449360

Wojcinski my brother I am disappointed in you. You do not need a phoney context to engage me in order to point out your club is on top of the ladder and mine has suffered a string of largely self-inflicted tigertastrophes…. and finds itself in 8th position on the Toyota AFL Premiership ladder after 17 matches in the 2022 season…. after conspiring to somehow masquerade a 10 goal victory up as a narrow loss to the worst team in living memory.

You are a Victorian football supporter and you are entitled to just come out and make fun of me. I will try my best to hate it for you.

 

[theyellowsash]

in 2010, collingwood uses a high rotation gameplan and beats geelong in the preliminary final. in 2011 the first rules limiting interchanges are introduced.
in 2020, richmond uses a high pressure defensive gameplan and beats geelong in the grand final. in 2021, rules are introduced to limit pressure on the ball player.

coincidence?

 

[Boxhead_31]

in 2010, collingwood uses a high rotation gameplan and beats geelong in the preliminary final. in 2011 the first rules limiting interchanges are introduced.
in 2020, richmond uses a high pressure defensive gameplan and beats geelong in the grand final. in 2021, rules are introduced to limit pressure on the ball player.

coincidence?

Did Q lay that out for you?

 

[Wojcinski]

in 2010, collingwood uses a high rotation gameplan and beats geelong in the preliminary final. in 2011 the first rules limiting interchanges are introduced.
in 2020, richmond uses a high pressure defensive gameplan and beats geelong in the grand final. in 2021, rules are introduced to limit pressure on the ball player.

coincidence?

ah yes with well known Geelong stalwarts Adrian Anderson and Andrew Demetriou at the helm, the rules of the game were changed to help Geelong snatch another flag. Limited rotations as well as the introduction of a new team taking Geelong's best player away. Very astute observations from the Richmond faithful as per usual

 

[Meteoric Rise]

in 2010, collingwood uses a high rotation gameplan and beats geelong in the preliminary final. in 2011 the first rules limiting interchanges are introduced.
in 2020, richmond uses a high pressure defensive gameplan and beats geelong in the grand final. in 2021, rules are introduced to limit pressure on the ball player.

coincidence?

2009 also saw the introduction of the deliberate rushed behind rule after the Hawks rushed 11 behinds, mostly deliberately, on their way to defeating Geelong in the 2008 Grand Final.

 

[Sttew]

2009 also saw the introduction of the deliberate rushed behind rule after the Hawks rushed 11 behinds, mostly deliberately, on their way to defeating Geelong in the 2008 Grand Final.

In 2017 the AFL outlawed the third man up at ruck contests which directly negated the massive influence of Mark Blicavs. Tigers went on to win the 2017 premiership. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The Herald Sun said the following about the rule change when announced in late December 2016: "It makes sense that Geelong’s Mark Blicavs is unhappy with the change since he used the tactic more than any other player last season."

 

[Meteoric Rise]

In 2017 the AFL outlawed the third man up at ruck contests which directly negated the massive influence of Mark Blicavs. Tigers went on to win the 2017 premiership. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The Herald Sun said the following about the rule change when announced in late December 2016: "It makes sense that Geelong’s Mark Blicavs is unhappy with the change since he used the tactic more than any other player last season."

"Massive influence of Mark Blicavs.”

Checks to see if Geelong won flags in 2015-16…..hmmmm, smashed in 2016 PF, missed finals altogether in 2015, realises Blicavs influence wasn’t so massive after all.

 

[Sttew]

"Massive influence of Mark Blicavs.”

Checks to see if Geelong won flags in 2015-16…..hmmmm, smashed in 2016 PF, missed finals altogether in 2015, realises Blicavs influence wasn’t so massive after all.

If a rule change favours Geelong in any miniscule way its a conspiracy and conflict of interest designed to favour Geelong. If the rule change hinders Geelong then out comes "You didn't win a premiership so it doesn't count". Do you see how ridiculous your arguments are? I do

 

[Meteoric Rise]

If a rule change favours Geelong in any miniscule way its a conspiracy and conflict of interest designed to favour Geelong. If the rule change hinders Geelong then out comes "You didn't win a premiership so it doesn't count". Do you see how ridiculous your arguments are? I do

Three rule changes in direct reaction to Geelong losing two Grand Finals and a Preliminary Final is as far as I know both real, and unprecedented Sttew.

What is up with Cats supporters today? It’s like you are now scared you are going to win the flag and trying desperately to anticipate the arguments people will make to say it has a big asterisk next to it due to rule makers being conflicted by their relationship to the Cats coach.

Win the flag first, then we can talk about asterisks.

But the conflict of interest issue for S Hocking and B Scott is real and it is not going away no matter what happens. It is ludicrous that consecutively a best friend and twin brother of a current AFL coach can be in charge of:

A) The rules of the whole sport, and
B) Making MRO determinations on incidents that have a direct impact on the team coached by their best friend/twin brother.

Anyway, I would never argue it places an asterisk beside any flag the Cats could win. More like a giant stain.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Three rule changes in direct reaction to Geelong losing two Grand Finals and a Preliminary Final is as far as I know both real, and unprecedented Sttew.

What is up with Cats supporters today? It’s like you are now scared you are going to win the flag and trying desperately to anticipate the arguments people will make to say it has a big asterisk next to it due to rule makers being conflicted by their relationship to the Cats coach.

Win the flag first, then we can talk about asterisks.

But the conflict of interest issue for S Hocking and B Scott is real and it is not going away no matter what happens. It is ludicrous that consecutively a best friend and twin brother of a current AFL coach can be in charge of:

A) The rules of the whole sport, and
B) Making MRO determinations on incidents that have a direct impact on the team coached by their best friend/twin brother.

Anyway, I would never argue it places an asterisk beside any flag the Cats could win. More like a giant stain.

I must be mad, perpetuating this train-wreck of a thread, but two things:

"...in direct reaction to Geelong losing...". Really? I assume you have something to substantiate this claim. Direct reaction would seemingly be pretty hard to prove. Minutes of meetings maybe?

And leaving the details aside for a moment, your general premise is that Michael Christian has a boss, and that boss is a Geelong flunky. Right? Well, doesn't Michael Christian's boss also have a boss? Where's the spotlight on him (or sometimes her - the mum of a famously Richmond-loving child)?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I must be mad, perpetuating this train-wreck of a thread, but two things:

"...in direct reaction to Geelong losing...". Really? I assume you have something to substantiate this claim. Direct reaction would seemingly be pretty hard to prove. Minutes of meetings maybe?

And leaving the details aside for a moment, your general premise is that Michael Christian has a boss, and that boss is a Geelong flunky. Right? Well, doesn't Michael Christian's boss also have a boss? Where's the spotlight on him (or sometimes her - the mum of a famously Richmond-loving child)?

Are you suggesting the deliberate rushed rule wasn’t brought in as a direct result of the 2008 Grand Final? Similarly the interchange cap post Geelong’s 2010 PF drubbing by the revolving door bench Pies? And similarly the stand rule as a direct result of repeated Cats finals hammerings at the hands of their arch nemesis the Tigers whose manning of the mark was so troublesome to the Cats pussy chip kicking game?

If so, then especially with the latter, there is a reverse onus of proof that arises from the chief rule maker having been the Cats CEO in waiting at the time he introduced the rule.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Was there a "Geelong man" in power at AFL House in 2008/2009?
Did the rushed behind rule advantage Geelong at all thereafter?

Was there a "Geelong man" in power at AFL House in 2010/2011?

You're unfairly extending the scope of your claims to include irrelevant events to try to add weight to your "theory".

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Was there a "Geelong man" in power at AFL House in 2008/2009?
Did the rushed behind rule advantage Geelong at all thereafter?

Was there a "Geelong man" in power at AFL House in 2010/2011?

You're unfairly extending the scope of your claims to include irrelevant events to try to add weight to your "theory".

I am unfairly extending the period, but this is Geelong we are talking about, so being unfair is perfectly reasonable in this instance.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I am unfairly extending the period, but this is Geelong we are talking about, so being unfair is perfectly reasonable in this instance.

Oh. Fair enough then. Play on.

 

[Sttew]

Are you suggesting the deliberate rushed rule wasn’t brought in as a direct result of the 2008 Grand Final?

How did the the deliberate rushed behind rule favour Geelong?

You constantly fabricate stories... like when you said a few weeks back that John 'Jack' Kennedy Senior quit coaching Hawthorn because his son was playing for the team and Jack wanted to avoid any hint of a conflict. Pure lie. Jack "retired" in 1976. Son, John, didn't start playing until 1979. But hey, don't let facts and truth get in the way of your fake conspiracy theories

 

[Wojcinski]

How did the the deliberate rushed behind rule favour Geelong?

You constantly fabricate stories... like when you said a few weeks back that John 'Jack' Kennedy Senior quit coaching Hawthorn because his son was playing for the team and Jack wanted to avoid any hint of a conflict. Pure lie. Jack "retired" in 1976. Son, John, didn't start playing until 1979. But hey, don't let facts and truth get in the way of your fake conspiracy theories

The rushed behind rule was brought in because it was a tactic Richmond employed in 2008 as one of the only ways they could win games

Richmond champion looks back at rushed behind controversy

“We actually practised it a couple of times."

www.sen.com.au

 

[Meteoric Rise]

How did the the deliberate rushed behind rule favour Geelong?

You constantly fabricate stories... like when you said a few weeks back that John 'Jack' Kennedy Senior quit coaching Hawthorn because his son was playing for the team and Jack wanted to avoid any hint of a conflict. Pure lie. Jack "retired" in 1976. Son, John, didn't start playing until 1979. But hey, don't let facts and truth get in the way of your fake conspiracy theories

Who said the deliberate rushed rule favoured Geelong? Get a grip on yourself. The loophole in the rules that allowed teams to rush behinds deliberately was closed at lightning speed when the Hawks exploited it to great effect v the Cats in the 2008 GF.

Regarding John Kennedy Snr I have definitely heard him say in an interview he stood aside as a result of his son coming to the club. Whether it was from his role as coach or from some later role as a selector may be in doubt but I definitely heard him say it. The other possibility is that in those days players would often arrive at clubs aged 16-17 to play in the under 19’s then progress to the Reserves and Seniors, and there must be some chance this happened with John Kennedy Jnr in 1977, two years prior to his senior debut. I had a quick search and I cannot find any record to confirm any of these things with certainty either way. But you are being silly about that. Why would I make something like that up? I simply wouldn’t need to.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The rushed behind rule was brought in because it was a tactic Richmond employed in 2008 as one of the only ways they could win games

Richmond champion looks back at rushed behind controversy

“We actually practised it a couple of times."

www.sen.com.au

Ok so now you seem to propagating the theory the AFL makes rules just to stop Richmond. Not much has changed then….

 

[Wojcinski]

Ok so now you seem to propagating the theory the AFL makes rules just to stop Richmond. Not much has changed then….

but you said it was to allow Geelong to continue winning?