Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

[CatToTheFuture]

Well, let me please you by adding a second observation then Cat by reminding you of a further observation than

1. "former football club employee now works for football league.”

How’s this…..

2. former one football club player 25 year player and official works as AFL General Manager - Football Operations, and remains close friends with said club’s current coach. Same person sits in often ultimate judgement of Geelong players in his role in relation to the MRO process. Same person has the whole umpiring Department under him. Same person is the single biggest influence on rule changes…..I could go on but on this thread I have made many more than the single observation to you have weirdly try to reduce my contributions to this thread.

If you don’t agree with my positions that is fine. Will debate it reasonably with you all day long. But you are doing nothing more than trying to derail he thread with most of your posts.

Your repeated cliched posts about "High School level thought bubbles" add nothing to the thread. It is like when you don’t know how to participate in the conversation you trot that garbage out because you read it somewhere and thought you will use it wherever possible, it sounds superior, clever. This is not a place where unimaginative bullying is going to get you anywhere. People who can think straight are impervious to that childish nonsense. Speak to the issues I will talk it to death with you. I am all ears if you have useful ideas about how conflicts of interest within the AFL and especially in Hocking’s position should be handled.

I'm trying to keep you on track here, how is that bullying? To update your observations then we now have:

1. Former football club employee now works for football league

2. Person high up in organisation has people report to him

Am I missing anything?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm trying to keep you on track here, how is that bullying? To update your observations then we now have:

1. Former football club employee now works for football league

2. Person high up in organisation has people report to him

Am I missing anything?

It will probably just be simpler for you Cat if you focus on the simplest part, the fact Hocking has a direct say in all MRO cases including those involving Geelong players, whilst at the same time being very close to the current Geelong FC Coach.

Take Hocking and Geelong and Scott out of it, so that we can just speak to the principles.

Say Geelong is playing Hawthorn in a grudge Grand Final next week. Sam Mitchell is coaching the Hawks. He happens to be very close friends with Jason Dunstall, who has been appointed to a position where he has the final say in MRO decisions. Star Hawk player James Sicily, who normally is a complete pest to Geelong in their matches, is up for consideration for an incident that looks clearly more suspendable than not, but there is perhaps the tiniest bit of doubt.

Are you happy for Dunstall to:

A) be the person who considers that, and
B) say there is no case to answer with no possibility of appeal because he is the one who would have to instigate the appeal and he is hardly going to appeal his own decision.

?

Or say indeed it wasn’t Geelong v Hawks but was Lions v North in a GF, and the same sort of setup existed, but you are a neutral observer.

I mean, would you truly deep down be comfortable with that?

 

[catscratchfever]

Dear Steve,

Don't take the criticism too personally. Everyone else is envious because they haven't got their own plant in AFL House. Well, TOO BAD, we got in there first so SUFFER!

Well done on an excellent job! *nudge nudge wink wink* Keep up the good work, the cheque is in the mail.

Look forward to seeing you at the past players reunion come the end of the season... if all goes according to plan. I'm sure you can arrange it.

signed

 

[CatToTheFuture]

It will probably just be simpler for you Cat if you focus on the simplest part, the fact Hocking has a direct say in all MRO cases including those involving Geelong players, whilst at the same time being very close to the current Geelong FC Coach.

Take Hocking and Geelong and Scott out of it, so that we can just speak to the principles.

Say Geelong is playing Hawthorn in a grudge Grand Final next week. Sam Mitchell is coaching the Hawks. He happens to be very close friends with Jason Dunstall, who has been appointed to a position where he has the final say in MRO decisions. Star Hawk player James Sicily, who normally is a complete pest to Geelong in their matches, is up for consideration for an incident that looks clearly more suspendable than not, but there is perhaps the tiniest bit of doubt.

Are you happy for Dunstall to:

A) be the person who considers that, and
B) say there is no case to answer with no possibility of appeal because he is the one who would have to instigate the appeal and he is hardly going to appeal his own decision.

?

Or say indeed it wasn’t Geelong v Hawks but was Lions v North in a GF, and the same sort of setup existed, but you are a neutral observer.

I mean, would you truly deep down be comfortable with that?

If I could amend your scenario such that it reflects reality:

Say Geelong is playing Hawthorn in a grudge Grand Final next week. Sam Mitchell is coaching the Hawks. He happens to be very close friends with Jason Dunstall, who has been appointed to a position where he is not the MRO nor a tribunal member. Star Hawk player James Sicily, who normally is a complete pest to Geelong in their matches, is up for consideration for an incident that looks clearly more suspendable than not, but there is perhaps the tiniest bit of doubt.

Are you happy for Dunstall to:

A) be the person who considers that, and
B) say there is no case to answer with no possibility of appeal because he is the one who would have to instigate the appeal and he is hardly going to appeal his own decision
OR
C) do neither of those things because he's not the MRO and nor is he involved in the tribunals process. Instead have the actual MRO be a former Collingwood player who puts forward non-binding offers of suspension to avoid a tribunal. The tribunal being a separate group of 8 people comprising a former Hawks player, a former North player, a former Crows player, a former blues player, a former Richmond/Dogs player, and a former Melbourne player plus a lawyer. You know what the tribunal doesn't have? Literally anyone associated with the Geelong football club sitting on it.

You could have evil Steve Hocking and Michael Christianson, who apparently wants to get pro Geelong outcomes for some unsubstantiated reason, and it wouldn't matter because the decision has to stand up against two lawyers and former players of 7 different clubs (none of which are Geelong or Collingwood) to back it.

I've tried to hold your hand on this a bit but in black and white:

1. All MRO decisions are offers only. No one has to accept them and anyone can lawyer up. Technically not even the person that works for Hocking can ban someone

2. All tribunals are legally represented proceedings judged by a panel of former players from a variety of clubs, none of which are Geelong and Steve Hocking has no say in the outcome

3. Steve Hocking, who is not the MRO, is not on the panel and is not the literal QC managing proceedings. The absolute most you can say is that the guy who gives out the initial non-binding offer of suspension does work for Hocking.

You could not have a more balanced system than that to remove personal bias and there is no way that Steve Hocking has any power to swing anything.

Do bringing it back to just the established facts:

1. Former football club employee now works for football league

2. Person high up in organisation has people report to him

3. Neither the high up person nor any person reporting to him has the power to directly ban a player due to on field incidents. Offers made by someone who notionally works for the high up person are subject to independent review by a diverse panel whose discussions are so transparent they're live-tweeted.

Anything further?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

If I could amend your scenario such that it reflects reality:

Say Geelong is playing Hawthorn in a grudge Grand Final next week. Sam Mitchell is coaching the Hawks. He happens to be very close friends with Jason Dunstall, who has been appointed to a position where he is not the MRO nor a tribunal member. Star Hawk player James Sicily, who normally is a complete pest to Geelong in their matches, is up for consideration for an incident that looks clearly more suspendable than not, but there is perhaps the tiniest bit of doubt.

Are you happy for Dunstall to:

A) be the person who considers that, and
B) say there is no case to answer with no possibility of appeal because he is the one who would have to instigate the appeal and he is hardly going to appeal his own decision
OR
C) do neither of those things because he's not the MRO and nor is he involved in the tribunals process. Instead have the actual MRO be a former Collingwood player who puts forward non-binding offers of suspension to avoid a tribunal. The tribunal being a separate group of 8 people comprising a former Hawks player, a former North player, a former Crows player, a former blues player, a former Richmond/Dogs player, and a former Melbourne player plus a lawyer. You know what the tribunal doesn't have? Literally anyone associated with the Geelong football club sitting on it.

You could have evil Steve Hocking and Michael Christianson, who apparently wants to get pro Geelong outcomes for some unsubstantiated reason, and it wouldn't matter because the decision has to stand up against two lawyers and former players of 7 different clubs (none of which are Geelong or Collingwood) to back it.

I've tried to hold your hand on this a bit but in black and white:

1. All MRO decisions are offers only. No one has to accept them and anyone can lawyer up. Technically not even the person that works for Hocking can ban someone

2. All tribunals are legally represented proceedings judged by a panel of former players from a variety of clubs, none of which are Geelong and Steve Hocking has no say in the outcome

3. Steve Hocking, who is not the MRO, is not on the panel and is not the literal QC managing proceedings. The absolute most you can say is that the guy who gives out the initial non-binding offer of suspension does work for Hocking.

You could not have a more balanced system than that to remove personal bias and there is no way that Steve Hocking has any power to swing anything.

Do bringing it back to just the established facts:

1. Former football club employee now works for football league

2. Person high up in organisation has people report to him

3. Neither the high up person nor any person reporting to him has the power to directly ban a player due to on field incidents. Offers made by someone who notionally works for the high up person are subject to independent review by a diverse panel whose discussions are so transparent they're live-tweeted.

Anything further?

Just for the sake of clarity here Cat…..do you think the MRO operates independently of Steven Hocking? Ie. Christian could suspend, fine, exonerate or refer to the Tribunal where Hocking does not agree with his decision? I ask because that is how it appears your post reads, and we have already established clearly upon this thread this is not the case.

 

[BF Tiger]

Meteoric Rise is skilled at ignoring questions that he doesn’t like or that don’t suit his agenda. I asked him what about ex StKilda footballer, Leigh Fisher, now an AFL Senior umpire, and David Rodan, ex Richmond footballer who is now a goal umpire

So a perceived conflict of interest with Leigh Fisher would be him umpiring St Kilda games. How do you think that CoI could be managed? Still too hard for you? Think about it, I’m sure it will come. Maybe ask another Cat fan.

Now apply to Steve Hocking’s situation.

That’s pretty much all the OP is asking.

 

[Sttew]

So a perceived conflict of interest with Leigh Fisher would be him umpiring St Kilda games. How do you think that CoI could be managed? Still too hard for you? Think about it, I’m sure it will come. Maybe ask another Cat fan.

Now apply to Steve Hocking’s situation.

That’s pretty much all the OP is asking.

A perceived COI with Leigh Fisher could extend well beyond him umpiring St Kilda games...To borrow your expression, "think about it". It won't happen because there is a thing called personal integrity and there are policies in place across the AFL just as there in all businesses. But if an umpire wanted his old team to gain an advantage he could make any number of decisions to effect game results during the course of the season.

If all the OP wants is an announcement that Steve Hocking has no involvement in decisions on Geelong footballers that's fair. But he'd still be moaning that decisions in relation to other teams could favour Geelong. So where do you draw the line? Answer: No former AFL footballers are to hold positions of responsibility in the AFL; that's the only way you can guarantee avoiding perceived conflicts

 

[CatToTheFuture]

So a perceived conflict of interest with Leigh Fisher would be him umpiring St Kilda games. How do you think that CoI could be managed? Still too hard for you? Think about it, I’m sure it will come. Maybe ask another Cat fan.

Now apply to Steve Hocking’s situation.

That’s pretty much all the OP is asking.

Except it's clearly not anything like those situations. Hocking sets the rules for the tribunal and a guy who isn't Hocking hands out the equivalent of plea deals.

If the MRO doesn't actually have the power to ban players then what power do you think Hocking has? It's all very, very silly

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Except it's clearly not anything like those situations. Hocking sets the rules for the tribunal and a guy who isn't Hocking hands out the equivalent of plea deals.

If the MRO doesn't actually have the power to ban players then what power do you think Hocking has? It's all very, very silly

---------------------------------------------------------------
(B) DETERMINATION OF TYPE OF OFFENCE AND APPROPRIATE CHARGE (IF ANY)
Following review of each report or referral, the MRO in conjunction with the
AFL General Manager – Football Operations will determine whether the Player
is to be charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the appropriate type of Reportable Offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Still waiting for some acknowledgment that the above exerpt, lifted from a document signed by Seven Hocking to explain the reporting process, effectively involves Hocking as the senior most person involved in every MRO decision by system design.

Therefore, Hocking is effectively the MRO. The MRO cannot ever make a decision of which Hocking does not approve.

You really need to stop making posts that are in denial of this fact because you are only serving to confuse the issues.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

A perceived COI with Leigh Fisher could extend well beyond him umpiring St Kilda games...To borrow your expression, "think about it". It won't happen because there is a thing called personal integrity and there are policies in place across the AFL just as there in all businesses. But if an umpire wanted his old team to gain an advantage he could make any number of decisions to effect game results during the course of the season.

If all the OP wants is an announcement that Steve Hocking has no involvement in decisions on Geelong footballers that's fair. But he'd still be moaning that decisions in relation to other teams could favour Geelong. So where do you draw the line? Answer: No former AFL footballers are to hold positions of responsibility in the AFL; that's the only way you can guarantee avoiding perceived conflicts

Working that out properly is step 2.

Step 1 is acknowledging there is an issue that requires lines to be drawn.


"If all the OP wants is an announcement that Steve Hocking has no involvement in decisions on Geelong footballers that's fair. But he'd still be moaning that decisions in relation to other teams could favour Geelong."

You don’t fail to take step 1 because you are worried that a poster on Bigfooty might not approve of where the line is eventually drawn. In any event, it isn’t that hard. You look at the situation and say is there a real reason I could be conflicted here, or not. If there is any real doubt, you absent yourself, simple as that.

 

[Sttew]

You look at the situation and say is there a real reason I could be conflicted here, or not. If there is any real doubt, you absent yourself, simple as that.

If there is any real doubt... What is real doubt? Having no confidence in the MRO's ability to be impartial? Actual evidence of, or a suspicion that previous MRO decisions have been skewed in one team's favour?

The MRO looks at potential reportable incidents and assesses whether they warrant a penalty as prescribed in the rules. As I posted eons ago, in 2019 AFL Operations (i.e., Hocking) separated the MRO function and the Tribunal so that the latter now comes under Legal. As we all know any MRO decision can be challenged at the Tribunal. So I have no concern about Hocking or Christian being "potentially" conflicted simply because they are not the final arbiter. If the MRO happens to get an interpretation of the criteria wrong the player can take it to the Tribunal.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/221593f5-9b5b-46c7-b038-b032283fcd41/2021-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

 

[OnTheRocks]

"(Match Review Officer) Michael Christian and myself worked through it and took a considerable amount of time," he said.
"It got to a point with my executive powers I was able to refer it and the reason for that was it was a line-ball decision."

It's all Hocking and his power trip

 

[Meteoric Rise]

If there is any real doubt... What is real doubt? Having no confidence in the MRO's ability to be impartial? Actual evidence of, or a suspicion that previous MRO decisions have been skewed in one team's favour?

The MRO looks at potential reportable incidents and assesses whether they warrant a penalty as prescribed in the rules. As I posted eons ago, in 2019 AFL Operations (i.e., Hocking) separated the MRO function and the Tribunal so that the latter now comes under Legal. As we all know any MRO decision can be challenged at the Tribunal. So I have no concern about Hocking or Christian being "potentially" conflicted simply because they are not the final arbiter. If the MRO happens to get an interpretation of the criteria wrong the player can take it to the Tribunal.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/221593f5-9b5b-46c7-b038-b032283fcd41/2021-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Why muddy the waters with all that crap?

We have a situation right here right now where Hocking is making MRO decisions that effect Geelong players. It doesn’t matter if he has been making them right, wrong or indifferently. Let someone else rule on those for a start and then there is no question of bias.

If you think your point I have highlighted above means Geelong could get no advantage from MRO decisions, you are WRONG. But forget that it is Geelong. Imagine it is Richmond, or Eagles or Hawks or whoever.

Two simple examples why your statement is wrong would be:

- the MRO waves through a case that someone else may have cited. Remembering there is no realistic appeal mechanism once this is done as it would require Hocking appealing against his own decision.

OR

- less likely but entirely possible…a coming Geelong opponent has a case another MRO might wave through but it is referred to the Tribunal and therefore a chance to be suspended versus being no chance if dismissed by the MRO.


When you say the MRO is not the final arbiter…there are cases when the MRO IS the final arbiter, so what you are saying whilst correct in relation to part of the MRO function is not right overall.

 

[BF Tiger]

"(Match Review Officer) Michael Christian and myself worked through it and took a considerable amount of time," he said.
"It got to a point with my executive powers I was able to refer it and the reason for that was it was a line-ball decision."

It's all Hocking and his power trip

How does he justify citing Mackay and not Dangerfield in the GF just eight months ago? What has changed in that time?

 

[OnTheRocks]

How does he justify citing Mackay and not Dangerfield in the GF just eight months ago? What has changed in that time?

I think along with a lot of other people that we both know the answer to that. I doubt much has changed except for the paranoia of litigation

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Another test.

Bews, probably 3 weeks for his hit on Naughton.

 

[Piggy2008]

I will openly state my agenda here.

At least three Stephen Hocking’s responsibilities in his role as General Manager Football Operations are clearly conflicted by his history and links with the Geelong Football Club.

The first, and most important in my opinion, is his role in directly overseeing rule changes. It is apparent that people at Geelong are in a position to influence his thinking more than people from any other club. Who knows whether they have or not. But there is a clear conflict apparent.

The second, is his role overseeing the umpiring department, where it must be noted the long standing umpire’s advisor Hayden Kennedy recently and suddenly stepped down, from memory, citing “exhaustion.” His boss was Stephen Hocking.

The third, and most instantly topical, and at this point most clearly controversial, is his role as final decision maker in Match Review Officer cases.

I am going to call into question three MRO decisions relating to matches involving Geelong FC, for which Hocking had ultimate direct responsibility. In each case the Geelong player involved was a key player for them.

1 Dangerfield raised forearm severe impact to Vlastuin’s face in the Grand Final, knocking him out. MRO result: No case. IMO should have been tested at the Tribunal as should all raised arm severe impact cases resulting from a voluntary movement by the player in question.

2 Hawkins elbow to May’s face in a tackle resulting in a fractured eye socket so severe impact. MRO result: No case. IMO should have been tested at the Tribunal.

3 Holman’s perfectly executed run down tackle on Duncan. MRO result: Two week suspension. Nothing further needs to be said, everyone knows the Tribunal will overturn this decision that has been universally condemned without exception from what I have seen and heard.

So 3 key players for the Cats, Dangerfield, Hawkins, Duncan. Of the three cases the two waved through were in my opinion unarguably more questionable than the one penalised. In all cases the decision has gone in favour of protecting the key Geelong player.

For anyone unfamiliar with Hocking’s links to Geelong FC….he played his entire 199 game career with Geelong, retiring after the Cat’s third Grand Final loss in 6 seasons in 1994. He later served Geelong FC in several roles as listed below from 2004:


2004-05 match committee chairman.

2006 - returned to Geelong full time as Training Services Manager, responsible for the planning, management and implementation of all training services for the club.

2010 - Assistant General Manager Football Operations to support Neil Balme.

2013 - General Manager of Team Performance.

2014 – General Manager of Commercial Operations.

2015-2017 - General Manager of Football.

He has no known involvement with any other club in the AFL. He was employed in his various roles including as a player by the Geelong FC for 25 years in total between 1984 and 2017. I have heard interviews with both Hocking and Chris Scott saying the two are very close.

It matters not whether Hocking is deliberately or consciously making decisions to favour or protect Geelong FC. It is a clear conflict of interest with some of his direct responsibilities and as such he should have no direct input to decisions in the three areas I have highlighted. There are ways of achieving this without removing him from his role, if that is seen as the best way to handle it.

The AFL needs to tidy this up. Remember, in regard to the MRO decisions, Hocking has the final say. So we know for sure every decision the MRO makes is Hocking’s position, but we have no certain idea if these decisions also reflect MRO Michael Christian’s position….

Just because he played for Geelong doesnt mean the cats players get no weeks

 

[Piggy2008]

found this

 

[Muddiemoose]

Two incidents involving the cats skipper in last nights game
Will be interesting if they even get looked at

BT claims "accidental"... but was this a cheap shot by Joel Selwood?

Bulldogs half-back Taylor Duryea wasn't happy about this moment from the Cats skipper.

www.theroar.com.au

 

[tigerwill]

Two incidents involving the cats skipper in last nights game
Will be interesting if they even get looked at

BT claims "accidental"... but was this a cheap shot by Joel Selwood?

Bulldogs half-back Taylor Duryea wasn't happy about this moment from the Cats skipper.

www.theroar.com.au

Christian wanted to fine him $10 for both incidents. sHocking said it was “manifestly inadequate” and fined him $5 for both and a freebie to come

 

[Chocoholic]

Can we go back to agreeing this post was a load of s**t?

Of cause its a Richmond fan thing, guys seriously.

Seriously.

We have the most suspensions, you think if he favoured us we get none.

 

[Chocoholic]

Christian wanted to fine him $10 for both incidents. sHocking said it was “manifestly inadequate” and fined him $5 for both and a freebie to come

Source?

Oh wait you don't have one.

There are no 2 actions that would add up to 10k in fines in this league.

 

[tigerwill]

Source?

Oh wait you don't have one.

There are no 2 actions that would add up to 10k in fines in this league.

I didn’t mention $10k you duffer

 

[Duckimus Prime]

How does he justify citing Mackay and not Dangerfield in the GF just eight months ago? What has changed in that time?

He justified letting Lachie Henderson concuss an opponent during the same round as Mackay's collision.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

He justified letting Lachie Henderson concuss an opponent during the same round as Mackay's collision.

Dangerfield forearm to face on Vlastuin, knocked out….Duncan late high contact on Hall, concussed….Selwood(fairly) contesting the ball on Mansell forceful head contact, player in clear discomfort…Stanley arm to head of Grundy causing serious neck injury….Hawkins on May elbow fracturing eye socket, Henderson on Marshall, concussed. Just off the top of our heads from the last 14 matches the Cats have played. All ok apparently, according to Hocking. Combined with Dangerfield’s horrendous late bump on Kelly smashing his face and concussing him. That got off lightly referred to Tribunal with the AFL(read: Hocking) arguing for just three weeks in my opinion, I mean how can you possibly be arguing for the same penalty for Dangerfield and MacKay? Seven “accidents” in 14 matches. Unless there are more I have forgotten.

But a fair tackle Holman on Duncan or MacKay fairly contesting the ball on Clark. According to Hocking these incidents require 2 weeks and 3 weeks.

This bloke is hopelessly conflicted over Geelong. Or sh1t at his job. Or both.