Steve Hocking Gone

[bh90210fan]

The funniest comment I saw last week was a Richmond supporter blaming Hocking for the streakers running onto the oval against the Suns. I thought he/she was joking, but now I’m not so sure.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I doubt it has been a 9-12 month process.

It didn’t need to be for him to have a clear conflict of interest over it. In any event he was likely being worded up about it from long before the post was officially known to going to be vacated. But even that process aside, there is still the not so small matter of Hocking’s links to Geelong FC, his close relationship with Chris Scott etc.

He has left himself open to allegations of not declaring a conflict of interest and misuse of power so naturally enough, we are going to allege away. This has created a stain on his tenure in the AFL role and whilst the mainstream media may turn a blind eye and all the Hocklodytes out there like you may refuse to see the obvious, there are those of us who can see it as plain as day. And we have less reason to pretend it isn’t true.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The funniest comment I saw last week was a Richmond supporter blaming Hocking for the streakers running onto the oval against the Suns. I thought he/she was joking, but now I’m not so sure.

Only Richmond supporters understand the ghost of Helen D'Amico.

 

[Spearman]

Brisbane were subject to a rule change about IV drips. The father-son rule was changed after Geelong benefited. The rushed behind rule was changed after Hawthorn benefited. But yeah, just a conspiracy against Richmond.

So no quote from Steve Hocking despite all the TigerNon posters believing it as fact, and the three clubs mentioned had direct (not suspected) action applied - based on real solid arguments

you forgot the third-man up rule after which team was it again?

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

you forgot the third-man up rule after which team was it again?

Bulldogs have a bit of a claim to this one as well, but you're right - Cats lost a huge weapon as a result of this rule-change.

 

[hawkman]

how long do you think he has been applying for the Geelong job

The only one that could really be questioned is Stewart getting off the same week Williams got a week for slamming a head into the ground.
Williams had more force but i think there can be legitimate questions asked about that

 

[PhatBoy]

The only one that could really be questioned is Stewart getting off the same week Williams got a week for slamming a head into the ground.
Williams had more force but i think there can be legitimate questions asked about that

that’s meritorious but there’s also been plenty of times a questionable decision has gone the other way too

 

[hawkman]

that’s meritorious but there’s also been plenty of times a questionable decision has gone the other way too

I don't think it had any influence but you would think this process would have been longer a couple of weeks so i think the question could be asked about it. It would be interesting to know when he started going through the process but they will never release that information.
It is one obviously went Geelong's way when it could have gone another way. The Selwood ones as well.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't think it had any influence but you would think this process would have been longer a couple of weeks so i think the question could be asked about it. It would be interesting to know when he started going through the process but they will never release that information.
It is one obviously went Geelong's way when it could have gone another way. The Selwood ones as well.

Selwood has been rubbed out plenty of times himself, and while I agree with most that the ‘look’ of what happened the other week was poor there wasn’t much there he could be rubbed out for.
I agree that it’s a call they could have waited until the end of the year to announce

I would imagine that as both an AFL employee and an ex geelong figure he would have been well aware that the position was going to be vacant. I can’t imagine that it would pay as well as the AFL role but the pressure and work volume would be lower so I would assume it was a case of ‘I will see if I am still up for the AFL role, if I feel it’s becoming too much I’ll throw my hat in the ring for the Geelong one.’

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Brisbane were subject to a rule change about IV drips. The father-son rule was changed after Geelong benefited. The rushed behind rule was changed after Hawthorn benefited. But yeah, just a conspiracy against Richmond.

So no quote from Steve Hocking despite all the TigerNon posters believing it as fact, and the three clubs mentioned had direct (not suspected) action applied - based on real solid arguments

As I said, the Murdoch press printed the allegations.

Where is the investigation?

Was Richmond, and specifically Trent Cotchin targeted by a senior member of the rules committee at AFL HQ?

As I said before, you should also want to know the truth because next time it may be your team or player that is targeted.

I just think there must be a young journalist out there who is not yet under AFL influence that wants to make a name for themselves.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

As I said, the Murdoch press printed the allegations.

Where is the investigation?

Was Richmond, and specifically Trent Cotchin targeted by a senior member of the rules committee at AFL HQ?

As I said before, you should also want to know the truth because next time it may be your team or player that is targeted.

I just think there must be a young journalist out there who is not yet under AFL influence that wants to make a name for themselves.

just to add, once again, it goes beyond the schoolkid tribalism being trotted out on here.

This may shorten Trent's career. Other players that have been heavily affected like Cripps may have lost millions in terms of contracts and promotions. How much has this cost the sponsors of the Richmond and Carlton footy clubs as a result? Richmond superfans who paid very large amounts of money to guarantee a finals ticket based on the reasonable expectation that the game would look the same as it did the previous year...the list goes on and on.

Did the rules committee target a particular subset of players and teams with punitive rule changes? And at whose behest?

 

[PhatBoy]

just to add, once again, it goes beyond the schoolkid tribalism being trotted out on here.

This may shorten Trent's career. Other players that have been heavily affected like Cripps may have lost millions in terms of contracts and promotions. How much has this cost the sponsors of the Richmond and Carlton footy clubs as a result? Richmond superfans who paid very large amounts of money to guarantee a finals ticket based on the reasonable expectation that the game would look the same as it did the previous year...the list goes on and on.

Did the rules committee target a particular subset of players and teams with punitive rule changes? And at whose behest?

how is this any different to new rules impacting say, Shane Mumford and his ability to crunch people? Heavy tacklers that sling players to ground?
The third man up rule was literally called ‘the Blicavs rule’ - are you concerned about that rule’s impact on Blicavs’ ability to make a living

 

[PetterdHoisted]

how is this any different to new rules impacting say, Shane Mumford and his ability to crunch people? Heavy tacklers that sling players to ground?
The third man up rule was literally called ‘the Blicavs rule’ - are you concerned about that rule’s impact on Blicavs’ ability to make a living

Once again it’s a false equivalence, I’ve already answered this, repeated here for the last time hopefully.

preserving the ruck contest and safety of ruckmen men is a long term project and continues almost yearly.

Richmond has been the chief recent proponent of diminishing the role of the ruck, sending in small forwards as extra tackling midfielders, the AFL responded to preserve the ruck role by giving them special ‘no prior’ privileges.

no one has an issue with that! rucks are a part of the game.

confected nonsense like the ‘stand’ rule, based at best on aesthetic whims, and allegedly on an angry obsession, is something entirely different.

 

[Sttew]

They won't let Gale in there. The sh*t he would find...

He'd be used to it!

 

[Grin]

nah they just cease to be fans, 32k members in 2010 LOL

Strange comment.
By May 2017 Richmond had 80k members. The biggest membership in VFL/AFL history. At that time Richmond hadn't won a single final from 2010 (the year you mention). In fact they'd been the poorest performing club of the 21st century. Yet from 2010 to 2017 they'd over doubled their membership.
So that salty little myth is well and truely busted.

Here's the real reason for Richmond's growth in membership over that period:

 

[Choogler]

And the crowd goes wild.

He spearheaded a dire period and the changes he implemented have sent the game backward.

Brian Cook was really good for Geelong, the replacement hasbig shoes to fill.

So right about Cook, took a Geelong that was struggling and turned it around and into one of the best and strongest clubs in the AFL.
I hope he's not lost to footy because his extensive playing, coaching and administrative background in many states would make him a good CEO of the AFL. His experience and understanding of the difficulties faced by out of Melbourne teams might even see a move away the the Melbourne-centric attitude of the AFL.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Strange comment.
By May 2017 Richmond had 80k members. The biggest membership in VFL/AFL history. At that time Richmond hadn't won a single final from 2010 (the year you mention). In fact they'd been the poorest performing club of the 21st century. Yet from 2010 to 2017 they'd over doubled their membership.
So that salty little myth is well and truely busted.

Here's the real reason for Richmond's growth in membership over that period:

Simple yet fascinating video that and well worth anyone watching for reasons nothing to do with footy. Great post.

 

[Grin]

We averaged 113 points per game in our flag years

Richmond have averaged 78. You can probably throw that up to about 82-83 based on the shorter games last year.

so I can’t speak for Brisbane or hawthorn but if attacking dominant footy is desirable then I can see why no major changes were bought in at that time

So you're saying they did change the Rules because of Richmond?
Or is your position fluid depending on what narrative you are supporting in any given moment?

 

[PhatBoy]

So you're saying they did change the Rules because of Richmond?
Or is your position fluid depending on what narrative you are supporting in any given moment?

I think they changed the rules because footy in general was getting unattractive but Richmond personified it. I don’t see your point

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I think they changed the rules because footy in general was getting unattractive but Richmond personified it. I don’t see your point

I see. The person driving the rule changes who just happened to be strongly linked to Geelong just happened to introduce a major left field rule that just happened to suit the highest chipping/marking team in the competition who just happened to be Geelong, and it also just happened to not suit the highest surge forward team in the competition who just happened to be Richmond, who just happened to be Geelong’s annual finals nemesis.

What a series of coincidences to “just happen.”

Not to mention Geelong just happened to be the team used to trial the new rules at pre-season training, whilst the other 17 clubs just happened not to be informed of the change until about 1 minute before the first game. After Chris Scott just happened to give it the thumbs up.

 

[Grin]

I think they changed the rules because footy in general was getting unattractive but Richmond personified it. I don’t see your point

So you're saying they changed the rules to counter the game that Richmond personified.
I agree.
However many of your fellow Geelong supporters angrily disagree, calling it a conspiracy theory. But if you look at the rule changes that were brought in for the 2019 and 2021, and what they were aimed at countering, all roads lead to Richmond. It's transparently obvious.
The stand on the mark rule this year, the 666, kicking out after a behind, and the Grigg ruck rule in 2019.
I'm not sure what the limiting the interchanges rule was meant to achieve, but it was alway going to result in sloppier football and more injuries. Maybe it was brought in to advantage the more stationary clubs that rely on chipping and crabbing the ball.

 

[PhatBoy]

I see. The person driving the rule changes who just happened to be strongly linked to Geelong just happened to introduce a major left field rule that just happened to suit the highest chipping/marking team in the competition who just happened to be Geelong, and it also just happened to not suit the highest surge forward team in the competition who just happened to be Richmond, who just happened to be Geelong’s annual finals nemesis.

What a series of coincidences to “just happen.”

Not to mention Geelong just happened to be the team used to trial the new rules at pre-season training, whilst the other 17 clubs just happened not to be informed of the change until about 1 minute before the first game. After Chris Scott just happened to give it the thumbs up.

Does it suit us? We are in fifth. We were grand finalists last year

Your comments would have more credence if the rule wasn’t trialed in a number of pre season matches involving other clubs

As at 22 days out from the season opener, umpires had attended 310 club training sessions in total

the rule was announced in November last year and as at jan 31 the new rule was ‘having an impact on trial
Matches.’

Do you know something somebody else doesn’t about time travel and AFL information?

 

[Ron The Bear]

I think they changed the rules because footy in general was getting unattractive but Richmond personified it. I don’t see your point

But Richmond played differently to everyone else. They did their own thing and nobody copied them.

'Raise the fight': Why clubs can't replicate Tigers

Richmond's style was certainly deemed undesirable by an influential few, beginning with Chris Scott two days after the 2017 GF.

Pride and petulance: Chris Scott's critique of the 2017 Richmond flag

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Does it suit us? We are in fifth. We were grand finalists last year

If statuing the man on the mark doesn’t suit the team that was by an absolute mile the biggest chip/mark team in 2020, then who would it suit?

 

[PhatBoy]

But Richmond played differently to everyone else. They did their own thing and nobody copied them.

How Richmond do things differently to the other clubs

Richmond's style was certainly deemed undesirable by an influential few, beginning with Chris Scott two days after the 2017 GF.

Pride and petulance: Chris Scott's critique of the 2017 Richmond flag

Who had copied Hawthorn walking the ball over the line? Which other club had a major part of their game plan revolving around Mark Blicavs after whom a rule was actually nicknamed?