Tiger_Of_Old
THE_GUN:"Why don't you use your reg acc"7/9/24
A bit inside hopes they do get one.
Tickets allocated 50/50
Cats nuffies who miss out will change their tune.
-
AFLW Draft - Tonight at 7PM
The livestream will be available on womens.afl & the AFLW app. Join our live chat!
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Universal Love Steve Hocking has retired as AFL operations manager
- Thread starter Foley#41
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Tickets allocated 50/50
Cats nuffies who miss out will change their tune.
The Brad Scott scenario is another joke from those clowns
at afl house given a role because roos sacked him and had to be payed out $$$$ now his going for Hocking job you can't make this crap up all of sudden his a top administrator give us breake stinks of the boys club.
at afl house given a role because roos sacked him and had to be payed out $$$$ now his going for Hocking job you can't make this crap up all of sudden his a top administrator give us breake stinks of the boys club.
Last edited:
He is a actually a good person and is seemingly doing a very good job within his current role removing the boys club , bullying mentality .The Brad Scott scenario is another joke from those clowns
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
rfctigerarmy
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
AFL is a boys club, I'm sure whoever gets the job isn't the right fit.
- Jul 22, 2016
- 6,520
- 26,075
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Claremont Tigers, Glenelg Tigers
It would be hard to find a bigger flog than Shocking, but the AFL didn't have to look far...Brad Scott. FFS
- Jul 22, 2016
- 6,520
- 26,075
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Claremont Tigers, Glenelg Tigers
Houlis two weeks was (historically as it was the first time ever) appealed by the AFL and doubled to four weeks. I'm still pissed off about that. What about Bailey Fritch getting off for his bumper bar earlier this year that caused a concussion ?!?!
That one of Fritch is mind boggling … how the hell he got away with that defies logic …… a bit like Danger in the Grandfinal …. Nothing to see here
- Jul 8, 2017
- 28,880
- 82,673
- AFL Club
- Richmond
And Houlis contact to the head was purely accidental. He swung his arm back to break a hold. No way he intentionally clocked him on the head.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 53,439
- 109,662
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
No agenda
tigs2010
wowing tiger_muff all day every day
He learnt making a decision mid-season was quite disruptive so this year completely changed the game 2 days before the first bounce of the season LOL. Is this guy a ******?
LOL, i just had to come back here to make sure i didn't dream this up...
Did i really hear that the AFL official in charge of the rule and umpiring of the game has resigned to announce he will now be running the Geelong Football Club, & That the twin brother of the coach of.....THE GEELONG FOOTBALL CLUB, is now going to be running it instead?
Did i really hear that the AFL official in charge of the rule and umpiring of the game has resigned to announce he will now be running the Geelong Football Club, & That the twin brother of the coach of.....THE GEELONG FOOTBALL CLUB, is now going to be running it instead?
It wasn't just a spare of the moment change...as tigs says in the podcast apparently he engineered it by letting Geelong trial it at their pre season training sessions....WT actual F.
May as well be called the Geelong Football League...Ridiculous.
Whispers are that by this time next year the following will occur .
Travis Auld > Gil
Brad Scott > Shocking
Rob Auld > Brad Scott
Nicole Livingstone and Trisha Squires into AFL head exec positions .
Travis Auld > Gil
Brad Scott > Shocking
Rob Auld > Brad Scott
Nicole Livingstone and Trisha Squires into AFL head exec positions .
**** off Jon Ralph footy is worse, the only reason stoppages are down is because teams play chip the ball around and pretty much go from D50 to F50 under no pressure until forced to release it into a crowded forward 50 which is now easier to do after a behind is kicked as teams just set up on the wings now instead of just outside D50 which has by the way killed the out the back dash for cash if you cleared the pack from a kick in.
1. stand rule: oh i just love watching players just waltz past the MOTM like he is a ****ing statue
2. kick outs: oh i just love watching the player kicking in just run as far as he wants without bouncing the ball and not get pinged for ' too far '
tigs2010
wowing tiger_muff all day every day
Jobs for the Boys – Reform the AFL
reformtheafl.com
This is where I think the process is confusing for people.
Houli case.
The MRO, who was some combination of Michael Christian and Simon Lethlean at the time, referred the matter directly to the AFL Tribunal, presumably briefing the AFL Advocate to argue for a 4 week penalty. The Tribunal heard the case, found Houli guilty and mitigated his penalty seemingly based on character references from the prime Minister and Waleed Aly. They gave Houli a two week suspension. Lethlean on behalf of the AFL then appealed to a secondary Tribunal on the basis the suspension was manifestly inadequate. The second Tribunal agreed with Lethlean and upped the suspension to 4 weeks.
This case, whilst frustrating for us Tiger supporters and curious for being the only one the AFL has appealed, certainly recently, shows the system working fairly and correctly IMO. I think this despite thinking the outcome was a little harsh on Houli.
Fritsch case
Here the MRO(Christian and Hocking but effectively Hocking) gave Fritsch one week, which tbh I thought was a week light. The action Fritsch fended with was voluntary though I doubt the contact to the head was intentional. This should have been graded at least reckless IMO. The MRO said it was a careless action.
Anyway, Fritsch appealed the the Tribunal, who found his action was not careless, and overturned the MRO decision.
I am not sure the AFL can appeal on a subjective judgement of the facts like that. But maybe there is a mechanism along the lines of “no reasonable person could look at those facts and arrive at that decision.”
Should that have been applied in the Fritsch case? Probably not. So while I disagree with the decision of both the MRO and the Tribunal, I think this case also demonstrates a system working properly.
————————————————————
Where the really bad holes are in this system are shown up more in the Dangerfield v Vlastuin, Hawkins v May, Dangerfield v Kelly, Stanley v Grundy, and Duncan v Hall cases.
Here only one of these cases is referred to the Tribunal by the AFL but with the AFL(Hocking) curiously arguing for the minimum possible sanction for the offence - 3 weeks for careless/high/severe in the Dangerfield v Kelly case. Correctly done they should have been arguing for a minimum of 4 weeks for reckless/high/severe, given the shocking head first technique Dangerfield applied. In the other cases the MRO(effectively Hocking) waved those through as no further action.
This is where there is a clear flaw in the system. There is no realistic mechanism for anyone to look at those decisions and say hang on, that needs to be re-considered. The person in the position to do that was Hocking. And he is hardly going to appeal or review his own decision is he?
So there are several issues here. The first and most obvious is Hocking has had a clear conflict of interest in cases involving Geelong players whilst at the same time being close friends with the Geelong Coach AND, even more unbelievably, being involved in applying for the role of Geelong FC CEO. I cannot believe the AFL community is not up in arms about this.
The second and less obvious issue is the system does not allow a realistic way for an MRO decision of "no case to answer," or "too light a penalty" to be reviewed.
The third and even more subtle issue is the MRO - effectively Hocking - is acting as a pre judge of tribunal cases by having the AFL Advocate argue for the penalty Hocking sees as correct. In an adversarial set up like the Tribunal, the AFL should in almost all cases be arguing for the maximum possible penalty, then allowing the player to argue for the least possible penalty and the Tribunal to judge what is correct within those extreme arguments. In the Dangerfield v Kelly case Hocking effectively capped the penalty the tribunal would issue at 3 weeks.
We will always find cases like Fritsch or Houli where we disagree with the outcome even in a perfectly structured system. But this system is very poorly structured in several ways and I am very surprised nobody seems to realise this or care about it.
Last edited:
You are seeing exactly what you have stated. I have followed AFL for a very long time and never, not even when we were successful in the past, has the vitriol been so rife. It is everywhere and shows no sign of abating.
We really need a change at the top to begin with all other positions spilled to clean up the boys club mentality. It needs Gil gone - as a matter of urgency.
I have always thought that we should never lose Brendan Gale from the club but I just know he would be ideal in that position as he would be more in tune with the current game and I am certain he would be a lot more neutral than Hocking has been.
It is time for a change within the AFL ranks.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Nostradumbass
BigFooty Legend
- Oct 2, 2007
- 53,136
- 130,451
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Everton FC Williamstown FC
Houli got rubbed out for 4 because he's a lebo Muslim.
If that is true, it is the biggest outrage in the whole fiasco. It completely strikes at the integrity of the competition. And is yet another example of Hocking’s conflict of interest.
Muddiemoose
Moderator
- Aug 24, 2017
- 31,712
- 114,460
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #172
I’m happy for Gale to move on in fact I think he needs to with in the next two years or so
Yes, stability is important but so is change in order to keep new ideas coming through and we don’t develop a culture of un-questioning loyalty because that’s when ego can start to dictate decision making
The pies are a perfect example of what can happen when someone who might of been the right person for the job is no longer but tries to hold onto the position at all costs and ultimately does more harm than good
plus a handover in a time of prosperity would be a lot better and healthier for the club than him being forced out if dying a time of unrest
Any chance that Benny or Balmey or....Richo(?) apply for Hockings old job?
Make up their own rules to be implemented.
Outrageous rules such as:
"Soft hands in the back or arm-chopping frees to be paid at BOTH ends of the ground or not at all."
"When a player has the ball, then during a tackle somehow doesn't have the ball - without handballing or kicking it - then it is NOT holding the man."
And also change rules each week depending on who is available for Richmond selection to favour- tall or short, fast or slow, contested or uncontested, etc.
Make up their own rules to be implemented.
Outrageous rules such as:
"Soft hands in the back or arm-chopping frees to be paid at BOTH ends of the ground or not at all."
"When a player has the ball, then during a tackle somehow doesn't have the ball - without handballing or kicking it - then it is NOT holding the man."
And also change rules each week depending on who is available for Richmond selection to favour- tall or short, fast or slow, contested or uncontested, etc.
This 100%
they’ve kept brad Scott in cotton wool and then got him into the afl hq, now he’ll probably get s.hocking S old job
