Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

Remove this Banner Ad

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,010
8,756
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I have read some silly things in my life but this is right up there.

I Hocking is working putting things on the cats terms then why don't we get 11 home games? Why are home finals out if the question? If he's our inside man then he needs to be sacked and replaced with someone who can deliver
You don’t say what in particular is silly about my post CatTTF.

Then you make some sort of counter argument here that amounts to:

1 because Hocking is not ostensibly favouring the Cats in other ways according to your shopping list therefore he cannot be favouring them in the areas I have queried, and

2 because Hocking is not wholly favouring the Cats with every decision he makes regarding them therefore he does not have a conflict of interest.

So if you are going to come making arguments that Jack the proverbial blind miner could drive a bus through, then you are not going to have much credibility when you say my post is silly - especially when you don’t say which part of it or why. 🤪

You always suspect a place like Geelong will be a bit insular but the quality of the posts of the vast majority of Cats supporters on this thread is p1sspoor, at best.

Geelong Grammar has a lot to answer for. Never been the same since turning Prince Charles from a fine upstanding young boy into a very disappointing human being.

Just consider this question for me CatTTF: what would be lost by Hocking not sitting in judgement of Geelong players in his role as MRO final decision maker?

There are viable counter arguments. I am shocked and disappointed nobody on the thread has found them. 😩. It is like debating with an even more childish version of Rex Hunt or something. Another former Cat….😁
 
Last edited:

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
8,513
12,552
AFL Club
Geelong
You don’t say what in particular is silly about my post CatTTF.

Then you make some sort of counter argument here that amounts to:

1 because Hocking is not ostensibly favouring the Cats in other ways according to your shopping list therefore he cannot be favouring them in the areas I have queried, and

2 because Hocking is not wholly favouring the Cats with every decision he makes regarding them therefore he does not have a conflict of interest.

So if you are going to come making arguments that Jack the proverbial blind miner could drive a bus through, then you are not going to have much credibility when you say my post is silly - especially when you don’t say which part of it or why. 🤪

You always suspect a place like Geelong will be a bit insular but the quality of the posts of the vast majority of Cats supporters on this thread is p1sspoor, at best.

Geelong Grammar has a lot to answer for. Never been the same since turning Prince Charles from a fine upstanding young boy into a very disappointing human being.

Just consider this question for me CatTTF: what would be lost by Hocking not sitting in judgement of Geelong players in his role as MRO final decision maker?

There are viable counter arguments. I am shocked and disappointed nobody on the thread has found them. 😩. It is like debating with an even more childish version of Rex Hunt or something. Another former Cat….😁
To be honest I'm not sure what's serious about what you're putting forward. If you're saying that he's twisting MRP decisions in our favour then why did Dangerfield get 3 weeks for a head clash? It's not meshing with reality in any way
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,010
8,756
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
To be honest I'm not sure what's serious about what you're putting forward. If you're saying that he's twisting MRP decisions in our favour then why did Dangerfield get 3 weeks for a head clash? It's not meshing with reality in any way
My opening post is deadly serious as is my consistent argument that Hocking(or anyone else employed by the AFL, or any other organisation for the matter) should not be making decisions on matters where they have an apparent and substantial secondary interest that could be seen to influence their decision making. To be clear I am not saying Hocking is setting out to deliberately favour the Cats. I have no real way of knowing whether this might be the case or not. But he is making several controversial decisions across his portfolio which can be argued as being in Geelong’s favour, and as such it would be better for all, including him, if he was at least arms length from those decisions.

Your question I have bolded above is another example of the line of thinking that because he makes A ruling against Geelong(he didn’t actually make this ruling) this is evidence he does not make ANY rulings that are biased in their favour. It is again very obvious to see the flaw in the logic of this argument. The case you have chosen, the decision Hocking correctly made in his role as final MRO decision maker was to send Dangerfield to the tribunal for what was I think widely viewed as a fair hearing with a fair outcome(not by me I think that incident deserved a bit bigger sanction, but I concede there is no apparent direct blame to Hocking for that.) So it is not like Hocking made a punitive decision in this instance, he simply took the correct and reasonable action. In the Dangerfield GF incident, the Hawkins incident v May, and the Holman tackle v Duncan, he made controversial(the Holman one was not even controversial, everyone thought it was wrong, prompting my post) rulings in favour of protecting the interests of Geelong FC.

Deliberate bias? You would certainly hope not. Subconscious bias? Every chance as this is a factor in every person’s decision making. Because the question of whether he applied any level of bias in these cases cannot be answered with certainty, thus the call for him to leave similar cases to a person who is not so conflicted in future.

I am shocked this perfectly reasonable suggestion has met with such a wall of derision and opposition, especially from Geelong people.

As for my humorous responses to some pretty low grade posts many of which are nowhere near on point, this is a mere device reserved for people who post irrelevant, misleading or poorly motivated posts. If you prefer I can return fire in kind…but volatility is so unedifying. If people talk to the points of the thread in earnest, then I certainly will. 😁
 

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
8,513
12,552
AFL Club
Geelong
My opening post is deadly serious as is my consistent argument that Hocking(or anyone else employed by the AFL, or any other organisation for the matter) should not be making decisions on matters where they have an apparent and substantial secondary interest that could be seen to influence their decision making. To be clear I am not saying Hocking is setting out to deliberately favour the Cats. I have no real way of knowing whether this might be the case or not. But he is making several controversial decisions across his portfolio which can be argued as being in Geelong’s favour, and as such it would be better for all, including him, if he was at least arms length from those decisions.

Your question I have bolded above is another example of the line of thinking that because he makes A ruling against Geelong(he didn’t actually make this ruling) this is evidence he does not make ANY rulings that are biased in their favour. It is again very obvious to see the flaw in the logic of this argument. The case you have chosen, the decision Hocking correctly made in his role as final MRO decision maker was to send Dangerfield to the tribunal for what was I think widely viewed as a fair hearing with a fair outcome(not by me I think that incident deserved a bit bigger sanction, but I concede there is no apparent direct blame to Hocking for that.) So it is not like Hocking made a punitive decision in this instance, he simply took the correct and reasonable action. In the Dangerfield GF incident, the Hawkins incident v May, and the Holman tackle v Duncan, he made controversial(the Holman one was not even controversial, everyone thought it was wrong, prompting my post) rulings in favour of protecting the interests of Geelong FC.

Deliberate bias? You would certainly hope not. Subconscious bias? Every chance as this is a factor in every person’s decision making. Because the question of whether he applied any level of bias in these cases cannot be answered with certainty, thus the call for him to leave similar cases to a person who is not so conflicted in future.

I am shocked this perfectly reasonable suggestion has met with such a wall of derision and opposition, especially from Geelong people.

As for my humorous responses to some pretty low grade posts many of which are nowhere near on point, this is a mere device reserved for people who post irrelevant, misleading or poorly motivated posts. If you prefer I can return fire in kind…but volatility is so unedifying. If people talk to the points of the thread in earnest, then I certainly will. 😁
Why are you surprised when your 3 examples of bias are blatantly absurd? Two are clearly not a result of an intentional or careless act and the third provides literally no benefit to the cats.

If you want people in positions of power in the afl to have no AFL club management experience then best of luck managing the game. The lawyer who argued that players calculate their size differential against opponents will be making the decisions
 

Romeoh1

Team Captain
Apr 27, 2021
386
459
AFL Club
Geelong
If the MRO is consistent Stanley needs to be cited and suspended for maiming Grundy
He elected to punch and has maybe done some major damage to Grundy's brachial plexus in the process
But given he plays for Geelong I'm not going to hold my breath
Meanwhile, back on planet earth..
 

Wojcinski

Steve Hocking's Polish Friend
Aug 14, 2011
15,185
22,660
Wieliczka Salt Mine
AFL Club
Geelong
If the MRO is consistent Stanley needs to be cited and suspended for maiming Grundy
He elected to punch and has maybe done some major damage to Grundy's brachial plexus in the process
But given he plays for Geelong I'm not going to hold my breath
Shall the player that elected to tackle Tim Kelly also go for weeks? How about we suspend the guy that elected to kick the ball into the umpires head in North v St Kilda today?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PetterdHoisted

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 27, 2014
5,177
7,622
AFL Club
Richmond
If the MRO is consistent Stanley needs to be cited and suspended for maiming Grundy
He elected to punch and has maybe done some major damage to Grundy's brachial plexus in the process
But given he plays for Geelong I'm not going to hold my breath
Marlion Pickett gets rubbed out for an attempted tackle around the chest of a player, but we are dreaming if we think an errant elbow to the head of Grundy leading to hospitalization would see a Cat player rubbed out. It just doesn't happen.
 

Generalissimo

His Excellency
Jul 14, 2002
5,411
4,887
Somewhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
The Mighty Cats
Marlion Pickett gets rubbed out for an attempted tackle around the chest of a player, but we are dreaming if we think an errant elbow to the head of Grundy leading to hospitalization would see a Cat player rubbed out. It just doesn't happen.
LOL. We've had a horror run at the MRP for a decade now. No club has missed more games through suspension than us, and it's usually for non-events like Hawkins jumper punches or Steve Johnson glancing at someone the wrong way that wouldn't get looked at for anyone else.

Stanley spoiled successfully and collected Grundy by accident with the inside of his forearm on the way down. Who knows how Michael Christian will see it? If you look up "arbitrary and capricious" in the dictionary it's got his head next to it.

If it had been Grundy collecting Stanley the exact same way I wouldn't want to see Grundy rubbed out for it, just like last week it was a shame to see Holman get done for that alleged "sling tackle".
 

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
8,513
12,552
AFL Club
Geelong
Marlion Pickett gets rubbed out for an attempted tackle around the chest of a player, but we are dreaming if we think an errant elbow to the head of Grundy leading to hospitalization would see a Cat player rubbed out. It just doesn't happen.
I'm not sure if this is a joke. Can you please inform me?
 

PetterdHoisted

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 27, 2014
5,177
7,622
AFL Club
Richmond
LOL. We've had a horror run at the MRP for a decade now. No club has missed more games through suspension than us, and it's usually for non-events like Hawkins jumper punches or Steve Johnson glancing at someone the wrong way that wouldn't get looked at for anyone else.

Stanley spoiled successfully and collected Grundy by accident with the inside of his forearm on the way down. Who knows how Michael Christian will see it? If you look up "arbitrary and capricious" in the dictionary it's got his head next to it.

If it had been Grundy collecting Stanley the exact same way I wouldn't want to see Grundy rubbed out for it, just like last week it was a shame to see Holman get done for that alleged "sling tackle".
I dont want anything to come of normal footy acts! Including an attempted tackle on the chest of a player.
 

PetterdHoisted

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 27, 2014
5,177
7,622
AFL Club
Richmond
Picketts was line ball I'll give you but what on earth has that got to do with Geelong? Why would any Geelong fan care about Richmond's finishing position? We're playing you at the mcg regardless so it makes literally no difference
I'm just overall angry at S.Hocking for fundamentally changing the structure of the game in the middle of our once-in-lifetime dynasty, because he got mad at how effective we were defensively.

Your dynasty and Hawthorns and Brisbane's died natural deaths without massive manipulation from AFL House.

Everything I post about Geelong needs to be viewed through that lens.
 

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
8,513
12,552
AFL Club
Geelong
I'm just overall angry at S.Hocking for fundamentally changing the structure of the game in the middle of our once-in-lifetime dynasty, because he got mad at how effective we were defensively.

Your dynasty and Hawthorns and Brisbane's died natural deaths without massive manipulation from AFL House.

Everything I post about Geelong needs to be viewed through that lens.
Are you implying no rule changes have shifted the game to the cats disadvantage over the course? They literally outlawed the third man up because they didn't like the way we used Blicavs. How many confusing ruck nomination frees have been given away because they didn't like what we were doing in what 2016?

Also, what rule did they change to target Richmond? I genuinely don't know
 

PetterdHoisted

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 27, 2014
5,177
7,622
AFL Club
Richmond
Are you implying no rule changes have shifted the game to the cats disadvantage over the course? They literally outlawed the third man up because they didn't like the way we used Blicavs. How many confusing ruck nomination frees have been given away because they didn't like what we were doing in what 2016?

Also, what rule did they change to target Richmond? I genuinely don't know
there have always been small rule changes throughout the history of the game, the rules to protect ruckmen and the ruck contest that you refer to continue to iterate, as do many other parts of the game. Ruck contests not being prior opportunity was bought in once Richmond stopped playing rucks in 2017 and sent midfielders and small FWDs in to tackle the ruckman, for example. Getting rid of the incredibly dangerous 'third man up' tactic was another earlier iteration. I have no issue with such tweaks.

But the zoning and particularly the 'Statue' rule have completely changed the structure of the game, leading to bizarre scenes of defenders standing helplessly while their opponent waltzes past them.

And these rules clearly disadvantage Richmond and any other high pressure/low possession side, while giving a huge fillip to teams who chip the ball around by foot and retain possession (i.e. S.Hockings former employer as player and admin, Geelong, and West Coast probably the greatest exponents of such play)

As I have said before on here, Selwood and the Geelong players were up for the challenge to come up with a new gamestyle to beat Richmond. Why did Hocking come over the top by changing the whole structure of the game, instead of letting teams find their own way to beat Richmond?

Look to Geelong 2007 and their antidote to Sydney/WCE style at the time, it was brilliant! S. Hocking should have backed Geelong to do the same in 2021.

You would have been ropeable too if the game had been completely turned on its head in terms of structure in 2010.
 

Wojcinski

Steve Hocking's Polish Friend
Aug 14, 2011
15,185
22,660
Wieliczka Salt Mine
AFL Club
Geelong
Marlion Pickett gets rubbed out for an attempted tackle around the chest of a player, but we are dreaming if we think an errant elbow to the head of Grundy leading to hospitalization would see a Cat player rubbed out. It just doesn't happen.
If Stanley is rubbed out for that then Broad needs be suspended for knocking out Sam Berry in a marking contest
 

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
8,513
12,552
AFL Club
Geelong
there have always been small rule changes throughout the history of the game, the rules to protect ruckmen and the ruck contest that you refer to continue to iterate, as do many other parts of the game. Ruck contests not being prior opportunity was bought in once Richmond stopped playing rucks in 2017 and sent midfielders and small FWDs in to tackle the ruckman, for example. Getting rid of the incredibly dangerous 'third man up' tactic was another earlier iteration. I have no issue with such tweaks.

But the zoning and particularly the 'Statue' rule have completely changed the structure of the game, leading to bizarre scenes of defenders standing helplessly while their opponent waltzes past them.

And these rules clearly disadvantage Richmond and any other high pressure/low possession side, while giving a huge fillip to teams who chip the ball around by foot and retain possession (i.e. S.Hockings former employer as player and admin, Geelong, and West Coast probably the greatest exponents of such play)

As I have said before on here, Selwood and the Geelong players were up for the challenge to come up with a new gamestyle to beat Richmond. Why did Hocking come over the top by changing the whole structure of the game, instead of letting teams find their own way to beat Richmond?

Look to Geelong 2007 and their antidote to Sydney/WCE style at the time, it was brilliant! S. Hocking should have backed Geelong to do the same in 2021.

You would have been ropeable too if the game had been completely turned on its head in terms of structure in 2010.
Wow mate I think you need a bit of a lie down.

If you think that the stand the mark rule advantaged Geelong's kick to kick 2020 game style then why have we almost completely abandoned it in 2021?

The rule that you say advantages the cats has actually made our 2020 game style completely untenable. We've had to reinvent to speed up our attack and the entire front half of the season we've been getting burned on counter attacks.

I just find it incredibly odd that you somehow believe that a rule that is designed to speed up ball movement is somehow going to advantage a side that thrive on slow ball movement. The gymnastics is mind blowing.

Have the increased length of quarters and reduced rotations been implemented so that the oldest best 22 ever can run sides off their feet?
 

Remove this Banner Ad