Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

[PetterdHoisted]

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?

As I said, you would be ropeable if the structure of the game had been flipped on its head in 2010, yours was the dominant team of the era back then, you had worked hard to setup to succeed with the rules at the time over multiple years.

Like the Tigers now, you had by far the most to lose of any team from a radical change. Dynasties come around once in a lifetime at best.

Furthemore, if the last time the AFL didn't like the look of the game in 2006 they would have changed the game radically, we may never have seen the evolution of one of the greatest ever attacking teams in 2007 in Geelong.

Once again, if Richmond's style makes you angry as an AFL admin, don't flip the game on its head, back other teams to come up with a style that overcomes it.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

As I said, you would be ropeable if the structure of the game had been flipped on its head in 2010, yours was the dominant team of the era back then, you had worked hard to setup to succeed with the rules at the time over multiple years.

Like the Tigers now, you had by far the most to lose of any team from a radical change. Dynasties come around once in a lifetime at best.

Furthemore, if the last time the AFL didn't like the look of the game in 2006 they would have changed the game radically, we may never have seen the evolution of one of the greatest ever attacking teams in 2007 in Geelong.

Once again, if Richmond's style makes you angry as an AFL admin, don't flip the game on its head, back other teams to come up with a style that overcomes it.

Mate we just traded out 3 first rounders for a 28 year old kpf, fair to say we've got more to lose from changes now than you do.

None of these changes target Richmond anyway. These changes add speed, reduce rotations for older players, increase the length of the game on older bodies. Could mount a fair argument that it targets the cats much more than Richmond.

You also say we'd be ropeable if the afl changed the rules in 2010. They didn't but they did take arguably the best player of the 20th century off us to give to the Gold Coast for a couple of teens picks. They wiped out two drafts at a point when we were looking like short odds for a bottoming out with GAJ and Bomber both walking. At least the man the mark rule is hurting all the major sides defenses roughly equally.

It's also not like the rule changes are what's hurting you, it's just injuries same as you had this time last year and the year before.

This whole thing is just an entirely imagined transgression supposedly perpetrated by an administrator who genuinely has more important things to do.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Hendo looking at weeks. 4 if Hocking is impartial.

 

[frggr]

Hendo looking at weeks. 4 if Hocking is impartial.

Annnnnnnd.....he's cleared

Match Review: Verdict in for Marshall hit, tough Cat fined for ump contact

One charge was laid after Thursday night's Port Adelaide-Geelong match

www.afl.com.au

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Annnnnnnd.....he's cleared

Match Review: Verdict in for Marshall hit, tough Cat fined for ump contact

One charge was laid after Thursday night's Port Adelaide-Geelong match

www.afl.com.au

Here we go

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Annnnnnnd.....he's cleared

Match Review: Verdict in for Marshall hit, tough Cat fined for ump contact

One charge was laid after Thursday night's Port Adelaide-Geelong match

www.afl.com.au

Typical Hocking. Sure, 99.9% of people would say that’s clearly an accident and not worthy of a suspension, but guys like me and the OP know better. Transparent Steve Hocking conspiracy.

 

[Generalissimo]

Looks like a Richmond board mod

Needs more dorito powder.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

Question: how do you find any person for an afl role who would not appear to have a conflict of interest? They seem to want to have prior club experience or they get dismissed as “no feel for the game” do you need to have served 2 or 3 clubs?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Question: how do you find any person for an afl role who would not appear to have a conflict of interest? They seem to want to have prior club experience or they get dismissed as “no feel for the game” do you need to have served 2 or 3 clubs?

My answer to that as I have written throughout the thread, is you appoint the best person for the role then manage any conflict of interest they may have.

If you read the thread you will see I have not called for Hocking to to be dismissed from his position.

That he has an APPARENT conflict of interest is obvious. As your question suggests, anyone you appoint who has experience within the game may be apparently conflicted….but there are degrees.

I outlined the three key areas I can see where Hocking’s secondary interest in Geelong could, let’s say, cloud his judgement when making decisions in his role as AFL Football Operations Manager.

1. He is THE major influence on rules changes, and this is especially relevant at this time when we have never seen so many major rule changes in such a short space of time.

2. The umpires answer directly to Hocking.

3. He is THE final decision maker on Match Review Officer decisions.

As discussed throughout the thread, managing 3 is very simple. You remove the person from having to sit in judgement of any case that could have any substantial effect on the club to which they have links. You replace him in these cases only, with an alternative person who is not connected to any club with a stake in the decision. That Geelong have been on the beneficial side of some controversial MRO decisions - Dangerfield GF and Hawkins v May, flags this is an issue to be dealt with - whether one agrees with these actual decisions or not. That nobody on the thread has come up with a good reason to not manage this situation in the way I have suggested(regardless of who is in Hocking’s role or to which club they have connections) tells me there is no good reason not to do so. So that part is very simple.

Dealing with points 1. and 2. on my list above is perhaps not so simple, but this does not mean the issues should not be considered. In an environment where the AFL has an appetite for rule changes, and given Hocking has direct responsibility to both drive and manage these changes, it is obvious he must consult people from clubs in this process. Now both Hocking and Chris Scott are on record as saying they are very close friends. Nobody should need me to join further dots from there. I do not think a person who is very close friends with a contending coach should be the sole driver of the rule change bus. Again, who knows whether Hocking’s decisions in this area have been untowardly subjected to secondary influences. That is not what is required for a conflict to be acted upon. All that is required is that a reasonable perception of a conflict might exist, and in this case it does. My recommendation would be to remove Hocking from this process and locate somebody who is not so close to a current contending coach for the role. Would it be easy to find somebody who is completely unconflicted in football? No. Would it be easy to find someone who has a substantially lesser apparent conflict than Hocking? Yes.

On the umpires, again, somebody with a close and current relationship to a current coach, especially a contending coach, should not be telling the umpires what to do on a weekly or daily basis. As with point 1, the realistic hope is not to find a completely unconflicted person for the role. But it would not be difficult to find somebody who is less apparently conflicted than Hocking.

There is very little culture of dealing appropriately with conflicts of interest in AFL clubs and central administration. I think it is correct to say John Kennedy of Hawthorn in the 70’s stood out of any role where he made decisions that would impact on his son’s career, and rightly so. That is how a sensible and decent person handles a situation like that. A less wise person just says I think I am capable of making the right decisions despite any apparent conflict of interest………twenty odd years later Dennis Pagan didn’t see any need to stand aside when dealing with his own son at North Melbourne and it caused enormous problems for that club, costing them good people.

I hope that answers your question, happy to discuss further.

 

[Crankyhawk]

My answer to that as I have written throughout the thread, is you appoint the best person for the role then manage any conflict of interest they may have.

If you read the thread you will see I have not called for Hocking to to be dismissed from his position.

That he has an APPARENT conflict of interest is obvious. As your question suggests, anyone you appoint who has experience within the game may be apparently conflicted….but there are degrees.

I outlined the three key areas I can see where Hocking’s secondary interest in Geelong could, let’s say, cloud his judgement when making decisions in his role as AFL Football Operations Manager.

1. He is THE major influence on rules changes, and this is especially relevant at this time when we have never seen so many major rule changes in such a short space of time.

2. The umpires answer directly to Hocking.

3. He is THE final decision maker on Match Review Officer decisions.

As discussed throughout the thread, managing 3 is very simple. You remove the person from having to sit in judgement of any case that could have any substantial effect on the club to which they have links. You replace him in these cases only, with an alternative person who is not connected to any club with a stake in the decision. That Geelong have been on the beneficial side of some controversial MRO decisions - Dangerfield GF and Hawkins v May, flags this is an issue to be dealt with - whether one agrees with these actual decisions or not. That nobody on the thread has come up with a good reason to not manage this situation in the way I have suggested(regardless of who is in Hocking’s role or to which club they have connections) tells me there is no good reason not to do so. So that part is very simple.

Dealing with points 1. and 2. on my list above is perhaps not so simple, but this does not mean the issues should not be considered. In an environment where the AFL has an appetite for rule changes, and given Hocking has direct responsibility to both drive and mange these changes, it is obvious he must consult people from clubs in this process. Now both Hocking and Chris Scott are on record as saying they are very close friends. Nobody should need me to join further dots from there. I do not think a person who is very close friends with a contending coach should be the sole driver of the rule change bus. Again, who knows whether Hocking’s decisions in this area have been untowardly subjected to secondary influences. That is not what is required for a conflict to be acted upon. All that is required is that a reasonable perception of a conflict might exist, and in this case it does. My recommendation would be to remove Hocking from this process and locate somebody who is not so close to a current contending coach for the role. Would it be easy to find somebody who is completely unconflicted in football? No. Would it be easy to find someone who has a substantially lesser apparent conflict than Hocking? Yes.

On the umpires, again, somebody with a close and current relationship to a current coach, especially a contending coach, should not be telling the umpires what to do on a weekly or daily basis. As with point 1, the realistic hope is not to find a completely unconflicted person for the role. But it would not be difficult to find somebody who is less apparently conflicted than Hocking.

There is very little culture of dealing appropriately with conflicts of interest in AFL clubs and central administration. I think it is correct to say John Kennedy of Hawthorn in the 70’s stood out of any role where he made decisions that would impact on his son’s career, and rightly so. That is how a sensible and decent person handles a situation like that. A less wise person just says I think I am capable of making the right decisions despite any apparent conflict of interest………twenty odd years later Dennis Pagan didn’t see any need to stand aside when dealing with his own son at North Melbourne and it caused enormous problems for that club, costing them good people.

I hope that answers your question, happy to discuss further.

Yes, it does answer. Agree with managing 3; and would also look to separate the roles held as well (this would be another way to manage apparent conflict)

Re point 1, if a rule change is recommended by the multiperson rules committee, then SHocking approving the change in a timely fashion (as in making the announcement shortly after rules committee decides) would reduce perception of conflict (as in hiding plans and feeding them to geelong first); and any decision where SHocking has gone against the rules committee needs to be made publicly available.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes, it does answer. Agree with managing 3; and would also look to separate the roles held as well (this would be another way to manage apparent conflict)

Re point 1, if a rule change is recommended by the multiperson rules committee, then SHocking approving the change in a timely fashion (as in making the announcement shortly after rules committee decides) would reduce perception of conflict (as in hiding plans and feeding them to geelong first); and any decision where SHocking has gone against the rules committee needs to be made publicly available.

Yes I fully agree. Just get mechanisms in place to remove or reduce any question of conflicts.

 

[Wojcinski]

As discussed throughout the thread, managing 3 is very simple. You remove the person from having to sit in judgement of any case that could have any substantial effect on the club to which they have links. You replace him in these cases only, with an alternative person who is not connected to any club with a stake in the decision. That Geelong have been on the beneficial side of some controversial MRO decisions - Dangerfield GF and Hawkins v May, flags this is an issue to be dealt with - whether one agrees with these actual decisions or not. That nobody on the thread has come up with a good reason to not manage this situation in the way I have suggested(regardless of who is in Hocking’s role or to which club they have connections) tells me there is no good reason not to do so. So that part is very simple.

Dealing with points 1. and 2. on my list above is perhaps not so simple, but this does not mean the issues should not be considered. In an environment where the AFL has an appetite for rule changes, and given Hocking has direct responsibility to both drive and mange these changes, it is obvious he must consult people from clubs in this process. Now both Hocking and Chris Scott are on record as saying they are very close friends. Nobody should need me to join further dots from there. I do not think a person who is very close friends with a contending coach should be the sole driver of the rule change bus. Again, who knows whether Hocking’s decisions in this area have been untowardly subjected to secondary influences. That is not what is required for a conflict to be acted upon. All that is required is that a reasonable perception of a conflict might exist, and in this case it does. My recommendation would be to remove Hocking from this process and locate somebody who is not so close to a current contending coach for the role. Would it be easy to find somebody who is completely unconflicted in football? No. Would it be easy to find someone who has a substantially lesser apparent conflict than Hocking? Yes.

On the umpires, again, somebody with a close and current relationship to a current coach, especially a contending coach, should not be telling the umpires what to do on a weekly or daily basis. As with point 1, the realistic hope is not to find a completely unconflicted person for the role. But it would not be difficult to find somebody who is less apparently conflicted than Hocking.

There is very little culture of dealing appropriately with conflicts of interest in AFL clubs and central administration. I think it is correct to say John Kennedy of Hawthorn in the 70’s stood out of any role where he made decisions that would impact on his son’s career, and rightly so. That is how a sensible and decent person handles a situation like that. A less wise person just says I think I am capable of making the right decisions despite any apparent conflict of interest………twenty odd years later Dennis Pagan didn’t see any need to stand aside when dealing with his own son at North Melbourne and it caused enormous problems for that club, costing them good people.

I hope that answers your question, happy to discuss further.

You still haven't worked out that Michael Christian is the MRO have you? Michael played for Collingwood.

The umpires don't report directly to Hocking. They would first report to the umpires head coach, Michael Jennings. Dan Richardson is head of umpiring who would be the next report above Jennings. Dan was previously the operations manager at Essendon.

No one other than the homophobes from the Tigers board agree with you. Bringing up the Dangerfield and Hawkins incidents really holds no weight, they were both very obviously not suspendable actions and practically everyone with half an idea was aware of it. Just last week Dusty punched Parish hard enough in the mouth for Darcy to bleed, and guess what? No case to answer. Is that AFL corruption as well?

edit: forgot to add the AFLUA would have a fair bit of input on the treatment of umpires from the high level football operations boss if it was in fact some weird, tin foil hat consiparcy like you seem to think

 

[CatToTheFuture]

My answer to that as I have written throughout the thread, is you appoint the best person for the role then manage any conflict of interest they may have.

If you read the thread you will see I have not called for Hocking to to be dismissed from his position.

That he has an APPARENT conflict of interest is obvious. As your question suggests, anyone you appoint who has experience within the game may be apparently conflicted….but there are degrees.

I outlined the three key areas I can see where Hocking’s secondary interest in Geelong could, let’s say, cloud his judgement when making decisions in his role as AFL Football Operations Manager.

1. He is THE major influence on rules changes, and this is especially relevant at this time when we have never seen so many major rule changes in such a short space of time.

2. The umpires answer directly to Hocking.

3. He is THE final decision maker on Match Review Officer decisions.

As discussed throughout the thread, managing 3 is very simple. You remove the person from having to sit in judgement of any case that could have any substantial effect on the club to which they have links. You replace him in these cases only, with an alternative person who is not connected to any club with a stake in the decision. That Geelong have been on the beneficial side of some controversial MRO decisions - Dangerfield GF and Hawkins v May, flags this is an issue to be dealt with - whether one agrees with these actual decisions or not. That nobody on the thread has come up with a good reason to not manage this situation in the way I have suggested(regardless of who is in Hocking’s role or to which club they have connections) tells me there is no good reason not to do so. So that part is very simple.

Dealing with points 1. and 2. on my list above is perhaps not so simple, but this does not mean the issues should not be considered. In an environment where the AFL has an appetite for rule changes, and given Hocking has direct responsibility to both drive and mange these changes, it is obvious he must consult people from clubs in this process. Now both Hocking and Chris Scott are on record as saying they are very close friends. Nobody should need me to join further dots from there. I do not think a person who is very close friends with a contending coach should be the sole driver of the rule change bus. Again, who knows whether Hocking’s decisions in this area have been untowardly subjected to secondary influences. That is not what is required for a conflict to be acted upon. All that is required is that a reasonable perception of a conflict might exist, and in this case it does. My recommendation would be to remove Hocking from this process and locate somebody who is not so close to a current contending coach for the role. Would it be easy to find somebody who is completely unconflicted in football? No. Would it be easy to find someone who has a substantially lesser apparent conflict than Hocking? Yes.

On the umpires, again, somebody with a close and current relationship to a current coach, especially a contending coach, should not be telling the umpires what to do on a weekly or daily basis. As with point 1, the realistic hope is not to find a completely unconflicted person for the role. But it would not be difficult to find somebody who is less apparently conflicted than Hocking.

There is very little culture of dealing appropriately with conflicts of interest in AFL clubs and central administration. I think it is correct to say John Kennedy of Hawthorn in the 70’s stood out of any role where he made decisions that would impact on his son’s career, and rightly so. That is how a sensible and decent person handles a situation like that. A less wise person just says I think I am capable of making the right decisions despite any apparent conflict of interest………twenty odd years later Dennis Pagan didn’t see any need to stand aside when dealing with his own son at North Melbourne and it caused enormous problems for that club, costing them good people.

I hope that answers your question, happy to discuss further.

Your points are as interesting as they are completely irrelevant.

1. You assume there is nothing already in place to manage any real or perceived conflict of interest

2. You've presented no cases that even remotely imply that any pro-geelong outcomes have occurred with match review other than the laughable references to Dangerfield punching a ball and Hawkins falling backwards

3. You're implying that rule changes adding pace to the game are disadvantaging a side that thrives on pace and advantaging a side whose whole strategy for 3 years has been to take pace off the game. You're completely ignoring that the same changes have forced Geelong to switch their whole method of ball movement. You're also ignoring the impact of longer games and interchange caps on the oldest team ever fielded. If there was some conspiracy to help Geelong, why is it not helping Geelong?

You've taken a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial idea, that there should be mechanisms in place to manage real or perceived conflicts of interest, and then appended a bunch of nonsense to create some persecution complex.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You still haven't worked out that Michael Christian is the MRO have you? Michael played for Collingwood.

The umpires don't report directly to Hocking. They would first report to the umpires head coach, Michael Jennings. Dan Richardson is head of umpiring who would be the next report above Jennings. Dan was previously the operations manager at Essendon.

No one other than the homophobes from the Tigers board agree with you. Bringing up the Dangerfield and Hawkins incidents really holds no weight, they were both very obviously not suspendable actions and practically everyone with half an idea was aware of it. Just last week Dusty punched Parish hard enough in the mouth for Darcy to bleed, and guess what? No case to answer. Is that AFL corruption as well?

edit: forgot to add the AFLUA would have a fair bit of input on the treatment of umpires from the high level football operations boss if it was in fact some weird, tin foil hat consiparcy like you seem to think

Gets hard to read past the first line of your post when it denies the verifiable fact that every single MRO decision is signed off on by S Hocking. So any given MRO decision has to suit Hocking but we have no certainty that any individual decision is in line with Christian’s judgement. Therefore, in that structure, Hocking IS effectively the MRO. That simple reasoning should not be beyond you Wojcinski.

Re the umps, my understanding is there is constant intervention from Hocking. Dan Richardson doesn’t just decide for himself he doesn’t like the look of the game after round 3 and therefore start changing HTB interpretations. Hocking is the person with the greatest influence over things of that nature.

Because you think certain incidents are not suspendable doesn’t mean they are not controversial. Controversy occurs where there is divided opinion. As in these cases. The Dangerfield incident you only had to listen to the instant commentary to know there were alternative views out there. Hawkins I have read and heard several people of the view that should have been tested at the Tribunal as well. You can’t just wave a magic Hocking wand and say despite all these idiots disagreeing with my point of view the matter is not controversial. That is what controversy literally is, opposing points of view, disagreement.

I am however reassured by the fact this thread is still hitting a raw nerve with Cats supporters.

 

[Wojcinski]

Gets hard to read past the first line of your post when it denies the verifiable fact that every single MRO decision is signed off on by S Hocking. So any given MRO decision has to suit Hocking but we have no certainty that any individual decision is in line with Christian’s judgement. Therefore, in that structure, Hocking IS effectively the MRO. That simple reasoning should not be beyond you Wojcinski.

Re the umps, my understanding is there is constant intervention from Hocking. Dan Richardson doesn’t just decide for himself he doesn’t like the look of the game after round 3 and therefore start changing HTB interpretations. Hocking is the person with the greatest influence over things of that nature.

Because you think certain incidents are not suspendable doesn’t mean they are not controversial. Controversy occurs where there is divided opinion. As in these cases. The Dangerfield incident you only had to listen to the instant commentary to know there were alternative views out there. Hawkins I have read and heard several eople of the view that should have been tested at the Tribunal as well. You can’t just wave a magic Hocking wand and say despite all these idiots disagreeing with my point of view the matter is not controversial. That is what controversy literally is, opposing points of view, disagreement.

I am however reassured by the fact this thread is still hitting a raw nerve with Cats supporters.

haha nah I just wanted to put a full stop on it all because I clearly know a lot more than you do. You just lie while I bring facts

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Your points are as interesting as they are completely irrelevant.

1. You assume there is nothing already in place to manage any real or perceived conflict of interest

2. You've presented no cases that even remotely imply that any pro-geelong outcomes have occurred with match review other than the laughable references to Dangerfield punching a ball and Hawkins falling backwards

3. You're implying that rule changes adding pace to the game are disadvantaging a side that thrives on pace and advantaging a side whose whole strategy for 3 years has been to take pace off the game. You're completely ignoring that the same changes have forced Geelong to switch their whole method of ball movement. You're also ignoring the impact of longer games and interchange caps on the oldest team ever fielded. If there was some conspiracy to help Geelong, why is it not helping Geelong?

You've taken a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial idea, that there should be mechanisms in place to manage real or perceived conflicts of interest, and then appended a bunch of nonsense to create some persecution complex.

Correct in regard to Hocking, because there is no suggestion of anything being in place to deal with his conflicted positions as outlined on this thread. So until we hear otherwise there is nothing else BUT to assume there is nothing in place to deal with his conflict of interest.

Dangerfield punching the ball and Hawkins falling backwards? = one player knocked unconscious in a sickening incident and another player having his eye socket fractured is another sickening incident. Now you may think these incidents were not reportable and I can accept some people could hold that position. But some of us think those two should have been sent to the Tribunal for a proper hearing given the shocking injuries and there was no good reason not to do that. That the matters were terminated "no action” by Hocking is the very thing I am saying should be avoided. It matters not whether the players were guilty, innocent or otherwise. For the record I think both should have been suspended, and I know that I am not alone in that view. But again, if it goes to the Tribunal and they are not suspended, and the reasons are explained, I have no trouble with the Governance around it, despite maybe disagreeing with the decisions themselves. This thread is not about whether individual decisions are correct or not. It is about handling conflicts of interest appropriately.

Your third reads like a straw man argument to me. The potential exists for a coach of one team to influence rules unduly due to his close relationship with the person who is the greatest single influence on which rule changes are adopted. After that it doesn’t matter what you or I think of which team is advantaged or otherwise. Just remove the conflicted party from having a direct influence on rule changes please. That is the main thing.

If you also want to have a debate as to whether these rule changes suit Geelong or Richmond more fine, but we will be here forever going around in circles and I doubt it would make for good reading.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Gets hard to read past the first line of your post when it denies the verifiable fact that every single MRO decision is signed off on by S Hocking. So any given MRO decision has to suit Hocking but we have no certainty that any individual decision is in line with Christian’s judgement. Therefore, in that structure, Hocking IS effectively the MRO. That simple reasoning should not be beyond you Wojcinski.

Re the umps, my understanding is there is constant intervention from Hocking. Dan Richardson doesn’t just decide for himself he doesn’t like the look of the game after round 3 and therefore start changing HTB interpretations. Hocking is the person with the greatest influence over things of that nature.

Because you think certain incidents are not suspendable doesn’t mean they are not controversial. Controversy occurs where there is divided opinion. As in these cases. The Dangerfield incident you only had to listen to the instant commentary to know there were alternative views out there. Hawkins I have read and heard several eople of the view that should have been tested at the Tribunal as well. You can’t just wave a magic Hocking wand and say despite all these idiots disagreeing with my point of view the matter is not controversial. That is what controversy literally is, opposing points of view, disagreement.

I am however reassured by the fact this thread is still hitting a raw nerve with Cats supporters.

It gets pretty hard to read your posts about your conspiracy theory when you can't cite any actual MRP outcome that lends it any credibility whatsoever.

It's literally a thought bubble based on nothing

 

[Wojcinski]

Correct in regard to Hocking, because there is no suggestion of anything being in place to deal with his conflicted positions as outlined on this thread. So until we hear otherwise there is nothing else BUT to assume there is nothing in place to deal with his conflict of interest.

Dangerfield punching the ball and Hawkins falling backwards? = one player knocked unconscious in a sickening incident and another player having his eye socket fractured is another sickening incident. Now you may think these incidents were not reportable and I can accept some people could hold that position. But some of us think those two should have been sent to the Tribunal for a proper hearing given the shocking injuries and there was no good reason not to do that. That the matters were terminated "no action” by Hocking is the very thing I am saying should be avoided. It matters not whether the players were guilty, innocent or otherwise. For the record I think both should have been suspended, and I am know that I am not alone in that view. But again, if it goes to the Tribunal and they are not suspended, and the reasons are explained, I have no trouble with the Governance around it, despite maybe disagreeing with the decisions themselves. This thread is not about whether individual decisions are correct or not. It is about handling conflicts of interest appropriately.

Your third reads like a straw man argument to me. The potential exists for a coach of one team to influence rules unduly due to his close relationship with the person who is the greatest single influence on which rule changes are adopted. After that it doesn’t matter what you or I think of which team is advantaged or otherwise. Just remove he conflicted party from having a direct influence on rule changes please. That is the main thing.

If you also want to have a debate as to whether these rule changes suit Geelong or Richmond more fine, but we will be here forever going around in circles and I doubt it would make for good reading.

LOL, have ever read any of your own posts in this thread?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It gets pretty hard to read your posts about your conspiracy theory when you can't cite any actual MRP outcome that lends it any credibility whatsoever.

It's literally a thought bubble based on nothing

You are struggling here Cat, because you seem to think that dealing with a conflict of interest requires evidence of biased decision making. It doesn't.

My position is not a conspiracy theory. It is an observation about an unsound Governance structure, made unsound because the central person has a clear conflict of interest.

I can add lots of conspiracy theory to it if you like. But that is not fodder for this thread.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

LOL, have ever read any of your own posts in this thread?

Tell me more.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Correct in regard to Hocking, because there is no suggestion of anything being in place to deal with his conflicted positions as outlined on this thread. So until we hear otherwise there is nothing else BUT to assume there is nothing in place to deal with his conflict of interest.

Dangerfield punching the ball and Hawkins falling backwards? = one player knocked unconscious in a sickening incident and another player having his eye socket fractured is another sickening incident. Now you may think these incidents were not reportable and I can accept some people could hold that position. But some of us think those two should have been sent to the Tribunal for a proper hearing given the shocking injuries and there was no good reason not to do that. That the matters were terminated "no action” by Hocking is the very thing I am saying should be avoided. It matters not whether the players were guilty, innocent or otherwise. For the record I think both should have been suspended, and I am know that I am not alone in that view. But again, if it goes to the Tribunal and they are not suspended, and the reasons are explained, I have no trouble with the Governance around it, despite maybe disagreeing with the decisions themselves. This thread is not about whether individual decisions are correct or not. It is about handling conflicts of interest appropriately.

Your third reads like a straw man argument to me. The potential exists for a coach of one team to influence rules unduly due to his close relationship with the person who is the greatest single influence on which rule changes are adopted. After that it doesn’t matter what you or I think of which team is advantaged or otherwise. Just remove he conflicted party from having a direct influence on rule changes please. That is the main thing.

If you also want to have a debate as to whether these rule changes suit Geelong or Richmond more fine, but we will be here forever going around in circles and I doubt it would make for good reading.

My point is you're arguing about something that you think could potentially happen because of something you admittedly don't know. The only evidence we could use is real world outcomes that clearly haven't occurred.

The idea that either Dangerfield or Hawkins should have been cited is wildly outlandish, especially for Hawkins. It's just the silliest thing I've heard in regards to footy maybe ever.

IRT to any conflict of interest measures being made public, your assumption is illogical. Almost all large organisations have these, they don't wheel them out publicly unless there's a court case on. Your burden of evidence is pointed the wrong way. It's like saying that a new car doesn't have seat belts installed because you personally haven't sat in one and checked.

You're also correct that I can sit here all day talking about how the rules changes have disadvantaged Geelong's 2020 style game play just as much as Richmond's and I will if asked to because I'm correct.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You are struggling here Cat, because you seem to think that dealing with a conflict of interest requires evidence of biased decision making. It doesn't.

My position is not a conspiracy theory. It is an observation about an unsound Governance structure, made unsound because the central person has a clear conflict of interest.

I can add lots of conspiracy theory to it if you like. But that is not fodder for this thread.

You have exactly no evidence of an unsound governance structure. Please provide

 

[Meteoric Rise]

My point is you're arguing about something that you think could potentially happen because of something you admittedly don't know. The only evidence we could use is real world outcomes that clearly haven't occurred.

The idea that either Dangerfield or Hawkins should have been cited is wildly outlandish, especially for Hawkins. It's just the silliest thing I've heard in regards to footy maybe ever.

IRT to any conflict of interest measures being made public, your assumption is illogical. Almost all large organisations have these, they don't wheel them out publicly unless there's a court case on. Your burden of evidence is pointed the wrong way. It's like saying that a new car doesn't have seat belts installed because you personally haven't sat in one and checked.

You're also correct that I can sit here all day talking about how the rules changes have disadvantaged Geelong's 2020 style game play just as much as Richmond's and I will if asked to because I'm correct.

So is your point here tantamount to admitting that if Hocking does indeed sign off on Geelong MRO cases etc that this should not be the case? Nobody would be happier than me to learn the AFL has mechanisms to deal effectively with this. My contention is that to effectively deal with it in MRO cases Hocking should not be part of any decision that has an impact on a Geelong player, or up coming game or could in any other way be thought to affect Geelong’s prospects. Do you agree with that contention or not?

The fact that I don’t know for certain the sun rose in Japan yesterday because I din’t see it with my own eyes(or that I do not know as an absolute certainty that Hocking does not indeed step aside from MRO decisions affecting Geleong) has no bearing on whether my main contention is correct. That is a total blue and white hooped herring if ever I have seen one Cat.

 

[Seeds]

My answer to that as I have written throughout the thread, is you appoint the best person for the role then manage any conflict of interest they may have.

If you read the thread you will see I have not called for Hocking to to be dismissed from his position.

That he has an APPARENT conflict of interest is obvious. As your question suggests, anyone you appoint who has experience within the game may be apparently conflicted….but there are degrees.

I outlined the three key areas I can see where Hocking’s secondary interest in Geelong could, let’s say, cloud his judgement when making decisions in his role as AFL Football Operations Manager.

1. He is THE major influence on rules changes, and this is especially relevant at this time when we have never seen so many major rule changes in such a short space of time.

2. The umpires answer directly to Hocking.

3. He is THE final decision maker on Match Review Officer decisions.

As discussed throughout the thread, managing 3 is very simple. You remove the person from having to sit in judgement of any case that could have any substantial effect on the club to which they have links. You replace him in these cases only, with an alternative person who is not connected to any club with a stake in the decision. That Geelong have been on the beneficial side of some controversial MRO decisions - Dangerfield GF and Hawkins v May, flags this is an issue to be dealt with - whether one agrees with these actual decisions or not. That nobody on the thread has come up with a good reason to not manage this situation in the way I have suggested(regardless of who is in Hocking’s role or to which club they have connections) tells me there is no good reason not to do so. So that part is very simple.

Dealing with points 1. and 2. on my list above is perhaps not so simple, but this does not mean the issues should not be considered. In an environment where the AFL has an appetite for rule changes, and given Hocking has direct responsibility to both drive and mange these changes, it is obvious he must consult people from clubs in this process. Now both Hocking and Chris Scott are on record as saying they are very close friends. Nobody should need me to join further dots from there. I do not think a person who is very close friends with a contending coach should be the sole driver of the rule change bus. Again, who knows whether Hocking’s decisions in this area have been untowardly subjected to secondary influences. That is not what is required for a conflict to be acted upon. All that is required is that a reasonable perception of a conflict might exist, and in this case it does. My recommendation would be to remove Hocking from this process and locate somebody who is not so close to a current contending coach for the role. Would it be easy to find somebody who is completely unconflicted in football? No. Would it be easy to find someone who has a substantially lesser apparent conflict than Hocking? Yes.

On the umpires, again, somebody with a close and current relationship to a current coach, especially a contending coach, should not be telling the umpires what to do on a weekly or daily basis. As with point 1, the realistic hope is not to find a completely unconflicted person for the role. But it would not be difficult to find somebody who is less apparently conflicted than Hocking.

There is very little culture of dealing appropriately with conflicts of interest in AFL clubs and central administration. I think it is correct to say John Kennedy of Hawthorn in the 70’s stood out of any role where he made decisions that would impact on his son’s career, and rightly so. That is how a sensible and decent person handles a situation like that. A less wise person just says I think I am capable of making the right decisions despite any apparent conflict of interest………twenty odd years later Dennis Pagan didn’t see any need to stand aside when dealing with his own son at North Melbourne and it caused enormous problems for that club, costing them good people.

I hope that answers your question, happy to discuss further.

So what role do you want hocking to have?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So what role do you want hocking to have?

Geelong CEO please.