Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

Remove this Banner Ad

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,628
10,357
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
This is ridiculous. When asked for evidence of Hocking using any perceived power to affect an outcome you gave an example that proved he doesn't. You need to sit down for a while.
"Mackay was found not guilty of rough conduct for his collision with St Kilda's Hunter Clark on Thursday night, with AFL operations boss Steve Hocking defending the league’s decision to overrule the MRO and refer the incident to the Tribunal.

The AFL said a three-week suspension was “appropriate” after Mackay “carelessly engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances”.”


It was known and reported long before Jeff Gleeson appeared to present the AFL’s case at the Tribunal that the AFL would be arguing for a 3 week suspension. I have never heard Gleeson being quoted in advance of Tribunal cases saying what he is going to be arguing for. This sort of stuff is told to the media by Hocking.

I have highlighted the two places in the above report the AFL or “the league” is referred to. In each case what is meant when this is mentioned is clearly "Steve Hocking.”

So get back in your cage. You are making a fool of yourself and putrifying a thread that was correct all along.
 

CatToTheFuture

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
10,712
16,227
AFL Club
Geelong
"Mackay was found not guilty of rough conduct for his collision with St Kilda's Hunter Clark on Thursday night, with AFL operations boss Steve Hocking defending the league’s decision to overrule the MRO and refer the incident to the Tribunal.

The AFL said a three-week suspension was “appropriate” after Mackay “carelessly engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances”.”


It was known and reported long before Jeff Gleeson appeared to present the AFL’s case at the Tribunal that the AFL would be arguing for a 3 week suspension. I have never heard Gleeson being quoted in advance of Tribunal cases saying what he is going to be arguing for. This sort of stuff is told to the media by Hocking.

I have highlighted the two places in the above report the AFL or “the league” is referred to. In each case what is meant when this is mentioned is clearly "Steve Hocking.”

So get back in your cage. You are making a fool of yourself and putrifying a thread that was correct all along.
Me? Stop citing cases that show that Hocking doesn't control the tribunal to prove that he does
 

Log in to remove this ad.

CatToTheFuture

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
10,712
16,227
AFL Club
Geelong
You are falling further and further from disgrace with each passing post.

Where have I written anything to even infer Hocking controls the Tribunal?
If he doesnt control the Tribunal then where exactly is his supposed conflict of interest then? MRO sanctions are an offer to avoid Tribunal and non-binding.

You've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread without providing a single credible example of this supposed conflict of interest being used in any way to benefit Geelong.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,628
10,357
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
If he doesnt control the Tribunal then where exactly is his supposed conflict of interest then? MRO sanctions are an offer to avoid Tribunal and non-binding.

You've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread without providing a single credible example of this supposed conflict of interest being used in any way to benefit Geelong.
Read the thread without your one lense GeelongFC/one lense Hocklodyte glasses on.

ANY decision he makes in his MRO position is capable of being for or against the interests of individual clubs. This includes inter alia:

- sanctioning players with fines or suspensions though there is some safeguard here in place in that players can effectively appeal to the tribunal, see: Williams case v Stewart case

- finding players have no case to answer, against which there is zero safeguard, because the only person who is in a position to overturn or appeal that decision is Hocking himself, see Dangerfield on Vlastuin, Hawkins, Duncan, Stanley cases.

- instructing AFL Tribunal Advocate Jeff Gleeson as to how many weeks suspension the AFL wishes to argue for in Tribunal cases. This effectively places a cap on the amount of weeks a player will be suspended for by the Tribunal, see: Dangerfield on Kelly case. Compare and contrast with David MacKay case, where Hocking instructed Gleeson to argue for the same penalty in both, one involving a Crows player completely fairly contesting the ball, the other involving an absolute mess of a deliberate off the ball bump by Dangerfield.

It would be fairer to say you have spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread without adding anything of value to it. 😁
 

beema limapep

67, 69, 73, 74, 80, 17, 19, 20
Oct 29, 2017
9,520
17,196
AFL Club
Richmond
Geelong fans defending the indefensible

But what else can you expect from a club whose only premierships in the past 60 years just so happened to coincide with the disgraced sports scientist, Dean "The Weapon" Robinson working behind the scenes as their Strength & Conditioning coach (in daily phone contact & comparing notes with best mate, Steve Danks who was busy pumping the Manly Sea Eagles full of PEDs)

They're a cheating club with a cheat ground which was rebuilt with taxpayer dollars thanks to dodgy handouts from Geelong's no.1 ticket-holder and Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks
3 Flags in 57 years. Almost as hilarious as Collingwoods 2 in 62 🤣. At least Collingwoods were clean.
 

Back One Out

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 2, 2015
16,563
28,557
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If he doesnt control the Tribunal then where exactly is his supposed conflict of interest then? MRO sanctions are an offer to avoid Tribunal and non-binding.

You've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread without providing a single credible example of this supposed conflict of interest being used in any way to benefit Geelong.


What about the latest instance of Joel Selwood eye-gouging which he was charged for "Misconduct" but only received a small fine?

Selwood also received a fine for stomping on Taylor Duryea's shin in the same game. James Sicily received a 1 match ban for stepping on Shaun Atley's leg a couple of years ago. But the difference is the Hawks don't have Dermott Brereton working for the AFL and fixing things so our blokes get away with their dirty transgressions.



It's not as though Selwood doesn't have prior form for eye-gouging either...














Watch these two similar incidents from the same round and have a guess who was fined and who was suspended for 1 match.

 
Last edited:

beema limapep

67, 69, 73, 74, 80, 17, 19, 20
Oct 29, 2017
9,520
17,196
AFL Club
Richmond
So i am assuming that he withdrew himself from any AFL decisions that impacted Geelong while he was going through the process
Lets see. It was first reported on 5 February 2021 that Cook decided he was going to step down. Recruitment for the position was imminent since then.

Now, there havent been any rule changes introduced prior to the season around the same time or after has there?

And definitely no sitting on Geelongs bench?
 
Last edited:

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,628
10,357
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond


What about the latest instance Joel Selwood eye-gouging which he was charged for "Misconduct" but only received a small fine?

Selwood also received a fine for stomping on Taylor Duryea's shin in the same game. James Sicily received a 1 match ban for stepping on Shaun Atley's leg a couple of years ago. But the difference is the Hawks don't have Dermott Brereton working for the AFL and fixing things so our blokes get away with their dirty transgressions.



It's not as though Selwood doesn't have prior form for eye-gouging either...














Watch these two similar incidents from the same round and have a guess who was fined and who was suspended for 1 match.

But but but one was wrestling Back One Out. 😱
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Defibrillate

Senior List
Sep 7, 2014
245
1,567
AFL Club
Richmond
You may be joking - but it is really bad optics for the AFL.

In his new role Hocking will have knowledge of player contracts across the AFL, clubs’ salary cap space and difficulties, future directions of rule changes impacting on recruiting, a hotline to Gil and all sorts of confidential knowledge he could leverage.

So typical of the AFL.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,628
10,357
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
You may be joking - but it is really bad optics for the AFL.

In his new role Hocking will have knowledge of player contracts across the AFL, clubs’ salary cap space and difficulties, future directions of rule changes impacting on recruiting, a hotline to Gil and all sorts of confidential knowledge he could leverage.

So typical of the AFL.
Well isn’t that funny? The last man to vacate this very role(because he couldn’t keep his hands off female staff members,) Simon Lethlean, headed to the Saints, presumably armed with all this sort of knowledge. Next minute….Howard, Ryder, Hill, Jones, Butler all into the Saints from other clubs. 😱
 

beema limapep

67, 69, 73, 74, 80, 17, 19, 20
Oct 29, 2017
9,520
17,196
AFL Club
Richmond


What about the latest instance Joel Selwood eye-gouging which he was charged for "Misconduct" but only received a small fine?

Selwood also received a fine for stomping on Taylor Duryea's shin in the same game. James Sicily received a 1 match ban for stepping on Shaun Atley's leg a couple of years ago. But the difference is the Hawks don't have Dermott Brereton working for the AFL and fixing things so our blokes get away with their dirty transgressions.



It's not as though Selwood doesn't have prior form for eye-gouging either...














Watch these two similar incidents from the same round and have a guess who was fined and who was suspended for 1 match.

Did the same thing to Baker in the 2020 GF. Danger too with the KO on Vlastuin.

But alls well that ends well, right? Oh wait a minute
giphy (31).gif
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,999
22,081
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
You are falling further and further from disgrace with each passing post.

Where have I written anything to even infer Hocking controls the Tribunal?
Umm, here... "The Tribunal is effectively limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for. Who decides what the AFL argues for? You guessed it, Steven Hocking."

By the way, you imply, we infer...
 

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
6,803
5,989
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Geelong fans defending the indefensible

But what else can you expect from a club whose only premierships in the past 60 years just so happened to coincide with the disgraced sports scientist, Dean "The Weapon" Robinson working behind the scenes as their Strength & Conditioning coach (in daily phone contact & comparing notes with best mate, Steve Danks who was busy pumping the Manly Sea Eagles full of PEDs)

They're a cheating club with a cheat ground which was rebuilt with taxpayer dollars thanks to dodgy handouts from Geelong's no.1 ticket-holder and Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks
You better start handing back all your flags from the 80s.
Your conspiracy theories vs facts hawks cheated back than, thanks for letting us know what we already knew Don Scott. Plus zones not moving around like they were meant to.
Your club is built on cheating, move along hypocrite.

Should get another injunction so we can’t discuss your drug cheating club when you ‘won’ all the other flags.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,628
10,357
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Umm, here... "The Tribunal is effectively limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for. Who decides what the AFL argues for? You guessed it, Steven Hocking."

By the way, you imply, we infer...
How does that statement I made equate to me saying Hocking controls the Tribunal?

What I am actually saying is it is available to him in his MRO related role to influence the maximum penalties the Tribunal would hand down in cases he refers.

This ability for him to influence penalties is built into the system and used appropriately would not be a problem. Appropriate use IMO would be arguing for the maximum penalty in each case and letting the adversarial nature of proceedings steer the penalty to the right level.

By the way, have you and CatToTheFuture ever been seen in the same room together? 🤨
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,999
22,081
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
How does that statement I made equate to me saying Hocking controls the Tribunal?

What I am actually saying is it is available to him in his MRO related role to influence the maximum penalties the Tribunal would hand down in cases he refers.

This ability for him to influence penalties is built into the system and used appropriately would not be a problem. Appropriate use IMO would be arguing for the maximum penalty in each case and letting the adversarial nature of proceedings steer the penalty to the right level.

By the way, have you and CatToTheFuture ever been seen in the same room together? 🤨
I inferred that from your statement, “Who decides what the AFL argues for? You guessed it, Steven Hocking”.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad