The Bock Desicion

[CoggaRules]

How ****ing ridiculous.

The dude said to family and friends that he was going to play up forward.
And the AFL in all their stupid wisdom, say that he divulged "inside information".

So that means, that every player in the comp, cant say anything to anyone each week, about anything to do with the team they play in. Because according to the AFL, its "inside info".

Lets take Miller for example, would Pia not have the inside info on what his upcoming role will be?

What a ****ing joke.

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

How much did his family out lay on the bet again?

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Lets take Miller for example, would Pia not have the inside info on what his upcoming role will be?

Have you given Pia inside info Cogga?

This is why I think players like Griggs have an advantage in regards to family and friends knowledge. Everyone knows where his preferred position is.

 

[CoggaRules]

How much did his family out lay on the bet again?

it matters JS on what they outlayed, someone else could have kicked the first goal, it was a gamble they took.

Had he said to them, hey i am playing up forward and its all set, the opponents will sit back and let me kick the first goal..then yes the INTEGRITY of the game is compromised. But to suggest he went home and said to his family that hey i am playing up forward and they thought ok lets have a bet at 100-1 on him getting the first, is compromising the integrity of the game, when the only losers are the bookies and to an extent other GAMBLERS, is totally ****ing ridiculous.

Its no different to a horse trainer having a horse trial in the bush under the cover of darkness and executing a plunge on race day, by stable connections and owners etc, that might get up or might not.....what the AFL are suggesting is that the horse trainer, fixed the race as well.

 

[peejay]

Lets take Miller for example, would Pia not have the inside info on what his upcoming role will be?

Hmm would that mean he would have to lay off to cover her ?

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

it matters JS on what they outlayed, someone else could have kicked the first goal, it was a gamble they took.

Cogga thats your opinion but I disagree, Bock has played the majority of his career down back and the one game he plays forward his family decide to outlay some money in the chance that he kicks the first goal.

To the average punter why should his family get inside info that he will be playing forward? Why should his family get juicy odds on Bock being the first goal kicker ...

I think its a good call by the AFL nail it on the head before the rules are bent further. The Bock family & friends got greedy no matter how innocent it was initially.

 

[CoggaRules]

Cogga thats your opinion but I disagree, Bock has played the majority of his career down back and the one game he plays forward his family decide to outlay some money in the chance that he kicks the first goal.

To the average punter why should his family get inside info that he will be playing forward? Why should his family get juicy odds on Bock being the first goal kicker ...

I think its a good call by the AFL nail it on the head before the rules are bent further. The Bock family & friends got greedy no matter how innocent it was initially.

Its a shit call dude, with all due respect. As you said the family outlaid some money on the CHANCE. The chance was at 100-1 and it paid off.
To the average punter the info his family had is because they were close to him. To the average punter at the track, the info the connections have is no different. The connections would step into the bookies the odds would plummet and if the average punter thought, hey something is happening here i will jump on or stuff it i like this other nag.
Its a gamble dude, it wasnt a fixed race.
This integrity shit is a glaring example of the AFL being completely shitful in their knee jerk reactions. The bookies lost, or did they? The average punter was in no way blocked out from backing him, if they thought something was going down...
So if I were the players union I would defend this in a supreme court and put them back in their ****ing spot.

yeah bock came out immediately and said shit to the powers that be, purely because he shat himself knowing the way Vlad operates. But if i were him I would take Vlad to the cleaners in court for defamation of character, because Bocks integrity is compromised because he just happened to tell mum, dad, best fried x, cousin it, etc that hey I am playing in the FL next week.

Ok, so from now on, if player x is having a quiet one on a Wednesday night somewhere and you just happen to hear him suggest the coach is playing him on the ball this week. That player is immediately comprimising the integrity of the comp, yeah? ****ing pure BS desicion

 

[TOOs_Finest]

I pretty much agree with Cogga here. What they are NOT doing here is judging each case on its own merits. Instead they are punishing someone for a questionable minute indiscretion just to try and avoid the mole hill from turning into a mountain down the track.

No doubt Judd will be in the papers every other day after Xmas in the countdown to see whether or not he plays in Rd 1. What if a rookie is told on the weekend before the game that he'll be playing (in Judd's place, but without the club letting on) and he goes and tells his family/friends he is playing his first game. That info is then used by his family/friends to load up on Richmond "in the chance" that a Judd-less Carlton get their arse's whipped.

So many things wrong with this stupid system. The AFL believes it needs to have a relationship with the betting companies to keep things under control. Yet stupid issues like this keep cropping up. As far as I am concerned, unless a player themselves is actually proven to be benefiting from the bet, it should be ignored.

 

[deliberate!!]

I thought someone said it was $40k. Is that right?

If that's the case, as a scenario it would be fine in the future for anyone to approach their Coach and say, "Whack me in the goalsquare for the first 10 mins, and tell the team everything has to come through me" Bingo. I'll give you a sling. The odds are then only 50/50. The opposition kicking a goal. Or me. Let's put a whack on me kicking the first. We've narrowed down the odds.

That's what the AFL is trying to stop...the bigger scam down the track.

And if you allow the smaller incidents to go unchecked, one day in the future you will find a big scam being pulled. It's been done in other sports. Why would we be immune?

 

[Starburns_]

How ****ing ridiculous.

The dude said to family and friends that he was going to play up forward.
And the AFL in all their stupid wisdom, say that he divulged "inside information".

So that means, that every player in the comp, cant say anything to anyone each week, about anything to do with the team they play in. Because according to the AFL, its "inside info".

Lets take Miller for example, would Pia not have the inside info on what his upcoming role will be?

What a ****ing joke.

This has to be close to the stupidest post I've read on BF.

Bock telling his family where he is playing is the definition of "inside information". Most player's families or partners would know such inside information, the difference is, none of them are stupid enough to abuse the position of trust that they are put in for their own gain. Bock's family owe him big time after this.

 

[CoggaRules]

I thought someone said it was $40k. Is that right?

If that's the case, as a scenario it would be fine in the future for anyone to approach their Coach and say, "Whack me in the goalsquare for the first 10 mins, and tell the team everything has to come through me" Bingo. I'll give you a sling. The odds are then only 50/50. The opposition kicking a goal. Or me. Let's put a whack on me kicking the first. We've narrowed down the odds.

That's what the AFL is trying to stop...the bigger scam down the track.

And if you allow the smaller incidents to go unchecked, one day in the future you will find a big scam being pulled. It's been done in other sports. Why would we be immune?

It would be COMPROMISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GAME if - someone said "Whack me in the goalsquare for the first 10 mins, and tell the team everything has to come through me" Bingo. I'll give you a sling. The odds are then only 50/50. The opposition kicking a goal. Or me. Let's put a whack on me kicking the first. We've narrowed down the odds.

The AFL has stopped JS. If the above was going to happen, they would know JacK SHit, because it would be that planned they wouldnt be fining someone 10gs because they told their family fool...

 

[CoggaRules]

This has to be close to the stupidest post I've read on BF.

Bock telling his family where he is playing is the definition of "inside information". Most player's families or partners would know such inside information, the difference is, none of them are stupid enough to abuse the position of trust that they are put in for their own gain. Bock's family owe him big time after this.

piss off simpleton, they took a big punt at 100 to 1 that now that he was playing in the FL he MIGHT KICK THE GOAL. The bookies have info coming out of their arses, its not the family's nor Bocks fault they didnt have that info...they did what 99.9% of people would at odds of 100-1 you dip stick. I bet you would sit back and think naa 100-1? naa i wont whack a 100 on it..it all adds up, and 40gs marched out..the bookies were burnt and now they are ****ing crying, because they what? got caught out? BIG ****ING DEAL, thats the nature of the beast.

Where trhe AFL ****s up is that just like a trainer of horses has to now tell the stewards if a horse will be ridden with different tactics and they announce it to all and sundry, so everyone knows, so to should a club publish anything that is going to be different, in terms of betting. i.e. player x was playing in defence, will start this week in FL. THat is why Vlad and the other keystone cops are a bunch of **** wits who run this comp like a bunch of ex -footballers.

Its in no way Bock's fault the powers that be dont know what the **** they are doing..all they do is bend players over, pay them peanuts and collect the media rights, bend the figures, **** up GF celebrations, year after year, make ridiculous judgements, have a tribunal that doesnt fuicking know what its doing, umpires who dont know if their authur or martha etc etc et ****ing cetra..

 

[TOOs_Finest]

I thought someone said it was $40k. Is that right?

If that's the case, as a scenario it would be fine in the future for anyone to approach their Coach and say, "Whack me in the goalsquare for the first 10 mins, and tell the team everything has to come through me" Bingo. I'll give you a sling. The odds are then only 50/50. The opposition kicking a goal. Or me. Let's put a whack on me kicking the first. We've narrowed down the odds.

That's what the AFL is trying to stop...the bigger scam down the track.

And if you allow the smaller incidents to go unchecked, one day in the future you will find a big scam being pulled. It's been done in other sports. Why would we be immune?

Of course we're not immune mate, and when that happens, penalise em hard. If they can track down that Bock spoke to his family about playing forward, and that they then cashed in on that info, you'd think they ought to be able to track down the big scam.

But expecting that basically thousands of players/staff out there can no longer discuss their own employment situation outside of the workplace itself, it's just getting ridiculous.

As I said earlier, just treat each case on it's own merits - they swear black and blue that there is no place for precedence when adjudicating at the tribunal, why the hypocrisy?

 

[Goldust]

AS I understand it, Cogga, players are briefed at the start of each season on the type of information they should not divulge to family and friends, including radical positional changes, team selections, tactics and the like, particularly in view of betting being a big part of the game now.. Bock – like all players – knew well in advance he was compromising the rules by announcing he intended playing up forward. And this came after Collingwood players had already landed in strife for divulging information about Nick Maxwell playing up forward!
Bock has lined up forward how many times in his career?????

 

[CoggaRules]

AS I understand it, Cogga, players are briefed at the start of each season on the type of information they should not divulge to family and friends, including radical positional changes, team selections, tactics and the like, particularly in view of betting being a big part of the game now.. Bock – like all players – knew well in advance he was compromising the rules by announcing he intended playing up forward. And this came after Collingwood players had already landed in strife for divulging information about Nick Maxwell playing up forward!
Bock has lined up forward how many times in his career?????

He knew in advance he was compromising the rules? so are you going to tell me that every player in the comp says JS about the upcoming game throughout the week? Are you suggesting that lets say a kid in game 1, isnt going to ring mum, dad, uncle fester etc and tell them i am ****ign rapt i am playing on the HFL next week? Get real dude...its the AFL showing that they no shit about running a tight ship. They bend players over and i can guarantee yah, one day it will come to light that there is shit happening that they would never have thought of when it comes to betting...if you dont believe that you are lost in the fog.

I will say it again, the single most powerful person on the ground can swing a game anyway they want...all they need is to pay a couple of frees in front of goal and miss a couple at the other end and JOB DONE.
If you have sat and watched footy you bloody well know how many games have been snuffed out by a ridiculous free at the most ridiculous spot....dont you ever ask yourself why?

The bottom line is this..if the bookies want to open a book on who kicks the first goal then they are open to being arse r*ped once in a blue moon.
Thats the nature of the beast, its bookie(gambler) against punter(gambler).
If they feel hard done by, tell them to stop betting on that first goal...but they dont do that do they? How long have they been betting on this for? Has anyone complained about them taking the money all these years? naaa, but now when they got caught with their pants down they cry. Tell them to stop betting on it Vlad, dont go the jugular on a player..see what they say..It removes any chance that a player inadevertantly causes the world to fall in because a bunch of mates and family, sent the bookies broke with a 40g win...did they happen to mention how much the rest of the punters left in the bag?

 

[TOOs_Finest]

AS I understand it, Cogga, players are briefed at the start of each season on the type of information they should not divulge to family and friends, including radical positional changes, team selections, tactics and the like, particularly in view of betting being a big part of the game now.. Bock – like all players – knew well in advance he was compromising the rules by announcing he intended playing up forward. And this came after Collingwood players had already landed in strife for divulging information about Nick Maxwell playing up forward!
Bock has lined up forward how many times in his career?????

I think it's pretty clear why he is in trouble. It's just a question of whether or not the conditions are actually reasonable and whether or not the penalties are fair. To me, it is all way out of kilter.

The true test will be if players continue to stuff up. If they do, then to me that is an indication that the conditions are unrealistic. I do agree with a slap over the wrist type punishment, but to bring down the sledge hammer and then say that the penalties will only get worse simply because others have failed before them, is just not right IMO.

 

[Starburns_]

piss off simpleton, they took a big punt at 100 to 1 that now that he was playing in the FL he MIGHT KICK THE GOAL. The bookies have info coming out of their arses, its not the family's nor Bocks fault they didnt have that info...they did what 99.9% of people would at odds of 100-1 you dip stick. I bet you would sit back and think naa 100-1? naa i wont whack a 100 on it..it all adds up, and 40gs marched out..the bookies were burnt and now they are ****ing crying, because they what? got caught out? BIG ****ING DEAL, thats the nature of the beast.

It's not a "big punt" if it's 100-1 and they know the likelihood of him kicking the first goal is significantly better than that. What's $10 if the chances of turning it into $1000 are high? Without the inside information, the bet would not have been placed. The game can't afford to have any situations like this one in regards to gambling, it has the potential to send the sport down the slippery slope to corruption and you end up with something similar to what they've had in cricket recently.

Also, both Bock and his family know the rules that have been set, they were made very public only 6 weeks before, clearly Bock's family don't have much regard for his footballing career to do that to him. Since you asked, if I had a relative in the AFL, I wouldn't go chucking that bet on. Don't go assuming that "99.9%" of people would, because the evidence shows that is not even close to the case. In fact, after what has happened to Bock and Maxwell, I wouldn't be surprised if this never happens again.

I wouldn't resort to name-calling if I were you. Your pathetic argument here, and your irrational posting both here and in your sookfest thread about Buddy Franklin the other week suggest that doing so would be hypocritical on your part.

 

[Starburns_]

Of course we're not immune mate, and when that happens, penalise em hard. If they can track down that Bock spoke to his family about playing forward, and that they then cashed in on that info, you'd think they ought to be able to track down the big scam.

But expecting that basically thousands of players/staff out there can no longer discuss their own employment situation outside of the workplace itself, it's just getting ridiculous.

As I said earlier, just treat each case on it's own merits - they swear black and blue that there is no place for precedence when adjudicating at the tribunal, why the hypocrisy?

That shouldn't be the issue though, the issue should be that in receiving this information, those people should understand that there are certain things they cannot do with it. A player isn't going to divulge this information to anyone outside his immediate "circle", the people within that circle have a responsibility to the player to not abuse the position he has put them in, it's as simple as that.

The player's families know that they cannot place bets for the players, and after incidents this year, they should definitely know by now that they can't place bets based on information they receive from the player himself.

 

[CoggaRules]

It's not a "big punt" if it's 100-1 and they know the likelihood of him kicking the first goal is significantly better than that. What's $10 if the chances of turning it into $1000 are high? Without the inside information, the bet would not have been placed. The game can't afford to have any situations like this one in regards to gambling, it has the potential to send the sport down the slippery slope to corruption and you end up with something similar to what they've had in cricket recently.

Also, both Bock and his family know the rules that have been set, they were made very public only 6 weeks before, clearly Bock's family don't have much regard for his footballing career to do that to him. Since you asked, if I had a relative in the AFL, I wouldn't go chucking that bet on. Don't go assuming that "99.9%" of people would, because the evidence shows that is not even close to the case. In fact, after what has happened to Bock and Maxwell, I wouldn't be surprised if this never happens again.

I wouldn't resort to name-calling if I were you. Your pathetic argument here, and your irrational posting both here and in your sookfest thread about Buddy Franklin the other week suggest that doing so would be hypocritical on your part.

dude, with all due respect, i can tell you for sure and certain and this goes for any sport, if they are betting on it, there is corruption. If you dont understand that then you have your head in the sand.

 

[CoggaRules]

It's not a "big punt" if it's 100-1 and they know the likelihood of him kicking the first goal is significantly better than that. What's $10 if the chances of turning it into $1000 are high? Without the inside information, the bet would not have been placed. The game can't afford to have any situations like this one in regards to gambling, it has the potential to send the sport down the slippery slope to corruption and you end up with something similar to what they've had in cricket recently.

Also, both Bock and his family know the rules that have been set, they were made very public only 6 weeks before, clearly Bock's family don't have much regard for his footballing career to do that to him. Since you asked, if I had a relative in the AFL, I wouldn't go chucking that bet on. Don't go assuming that "99.9%" of people would, because the evidence shows that is not even close to the case. In fact, after what has happened to Bock and Maxwell, I wouldn't be surprised if this never happens again.

I wouldn't resort to name-calling if I were you. Your pathetic argument here, and your irrational posting both here and in your sookfest thread about Buddy Franklin the other week suggest that doing so would be hypocritical on your part.

The rules? so what are the rules? That if Bock slips and over the dinner table, begins a sentence with, i am playing--right then the whole family have to scream to him, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, stop, you are breaking the rules...get real dude...you aint got a ****ing clue how ridiculous this is in real terms..
IT will happen again and again, the rules allow for it. Because they are based on people being robots, which is totally unrealistic..it just wont happen. The rule should be that if a player is going to play out of position, it should be announced to the general public by the club.
Thats it, but they cant do that, because it ****s up the planning for an upcoming game. So the RULE SHOULD BE that at the start of a game, if player x who played in defence, is now playing in the FL, the bookies should be able to reset their odds, and deduct x in the $$...but hey that is to realistic isnt it?....Tts like a late scratching, someone wasnt in the FL for Bock to be there yes? so whats the ****ing diff. Bocks lines up in the FL. Line is ruled, bets are reset and deductions are made....BTW....if they were that scared of the plunge landing...what's got me fiucked is that he ended up running out at 20-1...like 20-1?..if you were a bookie and a bunch of money was whacked on a "defender" to kick the first goal at 100-1, what would you wind the odds in to? I know a smart bookie would wind them into 2-1 on...and shut up shop on him..lay off half with the other bookies and sit there and complain, because we got caught with our pants down...nothing was fixed, the game flowed, it was a fair race and they got caught out by the "connections". THE END.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

That shouldn't be the issue though, the issue should be that in receiving this information, those people should understand that there are certain things they cannot do with it. A player isn't going to divulge this information to anyone outside his immediate "circle", the people within that circle have a responsibility to the player to not abuse the position he has put them in, it's as simple as that.

The player's families know that they cannot place bets for the players, and after incidents this year, they should definitely know by now that they can't place bets based on information they receive from the player himself.

Exactly. The wanting to control what players/staff "close circle of family/friends" do highlights how ridiculous the cause is, to me. And The lines are so blurred. Bock was penalised not for his actions, or the actions of his family, but for the possible repercussions of these actions down the track - simply due to the nature of his employment.

 

[peejay]

Exactly. The wanting to control what players/staff "close circle of family/friends" do highlights how ridiculous the cause is, to me. And The lines are so blurred. Bock was penalised not for his actions, or the actions of his family, but for the possible repercussions of these actions down the track - simply due to the nature of his employment.

I'm with DD and cogga on this one.

The penalty is way to harsh in my opinion. The AFL are shit scraed because of how they have embraced gambling on the games and are now trying to back pedal asap.

To think that 720 players a week are not going to say anything about team selections is just living in la la land.

And as i have said before i work with an AFL field umpire - he is a mad punter - he bets on all sorts of sports - never seen or heard him bet on AFL but then again i have never seen the planet mercury but how do i know it exists ?

 

[Starburns_]

dude, with all due respect, i can tell you for sure and certain and this goes for any sport, if they are betting on it, there is corruption. If you dont understand that then you have your head in the sand.

And you're basing that on what exactly? You can't just say that because the umpires have the potential to influence a contest if they wanted to that it routinely happens. There are definitely some dirty sports and dirty leagues out there, the AFL isn't one of them though.

The rules? so what are the rules? That if Bock slips and over the dinner table, begins a sentence with, i am playing--right then the whole family have to scream to him, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, stop, you are breaking the rules...get real dude...you aint got a ****ing clue how ridiculous this is in real terms..
IT will happen again and again, the rules allow for it. Because they are based on people being robots, which is totally unrealistic..it just wont happen. The rule should be that if a player is going to play out of position, it should be announced to the general public by the club.
Thats it, but they cant do that, because it ****s up the planning for an upcoming game. So the RULE SHOULD BE that at the start of a game, if player x who played in defence, is now playing in the FL, the bookies should be able to reset their odds, and deduct x in the $$...but hey that is to realistic isnt it?....Tts like a late scratching, someone wasnt in the FL for Bock to be there yes? so whats the ****ing diff. Bocks lines up in the FL. Line is ruled, bets are reset and deductions are made....BTW....if they were that scared of the plunge landing...what's got me fiucked is that he ended up running out at 20-1...like 20-1?..if you were a bookie and a bunch of money was whacked on a "defender" to kick the first goal at 100-1, what would you wind the odds in to? I know a smart bookie would wind them into 2-1 on...and shut up shop on him..lay off half with the other bookies and sit there and complain, because we got caught with our pants down...nothing was fixed, the game flowed, it was a fair race and they got caught out by the "connections". THE END.

No, just the simple common sense that if you come into contact with that information directly from the player that you don't go using it for your own personal gain. Bock's family would have known that there'd be consequences for him if they were caught out, I can't believe they still went ahead and did it, unless he was stupid enough to tell them to.

Your idea works in theory, but I'm not sure of the legality of it, it's a bit different to a late scratching. Plus I can see the punters cracking the shits. Because where do you stop, it wouldn't be uncommon for a midfielder to start forward, but it's not unlikely for them to kick first goal from the midfield either. Slashing their odds if they start forward could cause a lot of angst from punters, and as I said, it's all a bit complicated.

By the time they brought the odds in to 20-1the damage would have been done, odds of 20-1 might have been what they'd have given for Bock starting forward anyway, so they left it at that.

 

[Starburns_]

Exactly. The wanting to control what players/staff "close circle of family/friends" do highlights how ridiculous the cause is, to me. And The lines are so blurred. Bock was penalised not for his actions, or the actions of his family, but for the possible repercussions of these actions down the track - simply due to the nature of his employment.

It's a fine line though, Bock's family using that information moves the league into dangerous territory right then and there, not "down the track". It may be more serious down the track, but the line has already been crossed.

The AFL controlling (or policing is probably a more accurate term) what the player's close circle do is unfortunate, but it becomes necessary when the players bring work home with them. Once again, it's a fine line, but it's done to protect the interests of the game (that provides the players with a career), it's not like it's done just for the sake of it.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I think you are spot on Cogga it's a crock , the betting industry has seen the demise of many a good footballer and the AFL has seemingly done little to assist those tragics , yet wishes to ensure the betting firms aren't likely to loose a little on who kicks the first goal FFS .
Do the betting agencies refund money, placed on players who where picked in the forward line on a Thursday night , yet start down back ?

As for Pia, if she derobed and asked ' are you playing forward this week ' I doubt there'd be to many who wouldn't tell her ?