MRP / Trib. Tom Stewart - Result 4 week match suspension

Remove this Banner Ad

I have made no claim whatsoever as to any impropriety on Brad Scott’s part.

No definitely not. No suggestion or implication on your behalf whatsoever as to any impropriety on Brad Scott's part:

One very loose end in all of this is that the person who made the grading of careless the AFL used at the Tribunal was…….Chris Scott’s twin brother Brad Scott.

flaws in the system that are potentially working unfairly in favour of your club.

Brad Scott is the final decision maker in all MRO findings/gradings/decisions.

In this Stewart case the Tribunal charge is based on Brad Scott’s decision to grade Stewart’s action as careless conduct.

Of course Brad Scott should be nowhere near any case affecting Geelong FC for the obvious reason his twin brother is their head coach.

that is because Brad Scott graded the act

Brad Scott’s apparent conflict of interest

All of the decisions attributed to him are either approved or altered by Brad Scott.

Had the MRO - effectively Brad Scott

common sense will tell you that when two people in a decision making process want a different decision to be made, the senior one of the pair will have the power of veto over the junior person.

I do think Brad Scott would overrule Christian if he sees fit.
 
So let’s break this down.
Let's not, we all watch the game every week and know how the rules are adjudicated. Stewart bumped, got it wrong, hit Prestia high and got a 4 week suspension. There's no Hocking or Brad Scott conspiracy factor at play here that you Tiger fans seem to have a massive hard-on for on almost every issue that arises. It's Wednesday, next round starts tomorrow. Maybe move on from the loss? :think:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No I don’t think Brad Scott would say that to Michael Christian.

But I do think Brad Scott would overrule Christian if he sees fit. This is how the structure is designed, so that it allows Scott to do that.
Do you think Michael Christian, the CEO of the AFL, the Media and everyone else wouldn't be asking Brad, "Hey mate how come you're overturning so many MRO decisions on Geelong cases?

I agree Brad Scott may question the MRO and even over rule a decision if he thinks its manifestly wrong, but I would also expect Brad to provide evidence that supports the over ruling. Somehow I don't think, "Because Chris Scott is my twin brother" cuts the mustard.
 
No definitely not. No suggestion or implication on your behalf whatsoever as to any impropriety on Brad Scott's part:


You did.

You're claiming Brad Scott circumvented the MRO process to dictate the outcome of Stewart 'only' being suspended for 4 weeks, because he wants to advantage his brother.

You've been having a meltdown all day about it.

So as you said 'get a grip on yourself'.

First you state that I am claiming Brad Scott cheated for his brother.

Then you list a lot of quotes of my posts where I point to Brad Scott’s conflict of interest and his role in this case.

Then you downgrade it to I have “suggested" or “implied" impropriety on Brad Scott’s part. Because you realised I made no such claim at all.

I have no way of judging Brad Scott’s propriety or otherwise. I don’t think the decision in this case is manifestly wrong. I just think Brad Scott and Steve Hocking before him should have had no part in siting in judgement on Geelong players in their role as MRO final decision maker. This is simply because they have a clear and substantial conflict of interest.

For all I know they could be the two fairest minded people on earth. It would not change my view regarding the way their conflict of interest should be dealt with.
 
Do you think Michael Christian, the CEO of the AFL, the Media and everyone else wouldn't be asking Brad, "Hey mate how come you're overturning so many MRO decisions on Geelong cases?

I agree Brad Scott may question the MRO and even over rule a decision if he thinks its manifestly wrong, but I would also expect Brad to provide evidence that supports the over ruling. Somehow I don't think, "Because Chris Scott is my twin brother" cuts the mustard.

It is a fair question you put. You would hope there are checks and balances within the system.

The simplest check and balance to put in place here is to ask the conflicted person to stand aside from the decision making process. Then there can be no questions as to his conduct in cases involving Geelong players. And, importantly, this does not disadvantage Geelong in any way.
 
First you state that I am claiming Brad Scott cheated for his brother.

Then you list a lot of quotes of my posts where I point to Brad Scott’s conflict of interest and his role in this case.

Then you downgrade it to I have “suggested" or “implied" impropriety on Brad Scott’s part. Because you realised I made no such claim at all.

I have no way of judging Brad Scott’s propriety or otherwise. I don’t think the decision in this case is manifestly wrong. I just think Brad Scott and Steve Hocking before him should have had no part in siting in judgement on Geelong players in their role as MRO final decision maker. This is simply because they have a clear and substantial conflict of interest.

For all I know they could be the two fairest minded people on earth. It would not change my view regarding the way their conflict of interest should be dealt with.

Geesh for someone that thinks Brad Scott hasn't done anything wrong you've certainly posted a hell of a lot about Brad Scott.
 
Geesh for someone that thinks Brad Scott hasn't done anything wrong you've certainly posted a hell of a lot about Brad Scott.

Only so people know…..

I am posting about Brad Scott’s conflict of interest.

Why did you post I don’t think Brad Scott has done anything wrong? I do think he has done the wrong thing in not standing aside from cases in which Geelong FC has an interest, and Steve Hocking the same before him. Beyond that and some disagreement on some of his MRO decisions(but agreement with most of them) I have no way of knowing one way or the other whether he has done anything right wrong or indifferent in the part of his role that requires him to be MRO final decision maker.

You may not be doing it on purpose, but you are misinterpreting my position.
 
You are taught from a young age to respect umpires and behave accordingly - which includes not touching them. Well I was, maybe you weren't.

In any case, it's bizarre to compare offences committed towards officials with those committed against players.

The period of the suspension indicates the gravity of the event. If touching an umpire leads to 50% longer penalties, then the AFL is saying its 50% worse than knocking a player out.

Murder and commercial theft are completely different things against completely different entities. We tend to consider murder much, much worse which is why the penalties are much, much worse. Its a pretty easy concept to grasp.
 
Am I though?

You first posted I had claimed Brad Scott circumvented the MRO process in favour of his brother.

I had made no such claim.

You then posted that for someone who thinks Brad Scott hasn’t done anything wrong that I post a lot about him.

It is not my position that Brad Scott hasn’t done anything wrong. I have never written that. I wrote that I have no way of knowing whether he has acted improperly in the way you wrongly stated that I had claimed.

So yes, purposefully or otherwise, you have misinterpreted my position.

Anyway, people can read the exchange and make their own minds up if they choose.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I have no way of judging Brad Scott’s propriety or otherwise. I don’t think the decision in this case is manifestly wrong. I just think Brad Scott and Steve Hocking before him should have had no part in siting in judgement on Geelong players in their role as MRO final decision maker. This is simply because they have a clear and substantial conflict of interest.

For all I know they could be the two fairest minded people on earth. It would not change my view regarding the way their conflict of interest should be dealt with.

Don't forget the conflict of interest when that Richmond lady was acting CEO for a while a month or two ago. You laughed that one off didn't you?
 
I must have laughed it off because you have completely lost me. 😂

Oh, now I'm just insulted. Maybe this will prompt your memory:

1650961572594-png.1384585



1650961487139-png.1384581


There's your real scandal!!!
 
It's not about defending the player. It's what constitutes intentional. My or your feeling to what it should be does not changed that.
Ok ,well intentional is open to who is interpreting it. when one goes for the man and not the ball it should always be intentional, otherwise players will be getting picked off all the time and it was be chaotic. And yes the players teams supporters are always going with their players intentions where not intentional
 
I am not sure how my posts on this thread fit with that narrative but whatever. Being an Essendon supporter it is probably crucially important to you to shift the persecution complex onto another club, so happy to be of service. 😁

Oh no Richmond have more than enough of a persecution complex to go around, don't you worry. Plenty of Richmond supporters just like you.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top