Produce one?
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVI
- Thread starter Hank Heavenly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Produce one?
Attachments
- May 15, 2017
- 23,143
- 88,312
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
from eddie betts' book 
smasha
It's Time!
The article was in the HUN about Shocking,also King mentioned it in the media a few times.
No need to justify it, most of us know the truth but some people refuse to believe the AFL could be so corrupt as to change rules to benefit one club and attempt to bring down another. There are actually people who think the AFL's shit doesn't stink.
- Aug 13, 2017
- 6,039
- 20,874
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Most corrupt organisation next to fifa.
You're asking for a link from over 2 seasons ago, it was actually a quotation of what Hocking said during the 2020 Grand Final. It was an article in the Herald sun at the time that had his picture and quotation marks next to the picture. He didnt say this will stop Richmond he said gee Cotchin is very agressive manning the mark, in fact a lot of Richmond players do it.
When I have time I'll ****ing find it for you but im at work. It's not some BS myth made up it was actually in the paper at the time for all to see when the stand rule first got mentioned.
I found a reference to the article on Big footy, I just need some time to find the actual picture
New stand on the mark rule
Good to read in the Sunday Herald Sun , Lord Hocking openly admits to implementing this rule to curtail the way Richmond play. Trent gets a special mention as well.
www.bigfooty.com
Last edited:
Just proved my point, Livinski ...
The gospel from Hocking was taken from a random tweet from a Richmond supporter.
The gospel from Hocking was taken from a random tweet from a Richmond supporter.
No it wasnt, it was in the bloody paper. I saw it at the time.
pretty sure it was us and adelaide who were "abusing" the extra players off the back of the square by a fair margin compared to the rest of the comp lmao, at least from 2017 stats iirc. **** knows what to search to find it but also cbf
- Dec 23, 2016
- 1,170
- 9,296
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Why 6-6-6 rule could force Tigers into a radical shake-up
New statistics reveal that Richmond will need to adapt to new rules more than any other team
www.afl.com.au
didn't commentary and shows also sell it like it would create more "dusty moments" or some rubbish like that? 6-6-6 gonna provide dusty moments, when the team that dusty is on used 6-6-6 3.4% of the timeWhy 6-6-6 rule could force Tigers into a radical shake-up
New statistics reveal that Richmond will need to adapt to new rules more than any other team
- May 15, 2017
- 23,143
- 88,312
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
yea there's plenty of articles about that still but there was another one with the chimp data guy specifically saying it was designed to bring us back to the pack which has been scrubbed
Area51
Club Legend
- Jun 6, 2022
- 1,094
- 3,900
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I remember the article speculating about who was the architect of the stand rule. With words to the effect that "word on the street", or similar, was that it was Hocking. And it stated that Hocking had become angry during the year about how Richmond manned the mark and in particular Cotchin. The article seemed to be saying that the AFL were being secretive about it, but inference was that it was Hocking. Hocking was not quoted as far as I recall.
End of the day the AFL have been secretive about it, they lack transparency on who designed the rule leaving speculation and inference to fill the void. The fact that it was Richmond who regularly pantsed the head of football's team in finals, including a grand final, the fact the rule can be seen as negatively impacting Richmond while simultaneously benefitting Geelong's style of play, the fact that Hocking went back to the Geelong CEO role, the fact that Scott admitted being in discussions with Hocking on how to take the next step post their 2011 flag, including when Hocking was at the AFL, all point in the same direction. Whether it was against Richmond or for Geelong, the handling and oversight of the whole matter is improper and unprofessional. All on Gil's watch.
End of the day the AFL have been secretive about it, they lack transparency on who designed the rule leaving speculation and inference to fill the void. The fact that it was Richmond who regularly pantsed the head of football's team in finals, including a grand final, the fact the rule can be seen as negatively impacting Richmond while simultaneously benefitting Geelong's style of play, the fact that Hocking went back to the Geelong CEO role, the fact that Scott admitted being in discussions with Hocking on how to take the next step post their 2011 flag, including when Hocking was at the AFL, all point in the same direction. Whether it was against Richmond or for Geelong, the handling and oversight of the whole matter is improper and unprofessional. All on Gil's watch.
this is as close as you're going to get, it would be unprofessional and obviously you wouldn't get it directly from the horses mouth
now, is there conclusive evidence that hocking himself sat there thinking that this will finally bring the fall of richmond? no
but he did head the committee that made the rule change and cotchin definitely put it all on display in the finals series up in the hub. it's honestly hilarious going back and watching games with no stand rule. it's a whole different world
ok it wasn't the 6-6-6 rule, it was the stand rule lmao
"My role in that as custodian of it is to make sure the right things are introduced to open the game back up, and to have more Dustin Martin moments that he did in the Grand Final, where he was able to find space, and we would like to create more of those – that's my role and I'm committed to finding that space." -hocking
it's cos the websites no longer lmao, found the article
"The AFL has enforced starting positions for every centre bounce for season 2019.
A ‘6-6-6’ set up of six players in each 50-metre arc, as well as six through the midfield (four in the centre square and two wingmen) will be required to take place whenever the ball is bounced in the centre of the ground at the beginning of the game or after a goal, in a bid to ease congestion.
According to Champion Data’s Jacob Wilson, the one club that could be hit negatively by this rule change is Richmond.
“The team that’s the most affected by this is actually Richmond,” Wilson said on Sportsday.
“Richmond set up 6-6-6 the least amount, just 3% of the time last year. The rest of the league was doing it about 40% of the time.
“They actually went 8-6-4 (set up) 11% of the time, with eight defenders, two off the back of the square.
“When they did that, they didn’t concede a score for the entire season.
“You can see why the AFL has had to bring in these rules. Using those guys off the back of the square is incredibly effective.
“What we’re hoping is it brings Richmond back to the pack a little bit.”
After winning the premiership in 2017, the Tigers were humbled by Collingwood in last season’s Preliminary Final."
Which team will be impacted most by 6-6-6 setup? - DIGITAL SPORTS RADIO
The AFL has enforced starting positions for every centre bounce for season 2019.
web.archive.org
- May 15, 2017
- 23,143
- 88,312
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
it's cos the websites no longer lmao, found the article
"The AFL has enforced starting positions for every centre bounce for season 2019.
A ‘6-6-6’ set up of six players in each 50-metre arc, as well as six through the midfield (four in the centre square and two wingmen) will be required to take place whenever the ball is bounced in the centre of the ground at the beginning of the game or after a goal, in a bid to ease congestion.
According to Champion Data’s Jacob Wilson, the one club that could be hit negatively by this rule change is Richmond.
“The team that’s the most affected by this is actually Richmond,” Wilson said on Sportsday.
“Richmond set up 6-6-6 the least amount, just 3% of the time last year. The rest of the league was doing it about 40% of the time.
“They actually went 8-6-4 (set up) 11% of the time, with eight defenders, two off the back of the square.
“When they did that, they didn’t concede a score for the entire season.
“You can see why the AFL has had to bring in these rules. Using those guys off the back of the square is incredibly effective.
“What we’re hoping is it brings Richmond back to the pack a little bit.”
After winning the premiership in 2017, the Tigers were humbled by Collingwood in last season’s Preliminary Final."
Which team will be impacted most by 6-6-6 setup? - DIGITAL SPORTS RADIO
The AFL has enforced starting positions for every centre bounce for season 2019.
cheating campaigners
- May 15, 2017
- 23,143
- 88,312
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
The following was from a post I made on one of these threads May 2021. BEFORE Hocking was appointed CEO Geelong FC...........There is a link to Hocking interview about this within the post I made right here:
And here is the text of my post, in response to none other than Not Important
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the AFL or Hocking regarding any of this and they deserve no mercy from us, or anyone for that matter. They forfeited any right they may have to favourable commentary when they wilfully or negligently turned their back on good governance principles by allowing a club loyalty conflicted person to have the main influence over rule changes. Regardless of whether he is wilfully trying to favour one club over another, or doing so by some form of sub-conscious bias, or indeed if he has miraculously been able to park any biases and it is his honest and unbiased belief that these rule changes are for the overall benefit of the sport, he has acted improperly. His first question should always be…. given my (well known)affiliations, am I the right person to drive this? In the interview in the youtube link below, Hocking makes it absolutely clear that his role is “custodian” of the rules of the game. He also explains “we showed the comp committee today, a range of vision where the player(on the mark) moves laterally."
So what the sequence should be, is along these lines:
1. The AFL Commission resolves the game needs to be sped up/opened up, let’s say to improve the spectacle, and this should be achieved if necessary by rule changes.
2. The AFL Commission instructs the CEO of this resolution and asks him to find a suitable solution. The CEO says I am too busy attending corporate functions and water polo matches so I will assign this task to the General Manager of Football Operations, Stephen Hocking.
3. Hocking considers his position in regard to Geelong, who are last years runners-up and have been beaten three times recently in finals by the highest pressure team in the competition, Richmond. Hocking should then say this could have the appearance of bias on my part due to my affiliations at Geelong, and they are constantly losing big games(and probably 2 premierships) to Richmond’s pressure. I therefore need to absent myself from this process. My recommendation is we find a respected and knowledgable decision maker to head a small group of football experts who can then make recommendations to the Commission.
In the event, what appears to have happened is Hocking has played THE pivotal part in the recommendations that went to the Commission. How could you possibly know for sure that what happened wasn’t this completely unfair and therefore unacceptable course of action, or something along these lines:
Hocking speaks to the people he knows best in football about the matter, all of whom are or have been involved with the GFC. He says you would never guess what I have been tasked with speeding the game up by the Commission, do you have any thoughts?
Smartest Man in the Room replies: well these pressure teams are destroying the sport, they have loads of players who can run and just keep running and that needs to be stopped.
Hocking: ah, ok, so maybe let’s go back to the old 19th and 20th man, no interchanges?
Smartest Man in the Room: Yes, well maybe something a bit less flagrant would be a good start, just reduce the number of interchanges for now. But it requires more than that. Lengthen the game back to its original time of 4 x 20 mins + time on so the hard running teams fatigue more.
Hocking: Yep, gotcha. Anything else?
Smartest Man in the Room: Yeah. We are the highest marking differential team in the competition and by a long way, Richmond are below average in this area and we also have a better free kick differential than Richmond. If there was some way to get a greater benefit for marks and free kicks it would certainly help…
Hocking: OK, tricky. Automatic 50m penalty for a mark?
Smartest Man in the Room: No that is too obvious, they would be onto us. Just something more subtle like the man on the mark is not allowed to move laterally, or backwards to cover dangerous space, and a player can’t come from behind the mark to take the mark and release his team-mate to run back and cover dangerous space. That is subtle enough to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes I think, nobody could possibly know the smartest man in the room is behind it.
Hocking: Yeah I like it. I love how you think smartest man in the room. Do you have any more super intelligent suggestions for me?
Smartest Man in the Room: One little one. Our stats guys have picked up we have a better overall accuracy ratio than Richmond, so something that punishes behinds a little bit more might be good.
Hocking: OK, so kick in from the centre of the ground or from the 50m arc?
Smartest Man in the Room: We might get away with that later, but I think it needs to be just slightly less obvious. Just drag the man on the mark back from 10m to 15m for now.
Hocking: OK great, thank god you are on my side. How will I sell all this though to make it look like advantage Richmond and disadvantage Geelong?
Smartest Man in the Room: Come on Hocking that bit is easy. “more Dustin Martin moments…..”
Hocking: How should I announce this?
Smartest Man in the Room: Jesus, animals and children…the same way we always do it, you know if we want to take the heat off Patrick Dramafield or whatever….
Hocking: Ah, gotcha, I will give wok fry Barrett a ring, set up a Dorothy Dix interview.
Smartest Man in the Room: Bingo.
----------------------------------------------------
Of course I have taken a bit of licence here NI but my underlying point is deadly serious. This is pitiful governance, and Hocking should have been nowhere near these rule changes at this time, to remove any possible suggestion of anything untoward.
Your point that most neutral observers say that the new rules have impacted Geelong more than most….it would be hilarious if that was the case but it won’t be. Judging the impact of these new rules on Geelong by a few early season games when they are not functioning well as a team is at the very least premature.
It will need to be judged by the big games at the end of the season, like everything else.
And here is the text of my post, in response to none other than Not Important
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the AFL or Hocking regarding any of this and they deserve no mercy from us, or anyone for that matter. They forfeited any right they may have to favourable commentary when they wilfully or negligently turned their back on good governance principles by allowing a club loyalty conflicted person to have the main influence over rule changes. Regardless of whether he is wilfully trying to favour one club over another, or doing so by some form of sub-conscious bias, or indeed if he has miraculously been able to park any biases and it is his honest and unbiased belief that these rule changes are for the overall benefit of the sport, he has acted improperly. His first question should always be…. given my (well known)affiliations, am I the right person to drive this? In the interview in the youtube link below, Hocking makes it absolutely clear that his role is “custodian” of the rules of the game. He also explains “we showed the comp committee today, a range of vision where the player(on the mark) moves laterally."
So what the sequence should be, is along these lines:
1. The AFL Commission resolves the game needs to be sped up/opened up, let’s say to improve the spectacle, and this should be achieved if necessary by rule changes.
2. The AFL Commission instructs the CEO of this resolution and asks him to find a suitable solution. The CEO says I am too busy attending corporate functions and water polo matches so I will assign this task to the General Manager of Football Operations, Stephen Hocking.
3. Hocking considers his position in regard to Geelong, who are last years runners-up and have been beaten three times recently in finals by the highest pressure team in the competition, Richmond. Hocking should then say this could have the appearance of bias on my part due to my affiliations at Geelong, and they are constantly losing big games(and probably 2 premierships) to Richmond’s pressure. I therefore need to absent myself from this process. My recommendation is we find a respected and knowledgable decision maker to head a small group of football experts who can then make recommendations to the Commission.
In the event, what appears to have happened is Hocking has played THE pivotal part in the recommendations that went to the Commission. How could you possibly know for sure that what happened wasn’t this completely unfair and therefore unacceptable course of action, or something along these lines:
Hocking speaks to the people he knows best in football about the matter, all of whom are or have been involved with the GFC. He says you would never guess what I have been tasked with speeding the game up by the Commission, do you have any thoughts?
Smartest Man in the Room replies: well these pressure teams are destroying the sport, they have loads of players who can run and just keep running and that needs to be stopped.
Hocking: ah, ok, so maybe let’s go back to the old 19th and 20th man, no interchanges?
Smartest Man in the Room: Yes, well maybe something a bit less flagrant would be a good start, just reduce the number of interchanges for now. But it requires more than that. Lengthen the game back to its original time of 4 x 20 mins + time on so the hard running teams fatigue more.
Hocking: Yep, gotcha. Anything else?
Smartest Man in the Room: Yeah. We are the highest marking differential team in the competition and by a long way, Richmond are below average in this area and we also have a better free kick differential than Richmond. If there was some way to get a greater benefit for marks and free kicks it would certainly help…
Hocking: OK, tricky. Automatic 50m penalty for a mark?
Smartest Man in the Room: No that is too obvious, they would be onto us. Just something more subtle like the man on the mark is not allowed to move laterally, or backwards to cover dangerous space, and a player can’t come from behind the mark to take the mark and release his team-mate to run back and cover dangerous space. That is subtle enough to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes I think, nobody could possibly know the smartest man in the room is behind it.
Hocking: Yeah I like it. I love how you think smartest man in the room. Do you have any more super intelligent suggestions for me?
Smartest Man in the Room: One little one. Our stats guys have picked up we have a better overall accuracy ratio than Richmond, so something that punishes behinds a little bit more might be good.
Hocking: OK, so kick in from the centre of the ground or from the 50m arc?
Smartest Man in the Room: We might get away with that later, but I think it needs to be just slightly less obvious. Just drag the man on the mark back from 10m to 15m for now.
Hocking: OK great, thank god you are on my side. How will I sell all this though to make it look like advantage Richmond and disadvantage Geelong?
Smartest Man in the Room: Come on Hocking that bit is easy. “more Dustin Martin moments…..”
Hocking: How should I announce this?
Smartest Man in the Room: Jesus, animals and children…the same way we always do it, you know if we want to take the heat off Patrick Dramafield or whatever….
Hocking: Ah, gotcha, I will give wok fry Barrett a ring, set up a Dorothy Dix interview.
Smartest Man in the Room: Bingo.
----------------------------------------------------
Of course I have taken a bit of licence here NI but my underlying point is deadly serious. This is pitiful governance, and Hocking should have been nowhere near these rule changes at this time, to remove any possible suggestion of anything untoward.
Your point that most neutral observers say that the new rules have impacted Geelong more than most….it would be hilarious if that was the case but it won’t be. Judging the impact of these new rules on Geelong by a few early season games when they are not functioning well as a team is at the very least premature.
It will need to be judged by the big games at the end of the season, like everything else.
Im getting a bit old these days and not the best at finding things on the internet but my memory is still ok and remember an interview SEN did with shocking and his words were something like " Curbing Richmonds Dominance and create more space in the game"
Yes i remember this clearly and you'd be a complete numbskull if you didn't wake up to the fact, that Hocking looked after Geelong a hell of a lot more than he looked after Richmond, Shocking would have went after the the Hawks as well, but they were no longer an immediately a threat to his beloved Cats anymore.
sante
Emu
I just feel sorry for all of you who think the AFL is out to get us. Never change BigFooty.
Livonski. FFS.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
