Tigers have behaved here the same way here as, for example, Chelsea and Liverpool behaved over John Terry and Luis Saurez and their abuse charges. Going on the offensive against the authorities, refusing to apologize, recognising no wrong doing or need to apologise, appointing the best lawyers, and issuing inflammatory statements about lack of procedure. It's sad rugby has got to that point, and sadder that it is Tigers at the forefront of it.
Are you seriously comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse?
I agree TigerAlex, overreaction or troublemakers!
It would appear some canno't see beyond their halo's, if only we were all so predictably perfect.
A few secret stains lovers on here me thinks!
As per any other walk of life - sometimes formally, sometimes without even realising that you're doing it - when an issue is identified, it is dealt with and, as a further step, the reasons as to why the issue came about is analysed to find out the root cause of the issue and identify/implement possible controls to prevent the issue arising again.
The issue of RC's manner of addressing the 4th official was identified and dealt with by a hefty ban and nominal fine.
Now the RFU must complete the final process of analysis and control implementation - and I don't mean, necessarily, increasing sanctions.
IMHO, I think that Barnes, overall, had a better game than he normally does between Tigers and Saints. However, had he consulted the TV Ref after the first tackle on Flood - there was plenty of time to do this without delaying the game any more than it already was for the injury - not only would the penalty have possibly been rescinded but RC may not have been so aggrieved and vitriolic with the 4th official.
I, also, don't want a TV review after every tackle. However, perhaps the on field officials could be encouraged to use the TV Ref whenever additional clarity may be needed to reduce tensions and any further volatility. I don't think that this course of action would diminish their overall authority, on the contrary, it may even enhance it by displaying a willingness to ensure that the decision made is the correct one and that they are honest enough to admit it if they get it wrong.
It is also time for the LT directors to work out how to control Cockers with beating the passion he has for the club, players and supporters out of him!
tig1 wrote:Tigers have behaved here the same way here as, for example, Chelsea and Liverpool behaved over John Terry and Luis Saurez and their abuse charges. Going on the offensive against the authorities, refusing to apologize, recognising no wrong doing or need to apologise, appointing the best lawyers, and issuing inflammatory statements about lack of procedure. It's sad rugby has got to that point, and sadder that it is Tigers at the forefront of it.
Are you seriously comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse?
Obviously Tig1 is not comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse. Your post is yet another attempt to muddy the waters on this. As Tig1 quite clearly states he/she is comparing the reactions of the respective clubs when their employees have been so obviously in the wrong.
tig1 wrote:Tigers have behaved here the same way here as, for example, Chelsea and Liverpool behaved over John Terry and Luis Saurez and their abuse charges. Going on the offensive against the authorities, refusing to apologize, recognising no wrong doing or need to apologise, appointing the best lawyers, and issuing inflammatory statements about lack of procedure. It's sad rugby has got to that point, and sadder that it is Tigers at the forefront of it.
Are you seriously comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse?
Obviously Tig1 is not comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse. Your post is yet another attempt to muddy the waters on this. As Tig1 quite clearly states he/she is comparing the reactions of the respective clubs when their employees have been so obviously in the wrong.
Again, my counter - Tig1 and you are trying, unnecessarily, to purify the water. The examples are fundamentally different and cover different issues.
Hyperbole is rife on both sides of the argument and I think everyone needs to spend some time in the middle and fully engage with what the issues are and who is at fault. It'll soon become clear that Cockerill isn't the only person who has acted improperly.
Tigerpete wrote:Having read the judgement I think he's been stitched up. They have him for swearing and then it's all about his history.
Stitched up - are you serious?
I apologise, of course you are serious, it's just that i must have read a different judgement to you, and a few others on here!
I have nothing further to add, but will let you know as and when I get a response to my impending email to the Club.
As an aside i thought Martin Ballard said on RL last night that Tigers only had until 10.00 this morning to appeal. Does anyone know if that is correct? If so did one go in?
TigerAlex wrote:
Are you seriously comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse?
Obviously Tig1 is not comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse. Your post is yet another attempt to muddy the waters on this. As Tig1 quite clearly states he/she is comparing the reactions of the respective clubs when their employees have been so obviously in the wrong.
Well s/he kind of is. The whole reason that those examples were so poorly looked upon is because racial abuse is such a serious issue, not just within the game, but within wider society. Unlike a couple of swear words slipped into conversation.
I'm not saying that Cockerill has done nothing wrong because that language isn't nice to hear and could cause offence. I do think that the severity of his 'crime' has been seriously over exaggerated though, especially when I see what coaches at lower levels are able to get away with. However, I don't see what would be wrong with Tigers appealing on the ground of procedure. I really do not buy that the media has nothing to do with it. As another poster has said before, procedure is important for reasons of fairness in future cases. Leicester Tigers can appeal but also accept that certain elements of Cockerill's conduct was unprofessional. The RFU has a duty to uphold its own precedents. It should not be allowed or seen to invent new precedents for individual cases if the media are baying loudly enough.
tig1 wrote:Tigers have behaved here the same way here as, for example, Chelsea and Liverpool behaved over John Terry and Luis Saurez and their abuse charges. Going on the offensive against the authorities, refusing to apologize, recognising no wrong doing or need to apologise, appointing the best lawyers, and issuing inflammatory statements about lack of procedure. It's sad rugby has got to that point, and sadder that it is Tigers at the forefront of it.
Are you seriously comparing Cockerill's conduct to racial abuse?
I wasnt TigerAlex. So apologies if anybody read it as such. My comments purely related to the responses of the respective clubs, which in my opinion are similar.
Whatever I may think of the RFU, the "old Farts", the New Farts, their disciplinary procedures and the way they waste money on a temple to extravagence in the most inaccessible reaches of SW London, I cannot but agree with the ruling on Cockers.
With this behaviour he does no credit at all to the club, and to appeal the decision would be for Messrs Tom and Wheeler to in effect condone the behaviour and lack of values this club allegedly espouses.
As a club, we have been penalised enough without being ridiculed too!
coalvillebob appears to have set himself up as some sort of a moral compass.You need to get out more, because i can assure you that a large proportion of the population swear in conversation. Hartley received his ban for calling W.Barnes a cheat the f word had no bearing on the punishment.
Many people do not use the f and c words as part of their everyday conversation. Any person overhearing the tirade who was upset by it, (and I can think of a few who were upset by his and MOCs behaviour at WR) could be the comlainants in a Public Order Act S5 offence. I have heard less offensive comments coming to Court.
With Cockerill it is a matter of a lack of leadership whilst in a position of responsibility.
The transcript of the hearing reveals so many procedural flaws that any (reasonable) Appeal Panel would at least order a retrial. Evidence that was inadmissable was accepted and recorded.
Whether Tigers shoulkd appeal is dependent on answers fromn RFU on these procedural flaws - which is why the deadline for an appeal has been extended. RFU trying to dig themselves out of what could be a big mess.
Cockers (IMHO) was guilty. But the RFU procedurally were so out of order that a (civil) court could well rule their findings null and void.
fleabane wrote:Any person overhearing the tirade who was upset by it, (and I can think of a few who were upset by his and MOCs behaviour at WR) could be the comlainants in a Public Order Act S5 offence.
I'm sure that if a public servant should expect it, and can be deemed by another as 'not offended' then so too should the RFU and their employees....
I didn't 'hear' Cockers's rant at Twickenham, I only knew about the specifics of it because of the media furore......so who has actually brought the comments to the 'masses' for them to be offended.....
And for the record, I don't think Cockers was wise or correct to act and remonstrate the way he did.
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
