RFU Judgment on Cockerill

johns · Post by **johns** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:14 pm

Here http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/j ... uly13.ashx

tigerburnie · Post by **tigerburnie** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:36 pm

As I said on the unoffy, why mention the emails from the press and "fans" if they claim they had no bearing, I think it has coloured their minds. No doubt he deserves his punishment, just seems to be inconsistent that others can include pre season games, but Cockers can't.

Soggypitch · Post by **Soggypitch** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:43 pm

This is even worse than i had expected. It makes RC look like an out of control arrogant bully.

I will be very disappointed if LFC try and somehow "get him off" or reduce the ban on a technicality. He should have pleaded guilty and then no doubt the ban would have been shorter.

The Club need to address this issue, I almost feel embarrassed being a Tigers fan reading that judgment and RC's "defence".

Norfolk & Goode · Post by **Norfolk & Goode** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:45 pm

Not to admit that the 'f' and 'c' words were "obscene, inappropriate and unprofessional" only goes to show how thick Cockers must be. If I'd shouted the 'f' and 'c'; word at a 4th official as a spectator, i'd expect to be thrown out and banned (and possibly arrested).

No complaints as far as his punishment. Saddened though by the usual inconsistencies in sentencing ie Hartley who should've got the same.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:09 pm

The stupid thing is that if you just take out the swear words he had a valid point which needed making, which could have been followed up later, re the opposition targetting our playmaker and captain with illegal late tackles. It's not like the one that actually caught Flood was the first effort.

Unfortunately, by dint of the swearing and borderline threats, he undermined the point being made, so rather than having everyone thinking that Saints are a bunch of fouling ill-disciplined thugs (for which Clark, Hartley, Lawes and their coaches provide plenty of evidence for all to see), he's directed much of that on to Tigers instead.

Also, with a confession and contrition, it would clearly have been 3-5 weeks rather than 9, so a strange decision from Tigers.

The valid point I think that we are trying to draw out is the apparent lack of regard for player safety, where the opposition are trying to smash players without observing that there is a duty of care (whilst Lawes was only marginally late I think there's a parallel to be drawn in terms of how he made the hit with the reckless two footed lunges which football is trying to stamp out.

However, I think we're on to a loser in this case and would be best advised to back off before it gets worse.

daktari · Post by **daktari** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:10 pm

What it does highlight is the total inadequacy of the RFU as a governing body. They make great play in receiving written complaints and then say it had no influence, plainly rubbish. Whilst I agree a ban is in order, the language was not directed at the official and they accept he was no abusing the official - so in future I expect everyone in a ground as a team representative to receive a 9 match ban if they swear. Standing near the dug-outs I've heard language like RC's used and on a few occasions it has been directly at the supporters.

The other point is the RFU'S refusal to deal with the poor officials: director of team A talks to officials a head of a match about team b's tactic of targeting players to take them out of the match (seen in team B's last few matches). Come match day, team A's playmaker is seemingly taken out with what looks like an illegal hit, but none of the officials go to the TMO. It would have gone to great deal to avoid the whole situation but no, they don't bother....queue Directer blowing his top.

The RFU have to get the Refs to apply the rules, I don't expect them to see everything but how hard is it to tell them to penalise crooked feeds at the scrum or players offside at rucks/mauls??

A ban is required but it does look like they are settling scores with the length of it

Skin_and_Muscle · Post by **Skin_and_Muscle** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:16 pm

Awful behaviour from Cockerill that shouldn't be tolerated.

However, there are several problems with the judgment. First, I don't understand Terheege's reticence prior to the disciplinary procedure, given the emphatic evidence he ultimately presents against Cockerill. Second, it appears to me that the panel have given far too much thought to appearances. Third, Cockerill talked about 'smashing' the opposition. This was not pre-meditated and a product of his frustration with the referees; how can this be worse than interviews with players, like Lawes funnily enough, who are happy to say they aim to hurt players? Fourth, they talk of Cockerill's lack of engagement with the disciplinary process, and that may be, but the RFU aren't exactly whiter than white here. Finally, this statement:

"He does not seem to appreciate the corrosive effect of his behaviour upon players, medical staff and other coaches with its attendant loss of moral authority, nor the effect of his behaviour upon the viewing public and the press"

proves the point about appearances but is also based on conjecture; the panel appear to unable to appreciate that the disciplinary record of Tigers' players is excellent and don't engage in brutish tactics to try and win games of rugby. If this is a genuine reason the panel relies on to discipline coaches then West and Mallinder should be punished.

Cockerill deserves to be punished, don't get me wrong, but if I were Leicester, I'd be pursuing a 5 game reduction that takes into consideration the points above.

CoalvilleBob · Post by **CoalvilleBob** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:16 pm

Norfolk & Goode wrote: Saddened though by the usual inconsistencies in sentencing ie Hartley who should've got the same.

RC was allowed to continue in his role on the day of the game. Do you mean that Hartley should have been allowed to finish the game?

As a Leicester fan I am embarrassed by the contents of this report, by RC's actions, by the club's statement earlier this week and by the number of fellow fans who suggest we've been treated badly in some way.

Yes, Hartley behaved terribly too. That's not really our concern but given that he cost his side any chance of winning the final and then missed out on a Lions tour I think he has been suitably punished.

Norfolk & Goode · Post by **Norfolk & Goode** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:29 pm

CoalvilleBob - the keyword was "sentencing" not the referees decision/sanction. Hartley used the same obscene language directed at an official and should've got 9 weeks from the start of next season. Also, there was no complaint by the 4th official at the time towards Cockers, it was a citing post-match.

The Boy Dave · Post by **The Boy Dave** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:41 pm

It read's to me as though the swearing was not aimed at the official but at the opposition and their tactics. Considering the official conveniently doesn't appear to actually remember much content of the conversation and only appears to remember the swearing itself the report seems more than a little presumptuous.
I have been watching the 2009 Lions on tour this week on television. The language in this report is pretty mild and small in quantity in comparison. I hear swear word's combined with word's such as passion and pride in that programme and it seem's quite alright to air this. No-one seem's to take much notice in this.
Also the report states that the media has had no bearing on the case but it highlight's the fact that it was shown on the big screen and millions on television. That is media by definition. For goodness sake, the commentators even have their own newspaper column's. The whole incident was blown up by the media, that is how and why it was portrayed to the public whom complained. A public I might add whom it is assumed has no affiliation to another club and no agenda to frame the enemy.
Crazy report, a complete joke and totally contradict's itself throughout!

bluntiger · Post by **bluntiger** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:47 pm

In truth, everyone is giving the same evidence here and Cockers is not denying using the language he did so I believe that Tigers grievance is to do with the process used and the length of the sentence.

Firstly, why did it take so long to issue the citing and convene the hearing?

Secondly, why present data that they go on to say had no influence on the hearing? eg the letters/emails of complaint.

Third, why have they issued a game-specific ban rather than the usual time-specific ban from the date of the offence? How many players have served sentences or part of sentences during the off-season? Clarke broke another player arm deliberately yet served a big chunk of his sentence during the summer. It has to be consistent.

Fourth, Harleys actions, calling the referee a f****** cheat is way more serious and he has as much previous as Cockers yet he serves all of his punishment during the off-season? Yes, I know he missed the Lions tour but that is irrelevant to this, he misses 0 AP matches. Would he have received a more severe punishment if it had not been a Lions year?

Fifth, if they ban coaches/officials for using the 'F' word as it can influence supporters / TV watchers, they will have a lot of guilty parties including Foden and Myler in that AP final match. And why do they allow the media to stick the camera into the dressing rooms just before the teams come out and then apologise for the language afterwards?

Sixth. How many times have coaches said to officials 'If you don't protect my players, I will tell them to protect themselves'? Very often IMO and that is basically what they are accusing Cockers of.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Cockers, he needs to behave way better but the process is a joke and if it were a legal process it would be thrown out of court.

BJ. · Post by **BJ.** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:58 pm

Norfolk & Goode wrote:If I'd shouted the 'f' and 'c'; word at a 4th official as a spectator, i'd expect to be thrown out and banned (and possibly arrested).

I must admit this comment makes me smile considering your forum name.

jonlin · Post by **jonlin** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:10 pm

I am disappointed at some of the comments directed towards RC. The man was only doing what we all would wish from senior management, to protect us from irresponsible behaviour. He could have moderated his language somewhat,but none of it was directed personally at the officials. If you are constantly brushed away like an irritant fly, you sometimes have to do or say things to concentrate others minds. To receive this type of punishment for showing a duty of care for the charges under you beggars belief.
As for describing Saints as c--ts would the self-righteous among you describe, how a team that condones the deliberate breaking off an opposition players arm. Should be described,

BJ. · Post by **BJ.** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:21 pm

jonlin wrote:... how a team that condones the deliberate breaking off an opposition players arm. Should be described,

Please tell us you meant 'the deliberate breaking of an opposition players arm."

The Boy Dave · Post by **The Boy Dave** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: RFU Judgment on Cockerill

jonlin wrote:

... how a team that condones the deliberate breaking off an opposition players arm. Should be described,

Please tell us you meant 'the deliberate breaking of an opposition players arm."

Good one! You could put it either way really couldn't you. Breaking of or breaking off. Both explanations appropriate which just goes to show how bad it was!
Ooops!