RFU Judgment on Cockerill

[CoalvilleBob]

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.

So you're outraged by the inconsistency in sentencing (which in your opinion went against Leicester) but you don't care about the inconsistency in sanction on the day (which clearly didn't go against Leicester).

I don't really see how you can judge the two crimes to be exactly equivalent. One was committed by a DoR, the other by a player. One consisted a couple of words; the other was longer. One had already been punished for a very similar offence; the other had previously been punished for different types of offences. I'm not sure which is worse but there are clearly differences.

Why do you think Hartley's ban should have waited until September? I think it was appropriate that it started with his next competitive match. I guess the rules could be changed so bans were only applied in the same competition where the 'crime' took place but that would mean that anyone playing in the AP for the last time would be free to do what they wanted without worrying about a ban.

Both men did wrong. Both mean have been punished. IMHO it cost Hartley a lot more than RC. I find it embarrassing that people are trying to make us out as victims when IMHO we're clearly not.

[tigerburnie]

So you're outraged by the inconsistency in sentencing (which in your opinion went against Leicester) but you don't care about the inconsistency in sanction on the day (which clearly didn't go against Leicester).

I don't really see how you can judge the two crimes to be exactly equivalent. One was committed by a DoR, the other by a player. One consisted a couple of words; the other was longer. One had already been punished for a very similar offence; the other had previously been punished for different types of offences. I'm not sure which is worse but there are clearly differences.

Why do you think Hartley's ban should have waited until September? I think it was appropriate that it started with his next competitive match. I guess the rules could be changed so bans were only applied in the same competition where the 'crime' took place but that would mean that anyone playing in the AP for the last time would be free to do what they wanted without worrying about a ban.

Both men did wrong. Both mean have been punished. IMHO it cost Hartley a lot more than RC. I find it embarrassing that people are trying to make us out as victims when IMHO we're clearly not.

Taken in isolation, this report is quite damning, however if you recall Cockers has had this type of frustrating scenario before. There does not seem to be a way of getting across to officials the concerns and getting a consistent answer, the rfu are dodging their responsibility in this and using Cockers as a scapegoat, hoping the problem will go away by getting tough.
As with all disputes there are more than side to the story.

[MarkyH]

Bit of a bummer, but if we can win the AP without most of our first choice players for half the season, I'm sure we can do OK without our DoR for a few games.

[Soggypitch]

So you're outraged by the inconsistency in sentencing (which in your opinion went against Leicester) but you don't care about the inconsistency in sanction on the day (which clearly didn't go against Leicester).

I don't really see how you can judge the two crimes to be exactly equivalent. One was committed by a DoR, the other by a player. One consisted a couple of words; the other was longer. One had already been punished for a very similar offence; the other had previously been punished for different types of offences. I'm not sure which is worse but there are clearly differences.

Why do you think Hartley's ban should have waited until September? I think it was appropriate that it started with his next competitive match. I guess the rules could be changed so bans were only applied in the same competition where the 'crime' took place but that would mean that anyone playing in the AP for the last time would be free to do what they wanted without worrying about a ban.

Both men did wrong. Both mean have been punished. IMHO it cost Hartley a lot more than RC. I find it embarrassing that people are trying to make us out as victims when IMHO we're clearly not.

Taken in isolation, this report is quite damning, however if you recall Cockers has had this type of frustrating scenario before. There does not seem to be a way of getting across to officials the concerns and getting a consistent answer, the rfu are dodging their responsibility in this and using Cockers as a scapegoat, hoping the problem will go away by getting tough.
As with all disputes there are more than side to the story.

I totally agree with CoalvilleBob on this!!

What bans other clubs players and officials get is irrelevant here. we are talking about the behaviour of our DOR who represents the most public face of LT. He seriously transgressed on the most public of stages and should have apologised and taken his punishmnet, without embarrasingly trying to justify his actions/language!

Also I cannot believe the moans and groans on this forum about our players being so called "targeted" by Saints and others.
Lawes made two hard tackles on Flood in the final, the second was perfectly timed, the first just fractionally late and i thought a penalty was the right call, although plenty of others have said they think the first tackle was also fair, within the usual margins.

So what is this targeting? It has been a long tradition at all levels of rugby to try and nail the opposition fly half, the number 7 making a slightly late hit on the number 10 has been going on for years. Do we really think that Toby Flood would complain about this?! I don't think so, he is quite capable of looking after himself, with the help of his mates, the 3 officials and the citing commissioner!!

One of the reasons RC's behaviour in this instance is so crass is that there was nothing wrong with the challenge on Flood, and if he had just waited an extra half a minute in his seat, he would have seen the replay showing Cole's knee hitting Flood's head. But no the red mist descended and he made an exhibition of himself and by inference the Club.

Tigers are strong enough not to start accusing other clubs of targeting our players - frankly it's pathetic and we should put our own house in order first of all.

[tigerburnie]

I do not defend Cockers words, I understand the reason for them, used a couple along with a couple he missed on the day.
The under lying problem is the frustration of Dor's(not just Cockers) in the lack of communication channels and the lack of consistency. Had the tmo been consulted, there would not have even been a penalty, let alone a card. The lack of leadership is hidden by the feeble attempt to do their own brand of bullying, the rfu don't come out of this any better than Cockers here.

[The Boy Dave]

The lack of leadership is hidden by the feeble attempt to do their own brand of bullying, the rfu don't come out of this any better than Cockers here.

Quite right. Two, three or four wrong's do not make a right!
There are no winners in this apart from the whinger's with an agenda. The politics has reached a new low in rugby this week IMO. Take the punishment, round the boy's up and come out fighting!

[beech]

One issue that remains unexplained by the RFU is the long delay before the charges were brought against RC. If the 4th official was so concerned about the language used by Cockerill I would have expected him to submit a report within the next few days. The only possible explanation for the delay of a number of weeks is that they reacted to the comments in the press and emails from the public. I am not trying to excuse the action of RC but I do think that the RFU should come clean on this and not try to pretend that outside influences had no bearing on the action they have taken.

[Bill W (2)]

I do not defend Cockers words, I understand the reason for them, used a couple along with a couple he missed on the day.
The under lying problem is the frustration of Dor's(not just Cockers) in the lack of communication channels and the lack of consistency. Had the tmo been consulted, there would not have even been a penalty, let alone a card. The lack of leadership is hidden by the feeble attempt to do their own brand of bullying, the rfu don't come out of this any better than Cockers here.

I agree tb.

Let us hope that wise council will enable both parties to address their very obvious shortcomings.

[jonlin]

round the boy's up and come out fighting!

If Cockers had put it like this and not used the word smash, the sentence could have been lighter.

[CoalvilleBob]

Wow, I'm honestly amazed. Our DoR abuses the fourth official, is rightly punished, yet some here insist that its the RFU doing the bullying.

Denial doesn't go far enough.

The RFU is far from perfect but that has nothing to do with RC's behaviour.

I look forwards to you all have the same attitude when it is another team's DoR stepping out of line.

[Norfolk & Goode]

CoalvilleBob - you seem to misconstrue to suit some agenda of yours. I'm not 'outraged' but saddened by the RFU's lack of consistency which in turn undermines the whole judicial process. Cockerill (and Tigers) got their just desserts for his arrogance and disgusting behaviour and for his lack of integrity at the hearing.

They ARE both the same offences, ie being foul and abusive towards a match official. No matter the passion, there is a right way and definitely a wrong way to express this. To say one type of swearing is worse than another is ludicrous, they are both equally wrong unless you play football.

The sanction on the day was correct for both parties. Hartley was seen to offend by the referee and was justly dealt with. Cockers was not seen to offend the 4th official on the day and was duly shown back to his seat, otherwise he would've been reported to the ref at the time. It was a citing afterwards.

As for the sentences, both were Premiership games, both were at the same match, both were senior members of their clubs. Consistency for both would've been right ie 9 weeks from the start of the season.

It's embarrassing when a DoR can't admit that swearing is unacceptable especially when he is an inspirational figure to many. It's embarassing when people try and defend that.

I'm over it, I hope you are????

[Gate]

I'm a Cockers fan, but to be honest, I'd have shrugged my shoulders at a four-match ban for excessive effing and blinding and generally being a bit OTT for a man with a bit of form, and hoped that he'd value the benefits of restraint a little more without losing his passion and general Cockersness. But 9 matches, bumped up by the frankly risible reasoning about how the "smash" bit was a serious threat and intimidatory, makes me think this one's well worth an appeal.

And if some shaking up of the RFU's pitiable disciplinary administration results, that would be a nice bonus. As would my winning this week's Euromillions, which is about as likely.

[cidermark]

I know the RFU have stated that media and email correspondence did not influenced their decision but why did they allow evidence in the form of a DVD to be presented which began with "an opposing coach" - presumably Nobbys comments to the camera at half time.

4. Mr. Green referred us to the DVD footage. This lasted 3 minutes 5 seconds and was a compilation of various incidents, commencing with comments by an opposing Coach about Mr. Cockerill’s behaviour and ending with Mr. Cockerill being led back to his seat in the stand by Mr. Morrison.

Why start with Nobbys comments? Why not the incident that caused the situation - including the bit of footage where Barnes appears to start signal for TV Ref opinion and then changes his mind and ending with RC's actions. Surely that would have been pertinent?

[Bill W (2)]

It's embarassing when people try and defend that.

I don't think anyone is trying to defend Cockers use of foul and abusive language. He seemed to think that a valid defence was that it was not directed at the 4th official and, perhaps, that Anglo Saxon is part of his normal vocabulary. The RFU disciplinary panel which inexplicably was convened very late (indeed it is a moot point whether the citing was not "out of time") accepted submissions from the RFU which were invalid and outwith the disciplinary proecedures. They said that they ignored them - nonetheless they allowed them to be made and recorded them.

Of course they (the disciplinary panel) had to find RC guilty. To do otherwise would give carte blanche for every DoR to swear at and try to intimidate officials.

The sentence and the timing of it and the RFU procedures are, however, far from transparent and raise significant questions as to the RFU's integrity (IMHO)

[tig1]

It's embarassing when people try and defend that.

I don't think anyone is trying to defend Cockers use of foul and abusive language. He seemed to think that a valid defence was that it was not directed at the 4th official and, perhaps, that Anglo Saxon is part of his normal vocabulary. The RFU disciplinary panel which inexplicably was convened very late (indeed it is a moot point whether the citing was not "out of time") accepted submissions from the RFU which were invalid and outwith the disciplinary proecedures. They said that they ignored them - nonetheless they allowed them to be made and recorded them.

Of course they (the disciplinary panel) had to find RC guilty. To do otherwise would give carte blanche for every DoR to swear at and try to intimidate officials.

The sentence and the timing of it and the RFU procedures are, however, far from transparent and raise significant questions as to the RFU's integrity (IMHO)

I would say some people, including RC and the club, are seeking to find elements of mitigation or justification were there is none Bill. Most sports, including rugby, are full of perceived injustice, and perceived or real inefficiencies by governing bodies. That is the nature of the beast. The nature of beaurocrats. It has always been, and will always be that way.

But one of the key cornerstones of Rugby Union is the ultimate respect shown to officials. No ifs or buts, that's just the way the game has always been and should remain. The words that RC used to an official, whether they were directed at him or not, simply have no place in the game, and to be honest I think it's very poor the club haven't made this explicit with an outright apology, particularly since the dialogue is now open to be read by every woman and child who follows the game and the club.

Also keep in mind that during the same match another of the Tigers coaches was warned by Wayne Barnes for inappropriate language to an official. And as we know Matt o conor was no shrinking violet when it came to language. So there would seem to be or have been an ethic in that group of the way officials are spoken about or viewed which I find disappointing for a club of Tigers stature.