The judge was referring to the use of the "f" word in a different context. This is very clear if you read both judgements. For the youth, it was part of his everyday language and was considered to have been used in this context. In Cockerill's case it seems to have been used very differently - each case is judged on its merits.
The use of the word itself is not an offence, and one could consider, as the Judge did, that a policeman would not feel "harrassment, alarm or distress" at the use of the "f" word, whereas in a different situation, (and not necessarily in Cockerill's case) other people having it shouted in their face might feel differently, as might those who observe this - just picture an old lady and her friend with a group of yobs, and this happening.
fleabane wrote:The judge was referring to the use of the "f" word in a different context. This is very clear if you read both judgements. For the youth, it was part of his everyday language and was considered to have been used in this context. In Cockerill's case it seems to have been used very differently - each case is judged on its merits.
The use of the word itself is not an offence, and one could consider, as the Judge did, that a policeman would not feel "harrassment, alarm or distress" at the use of the "f" word, whereas in a different situation, (and not necessarily in Cockerill's case) other people having it shouted in their face might feel differently, as might those who observe this - just picture an old lady and her friend with a group of yobs, and this happening.
I am not sure that any old ladies witnessed Cockers rants! Nor that any of those who wrote to and e-mailed the rfu did either (inadmissable evidence submitted and accepted by the panel). That Cockers has previously used the f word is evidence of it being a normal part of his vocabulary and cannot be used as evidemce prior to the hearing of his serial guilt.
I repeat that IMHO Cockers was guilty.
But the RFU procedures were so significantly flawed to remder the result unsafe and unsound.
yellow_balaclava_hunter wrote:
Secondly the RFU have shown themselves to be the cause of Cockerills complaints as after he raised his concerns that players might be targeted, the RFU reassured him that the TMO would be used
I disagreed with all your points but this one is the silliest. Are you seriously suggesting that the RFU promised that the TMO would be used for every tackle we questioned? Do you want every game to wait for dozens of verdicts from the TMO? The ref made a call about the tackle by Lawes. We subsequently saw it wasn't a terrible call.
Once again I have to ask people on here to read before they post.
Go and read the judgement again.
It is completely out of order for the RFU to promise that if a late tackle is made then the TMO will be used only for the referee not to use one when the referee gives a penalty for a late tackle and to then ban a coach for 9 matches because he complained to an RFU official because they went back on their word.
By admitting as fact in the disciplinary proceedings that the RFU promised that the TMO would be used on late tackles to protect the players, then also admitting that the TMO was not used when a late tackle had been given, the RFU has been shown to either have no control over its referees or to be complete liars.
Either way no player, coach or member of Leicester Tigers should trust the RFU or adhere to any judgement they make in future.
In fact the club should be taking the RFU to court.
Just watch this tackle again. Anyone that thinks it is OK, go and get your eyes tested. Just remember who it is dishing it out. Cockers had every right to be angry!
It appears the RFU case is founded on the interpretation of a lip reader,the fourth official seemed unconcerned with RC rant. His only recollection was RC comment about telling his players to smash the opposition players, RC was to repeat this comment to Wayne Barnes at half time. Wayne Barnes was not called to the hearing so it can be taken that RC did not repeat this comment to him. With the evidence offered it appears when the final whistle went that was the end of it. In fact it was probably viewed by them as a private interaction between two people. It is rude to eavesdrop on a private conversation. This also could explain the time lapse between incident and charge.
The other reason for the delay, those sitting in judgement were on a jolly in Australia at our expense. While they were there they must have bump into a few kangaroo's and returned with some form of cross contamination.
No problem with the ban. Just the hypocrisy.
1) Most of the national media have said how Cockerill is one of the most accomodating, polite and respectful D.O.R's to interview.
2) Now any D.O.R who swears( Cockerill DID NOT SWEAR AT THE OFFICIALS but at the incident) has to be banned for some game time.
3) During many matches that I watched home and away last season, Tigers players and the opposition could be heard to swear- will they get banned?
Finally, Ryan Lamb, in the Final was clearly heard to say the F word and at Barnes- could have ben a ban to start his career with us!!! Again though- Hartley carded- nothing done with Lamb as Tigers had the game in the bag!
Hypocrisy rules ok.
As for Cockerill:
Cockerill defends his players. Love him or loathe him-as aplayer you'd soon lose respect for him if he didn't look out for you.
As a player he always took time after matches to shake people's hand even freezing day at Sale and Newcastle. He's great with kids too.
Take the punishment. Move on and win the Final again.
The Boy Dave wrote:Just watch this tackle again. Anyone that thinks it is OK, go and get your eyes tested. Just remember who it is dishing it out. Cockers had every right to be angry!
Every time I watch it I can see Lawes lining Toby up , but not going for him UNTIL the pass is being made. This is not a marginal late tackle, it is a tackle bent on damage, timed to perfection. It is not an 'illegal' tackle (like a spear) but one dressed up to look late-ish. there is a similar one on Hodgson in the semi that resulted in retirement from the field, done in exactly the same way.
This should have been referred to the TMO and IMVHO would have resulted in the sin bin.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
The Boy Dave wrote:Just watch this tackle again. Anyone that thinks it is OK, go and get your eyes tested. Just remember who it is dishing it out. Cockers had every right to be angry!
I am not sure if it has been discussed in a separate thread, but the A. Tuilagi red card tackle against De villiers the other week was a good example of a High, late, dangerous, straight arm,deliberate cheap shot after the ball had gone. Interestingly the referee DID go to the tmo then did send him off.
If I watch that tackle and compare it to Laws then IMO the difference in massive. Well worth a YouTube view for those who haven't seen it.
If anybody put together a montage of the brothers Tuilagi 'hits' over the years into would make Laws look like a pussy cat
I am still a bit confused about why people think it should have been referred to TMO at Twickenham. That's an option for the officials if they dont think they have see the incident clearly, the same as any other tmo referrel isn't ? The are not obliged to use it ?
tig1 wrote:I am not sure if it has been discussed in a separate thread, but the A. Tuilagi red card tackle against De villiers the other week was a good example of a High, late, dangerous, straight arm,deliberate cheap shot after the ball had gone. Interestingly the referee DID go to the tmo then did send him off.
If I watch that tackle and compare it to Laws then IMO the difference in massive. Well worth a YouTube view for those who haven't seen it.
If anybody put together a montage of the brothers Tuilagi 'hits' over the years into would make Laws look like a pussy cat
I am still a bit confused about why people think it should have been referred to TMO at Twickenham. That's an option for the officials if they dont think they have see the incident clearly, the same as any other tmo referrel isn't ? The are not obliged to use it ?
Red herring with a vengeance. I was discussing any Tuilagi tackle I was discussing one tackle and compared it to the same move used in the previous match. If the TJs think there's foul play and the ref ain't seen it, the TMO is fine.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Just watch this tackle again. Anyone that thinks it is OK, go and get your eyes tested. Just remember who it is dishing it out. Cockers had every right to be angry!
Showing your bias. Whoever is making and/or receiving a tackle has no bearing on its legality (as far as I'm aware).
Ok. I am quite happy to be pedantic along with you just for the sake of it.
Bias? No, just confusion!
There were a chain of event's and yet Cockerill is the only man to suffer the wrath of the authorities.
Does Lawes smashing two playmakers with off the ball tackles on two consecutive weekends bring the game into disrepute?
Does West going live on T.V and commenting on an opposition coach during half time bring the game into disrepute?
Does the officials stating that they will use the TMO for incidents before a match and then not doing so bring the game into disrepute?
Rather than dealing with problems at source the RFU have took the easy route and chose to publicly hang out the media's chosen targets, IMVHO!
The problem's still exist and no-one really has any idea between right and wrong!
The Boy Dave wrote:
Does Lawes smashing two playmakers with off the ball tackles on two consecutive weekends bring the game into disrepute?
Does West going live on T.V and commenting on an opposition coach during half time bring the game into disrepute?
Does the officials stating that they will use the TMO for incidents before a match and then not doing so bring the game into disrepute?
!
The Boy Dave wrote:
Does Lawes smashing two playmakers with off the ball tackles on two consecutive weekends bring the game into disrepute?
Does West going live on T.V and commenting on an opposition coach during half time bring the game into disrepute?
Does the officials stating that they will use the TMO for incidents before a match and then not doing so bring the game into disrepute?
!
Yes indeed!
Should we e-mail the rfu???
Yes we should.
Certainly about the promise of using the TMO which was then reneged upon.
Barnes goes to TMO, end of incident, the rest doesn't happen..
or
4th Official says to Barnes I have been sworn at by the Tigers DOR, RC sent off at the time, hearing shortly after..
or
nothing happens for a number of days Saints & sections of the media get excited & a charge is brought then RFU :censored: around for a month & get hot under the collar.
Tigers should accept the ban but complain in the strongest terms over the way it has been managed etc.
Wheeler & Tom should appolgise to RC for not reigning him earlier & hence to us for the loss of our DOR for 9 games.
All other coaches of the other AP sides need to very worried now, Connor O'Shea will be the next.
RC should spend his ban going to Saints games.
I doubt it will affect our games too much as Cockers can still coach, his better attribute & we keep him away from game management his weakest point.
& finally Tigers & Saints should jointly say they do not want Barnes as Ref at games between the clubs, he has messed up enough now.
