Cockerill farce continues

The Aviva Premiership final was on the 25th May. A month and a half after Cockerill allegedly used abusive language against a 4th official, Cockerill was charged and been suspended for 9 matches.

Now another twist in the farce - Tigers given more time to appeal - originally should have been the 9th July which was yesterday.

The Tigers now have till the 18th to appeal and might well succeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23255490

When will this farcical episode eventually be put to bed? Why have the RFU taken so long to deal with this? Will Cockerill be allowed to wriggle free?

Thoughts?

I agree that it's turning into a bit of a mess, Beshocked.
 
Smells like a procedural Horlicks to me - thats why the RFU are jumping through hoops now to try and let the appeals process be done by the book. The actual substance of the complaint can't really be that complex though, can it? Either Cockers said what was alleged or he didn't and according to RFU rules, he can either be charged or he can't.
 
He's a colourful character but he does need to pull in his head a bit and realise that he disrupts his players and their prep with his behaviour sometimes.

The RFU liked the way the London/Oxford welsh farce kept them busy last summer almost right up the start of the season, so thought they would see if they can do the same with this.

I agree with GC, it is surely an open/close case, he either ran his gob or didn't. If they decided he did and had proof then how can there be an appeal?

George Carlin might be a man sausage up by the RFU but it's easily avoided.

True it shouldn't be complex but it's been over a month now.....

Surely you would think the 4th official who Cockerill allegedly abused would say something.

As you can probably tell I am not a big fan of the RFU. Greedy,bloated, incompetent old farts is how I would describe them.

Not sure Cockerill has been disrupting his own players - they are winning too many matches for it to be much of an issue.

True actually scarletspiderman. I suppose the RFU want something to occupy their time.

There is probably an appeal because it's not clear cut. Cockerill might well get off on a technicality - like the 4th official was deaf so didn't hear Cockerill's abuse. Or maybe they are asking if the ban can get reduced seeing that this is Cockerill's 1st time being banned for abusing a 4th official, reduction for good behaviour since the AP final, reduction for simply being a nice guy etc.

beshocked wrote:George Carlin might be a man sausage up by the RFU but it's easily avoided.

 I'm not that kind of girl...

The problems have all come about because the RFU prosecution brought evidence to consideration that was hearsay and baseless in fact. They tried to really it give to Cockerill rather than just use the fourth officials testimony so they could make an example of him. Now the Tigers have complained about the complaints emails and Dorrian West half time interview being allowed as evidence and the RFU are starting to look like prats.

It should have been an open and shut case with Cockers getting a ban. The big song and dance the RFU have cooked up could leave them with egg on their face.

Sam you talk about the 4th officials testimony. Have the RFU actually asked the 4th official or not?

In regards to the RFU they lost their dignity and credibility a long time ago.

Here is the full written judgement....

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2012-2013/judgments-by-club/aviva-premiership/~/media/files/2013/discipline/judgments/aviva%20premiership/cockerillleicestertigersjudgmentjuly13.ashx

I can't see that Cockerill has any leg to stand on to be perfectly honest and if they do lodge an appeal I would expect the original finding of guilt to stand. I would also expect the panel to decide that the appeal was frivolous and extend the ban.

They have Beshocked and his testimony was damning and should have been sufficient. The RFU made a carnival of the affair, berating Cockers from various sources and giving a rather condescending verdict (I'm on my phone otherwise I'd quote it). It's all rather embarrassing and Tigers are apparently unimpressed. They've demanded the RFU disciplinary lot explain themselves and their conduct which is fair given the farce the written report displays. No appeal can really be decided upon until such things have been discussed.

The words of the 4th official should be enough for a ban given his evidence. I think Tigers are keen to reign in the self righteousness demonstrated by the RFU in the proceedings rather than appeal. As allowing hearsay evidence sets a dangerous precedent.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Here is the full written judgement....

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2012-2013/judgments-by-club/aviva-premiership/~/media/files/2013/discipline/judgments/aviva%20premiership/cockerillleicestertigersjudgmentjuly13.ashx

I can't see that Cockerill has any leg to stand on to be perfectly honest and if they do lodge an appeal I would expect the original finding of guilt to stand.  I would also expect the panel to decide that the appeal was frivolous and extend the ban.

Thanks Ozzy. This is just molten bronze brilliance:
 

Under questioning, Mr. Cockerill did not accept that his behaviour was actually prejudicial – only potentially so. He said that if he deemed it necessary he would give his input into situations to the Match Officials. His intention when he went down to the touchline on the second occasion was to express his disappointment.

He accepted that his question about the TMO had been answered and that on the second visit he could not influence that decision. However, he conceded that he could potentially influence further refereeing decisions. He said that his use of the words “f***” and “f*****g” were justified in the circumstances and that his use of such words did not make his actions aggressive.

He denied wagging his finger at Mr. Terheege and stated that he was pointing to the pitch. He denied that the words “smash the c***s” was a threat to Match Officials. He had every right to defend his players and in future he would make the same point again but perhaps without using the same language.

Just shows that the line between plank and legend is very blurry.

formerly known as Sam wrote:They have Beshocked and his testimony was damning and should have been sufficient. The RFU made a carnival of the affair, berating Cockers from various sources and giving a rather condescending verdict (I'm on my phone otherwise I'd quote it). It's all rather embarrassing and Tigers are apparently unimpressed. They've demanded the RFU disciplinary lot explain themselves and their conduct which is fair given the farce the written report displays. No appeal can really be decided upon until such things have been discussed.

The words of the 4th official should be enough for a ban given his evidence. I think Tigers are keen to reign in the self righteousness demonstrated by the RFU in the proceedings rather than appeal. As allowing hearsay evidence sets a dangerous precedent.

What a load of nonsense. Disciplinary hearings were set up in part to avoid the likelihood of criminal proceedings resulting from actions during a match, and as such they take a similar format, albeit the burden of proof in an RFU disciplinary hearing is 'on balance of probabilities' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

So in relation to appeals the following applies...

1) You cannot appeal if the any of following examples apply:

You didn’t agree with the Jury’s decision.
You didn’t like the Judge’s Comments or Summing Up.

2) You may have Grounds to Appeal if the any of following examples apply:

Your legal team did not follow your instructions.
New and strong evidence has since come to light that was not previously available.
Your defence case was not prepared properly.
You believe that the prosecution’s case against you was wrong according to the law.
You have strong reasons for believing that your legal team did not act in your best interests.


Clearly none of option two apply in this case, therefore there would be no grounds for an appeal. Also, in criminal trials, a judge can allow hearsay evidence to be heard.

Cockers quite frankly needs to wind his neck in on this one.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
You believe that the prosecution’s case against you was wrong according to the law.


Cockers quite frankly needs to wind his neck in on this one.

ives room for

I agree with the second point - but surely it is that first line that gives room for an appeal. The allegation is that the RFU prosecution used evidence that was ineligible to secure the conviction.

Ozzy whilst no one denies that Cockers deserves a ban quite clearly " You believe that the prosecution’s case against you was wrong according to the law." applies as hearsay evidence is not admissible and is at the heart of Tigers complaint. How the views of an opposition coach in a media interview can be used as evidence is ridiculous as is the use of email complaints from opposition fans.

Does this mean in the future that if Cockerill complains about the action of an opposition player and I write an email of complaint to the RFU that these can be used as admissible evidence in any resulting hearing?

The facts should decide hearings. The fourth officials testimony followed by Cockerill's statement in defence was all that should have been required in this case.

But is West's testimony hearsay though?  I don't see that it is.  Cockerill was charged with conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game, so essentially there are two parts to proving the offence.

1. That there was some form of conduct from Cockerill.
2. That it was prejudicial.

Effectively the 4th official provides evidence to prove the first part, and the testimony from West and all the people who e-mailed in to complain about it forms evidence that it was prejudicial.  

If West said "well I heard from person x that Cockers said blah blah blah" then that would be hearsay.  If West has said, "I saw Cockers shouting and pointing at the 4th official but couldn't here what he was saying but I think he was saying blah blah blah" then that's not hearsay.

He complains about Cockerill trying to influence the officials. The interview is short and lacks depth. If they wanted his contribution they should have called him as a witness and therefore allowed cross examination and allowed the hearing to understand what he actually heard. A short sound clip of West ranting is not reasonable evidence or allows the defence to form any sort of reply.

The disciplinary process, I understand, did not interview West - merely presented his half time TV interview as evidence. Surely with no chance to interrogate the "witness" that makes it inadmissible?


PS I firmly believe cockerill deserves a ban. I just feel that as the law makers the RFU should abide by the same regulations as they expect others to follow. That they may have not done so brings their own impartiality into question.

I can only draw parallels with criminal trials that I have been in involved with and would liken the tv interview with West to a piece of evidence that I recently used in a trial.

This evidence was the recording of a 999 call. The person refused to provide a statement to police after the incident (for a number of reasons) and therefore they were not called to court to give evidence or be cross examined. The defence argued that the 999 call should be inadmissable for that reason, however the judge ruled that it was the Crowns evidence as the disc had been produced by a police employee who had exhibited it, and it was therefore allowed. The call was compelling and the defendant had to change their plea to guilty.

I cannot see how West's TV interview is any different to that really. The fact that it's short and 'lacks depth' is irrelevant. If you are saying that he is complaining that Cockers is trying to influence the match officials then he's not actually saying anything that isn't already admitted by Cockers, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

It smacks to me of Cockerill and Tigers stamping their feet because they don't like the decision and if that is the case I stand by what I said in that any subsequent failed appeal should result in an increase of the ban.

I liken the behaviour of the RFU to that they displayed when initially finding Hala'ufia guilty last year. They had reached their decision beforehand based on their perception of the player/coach and did everything they could to create the evidence to ensure a lengthy sentence. The West interview was used to show how Cockerill had brought th egame into disrepute. Well he is not exactly impartial is he? He was not trying to bring his own influence to bear was he?

Now the difference of course is that Cockerill is probably guilty, and deserves a ban - but the RFU have still seen fit to change the rules and should be held accountable for that. By introducing spurious evidence, that ruled could not be addressed by the defence, they felt justified in handing a sentence more than double that we have ever seen for such an offence before.

When the RFU is Prosecutor, judge and jury they need to abide by the rules. Leicester feel they did not, and if they feel there is sufficient grounds for complaint about this, and that this affected the sentence given - surely they have every right to appeal.

You are making assumptions though. What 'rules' have the RFU changed? How is the evidence spurious? The defence would have, from what I read in the report, had an opportunity to comment on the dvd footage from West and if appropriate refute his claims. There is no reference to them doing so. If they felt that it was an inappropriate submission to the panel then they should have contested it at the time.

In relation to the sentence Cockerill had a 4 week ban for a similar offence where he plead guilty. Having not accepted guilt on this occasion and having not learnt from the previous ban 9 weeks sounds about right in all honesty.

A previous offence back in 2009. Most players don't get increased sentences based on previous from that long ago.

By comparison Ollie Smith was given a three game ban as the then Esher head coach lost his temper with a match official he later described to the press as either incompetent or morally corrupt.

The evidence is farcical because it is a biased rant. The police call you refer to is not the same as it is a record of events. West's interview provides no reference to what he heard, which is key in this case as It's the language Cockers used that should land him in hot water.

The RFU have set out to make an example Cockerill and presented information with no place in the hearing to belittle him. If these hearings are to be seen as justice they should use facts. The comments from the fourth official were ample to reach a guilty verdict.

So you accept that he's guilty and deserves, but you think he should appeal because of what you percive as some form of technicality about how the evidence was presented.
 
Honestly, that makes me quite sad and sums up for me a lot of what is wrong with society today.
 
I often read on here and in other rugby related areas fans of the game taking the moral high ground and talking about respect for officials and looking down on fans of other sports, yet here you are trying to defend Cockerill, who you accept is guilty as the RFU haven't been very nice to him essentially.
 
I am genuinely baffled.

I'm not trying to defend Cockerill. I and I think LT are concerned about what the RFU are trying to pass as evidence and the lack of neutrality going into a hearing. The club may feel 9 weeks is OTT and they may be right but he is certainly guilty. His guilt doesn't mean that the way the RFU conducted themselves was correct.

Look, we all know that the disciplinary process in rugby has flaws, but ultimately Cockerill is guilty and knows he is guilty, therefore to me if he appeals he should have the book thrown at him.

I also don't see where you are coming from that the RFU have conducted themselves poorly. I have read the report and it all seems pretty clear and transparent to me. The argument that the dvd of West complaining shouldn't have been admissable does not hold up. You say they have set out to make an example of Cockerill, and perhaps they have, but do you not think that the governing body should make an example of a DOR who abuses a match official? Do we want that in the game? You also say they have belittled Cockerill, but I see no evidence of that from the report.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one minute that if this was the DOR from any other club that you would be defending them nor criticising the process by which their guilt was found.

Ozzy3213 wrote:So you accept that he's guilty and deserves, but you think he should appeal because of what you percive as some form of technicality about how the evidence was presented.
 
Honestly, that makes me quite sad and sums up for me a lot of what is wrong with society today.
 
I often read on here and in other rugby related areas fans of the game taking the moral high ground and talking about respect for officials and looking down on fans of other sports, yet here you are trying to defend Cockerill, who you accept is guilty as the RFU haven't been very nice to him essentially.
 
I am genuinely baffled.

I do not want a police state where sentences can be decided in advance, evidence can be fabricated (or amended) and the lawmakers are themselves above the law. When the legal process behaves like this we see miscarriages of justice which then make it easier for guilty people to play the game and get off on technicalities.

If the RFU behaved inappropriatley they should be brought to book. If there is no other way to do this other than appeal the fine details of the hearing that is the way it is. I would rather Leicester accepted the ban (though I felt it was excessive compared to past cases) but then brought a separate case against the RFU for their failings. Not sure that is possible.

I hope Tigers are not planning a spurious appeal, but this blind assumption that any appeal will be a case of petulant foot-stamping is unfair.


If Cockerill broke the rules, he should be punished accordingly. Surely the same applies to the RFU?

Ozzy3213 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one minute that if this was the DOR from any other club that you would be defending them nor criticising the process by which their guilt was found.

You do not know me, nor my beliefs. This accusation is unfair, unfounded and has now made me seriously angry. I spend a hell of a lot of time on here defending other teams, coaches etc. Do not apply your own belief system to me.

I will now avoid this thread as I may say something I will live to regret.

Where have the RFU broken the rules LT?

Where have they decided the snetence in advance and where have they fabricated or amended evidence?

I see nothing to show that any of those things have happened.

LondonTiger wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one minute that if this was the DOR from any other club that you would be defending them nor criticising the process by which their guilt was found.

You do not know me, nor my beliefs. This accusation is unfair, unfounded and has now made me seriously angry. I spend a hell of a lot of time on here defending other teams, coaches etc. Do not apply your own belief system to me.

I will now avoid this thread as I may say something I will live to regret.

I was talking to formerly known as Sam as it happens, but if you want to leave the thread and not discuss this issue then that is your prerogative.

Just read the judgment.

I suspect that if this had been a criminal case it would have been declared a mis-trial when RC's previous was mentioned. I guess the difference is that an experienced judge can be relied on to separate that submission from the evidence used to decide guilt whereas a jury could not.

It certainly was a procedural error but it looks like it was acknowledged and dealt with.

On the point of whether it was right to use the TV footage I suspect the answer is yes as the panel do have to take into account when deciding sanction, the impact any incident had on the match and on the public perception after the game.

To be honest I think RC's goose was cooked by his lack of insight into his behaviour. From the judgment it certainly looks like he thinks his behaviour was appropriate.

Now, I am no RC fan but, given the terrible events of the previous match between these clubs and the absolute mess the RFU made of that, I do have some sympathy for him in his concern for his players. BUT, that in no way excuses his behaviour.

Both RC and the RFU need to take a long hard look at themselves.

MrsP wrote:Just read the judgment.

I suspect that if this had been a criminal case it would have been declared a mis-trial when RC's previous was mentioned. I guess the difference is that an experienced judge can be relied on to separate that submission from the evidence used to decide guilt whereas a jury could not.

 
Not neccesarily.  Previous convictions can be entered as evidence in trials in the form of a bad character application.  It would be for the judge to decide on it's admissibility.  The defence would try to argue it out generally, although there are times that they don't, primarily when they want to call into question the character of a prosecution witness due to their own previous convictions.  If they want to bring those up in defence then they have to allow the defendants previous to be entered into evidence.
 
As you rightly point out in this instance there is no jury as such and the chair of the panel dealt with the issue as it was raised.

Could be Ozzy. Definately not my field of expertise.

Mind you, it looks suspiciously like it's not the RFU's field of expertise either.

That's 2 judgements of incidents involving these 2 clubs where the panel has made a complete mess of things. You really would hope that QCs would do better.

I really don't see where people are saying they have made a mess of things with this MrsP. Where do you see that they have made a mess of things?

I mean that RC's previous should not have been brought up in evidence at that point in the hearing. It was just very poor. It also leaves them open to an appeal on a technicality.

These are experienced, high ranking members of the legal system. I think we have the right to expect more.

I have no problem with the sanction handed down to RC at all.

I think you have to seperate the RFU into two here.
 
RFU 1 = The Panel.
RFU 2= The Prosecution.
 
For the purpose of the disciplinary hearing they are essentially seperate entities.  If you equate the hearing to a trial, there are many occasions where prosecuting barristers say something or bring up 'evidence' that should not be entered.  The defence barrister would object and the judge if he agreed with the objection would direct the jury to disregard the information.
 
Essentially that is all that has happened here, with the chair of panel noting that it was raised and then disregarding it from what he considered in reaching a verdict.
 
 
The only mess is the one of the RFU being the prosecutor and the judge, but that is no different to any other disciplinary hearing for an Aviva Premiership game.  I agree that it should be completely independant and have argued that point before, but it's not and never has been.  I just don't see the previous argument on this thread about the RFU having 'changed the rules' or brought in 'spurious evidence' as having any basis in fact.

I actually don't have a huge problem with the RFU being in charge of both the prosectution and the panel. I just wish they would actually do their jobs properly.

They have made themselves look like fools at times. The worst being the Clark debacle. But even this looks bad. The Disciplinary Officer should have known that he should not be mentioning the previous in that part of proceedings.

It just looks amateurish. And it leaves the door open for a potenial appeal when the best thing would have been to get the thing sorted and out of the way.

My issue is that they say they wont take into consideration media and emails (got to be from ackford) and yet they continue to talk about them so they obviously take those into consideration.

they also took into consideration it was the final and so lots of people would be watching. They made no mention in the hearing for Hartley calling the ref a cheat.

But as I say MrsP, this sort of thing goes on in trials all of the time, and does not automatically lead to re-trials or grounds for an appeal.

So because it goes on all the time its ok?

I haven't read the Hartley hearing report nathan, but Hartly was dealt with for abuse of a match official I believe. Therefore the fact that it was a televised final was not particularly relevant to the offence although could be considered an aggravated factor in terms of sentence.

Cockerill was charged with behaviour prejudicial to the interests of the game. That being the case the fact that it was a live tv game with a big audience is relevant to the offence and us such is mentioned as part of the evidence.

Different offences = different relevant factors.

Lawyers eh Ozzy!

 

nathan wrote:So because it goes on all the time its ok?

Nathan, the whole court process is about the prosecution trying to get in what they can to prove guilt, and the defence trying to keep out as much as they can to make their man look innocent (I am speaking where they have committed the offence and not on the occassions that they are genuinely innocent). The judge decides what is fair and right to be allowed in. That is all that has happened in this disciplinary process. I can see no issue with it.

Both offences should of have taken it into consideration or not. Not one or the other.

they both abused a match official on live tv.

They are different offences nathan with different points to prove to show the offence was committed.

But ask yourself why are they different offences?

Ozzy3213 wrote:

nathan wrote:So because it goes on all the time its ok?

Nathan, the whole court process is about the prosecution trying to get in what they can to prove guilt, and the defence trying to keep out as much as they can to make their man look innocent (I am speaking where they have committed the offence and not on the occassions that they are genuinely innocent).  The judge decides what is fair and right to be allowed in.  That is all that has happened in this disciplinary process.  I can see no issue with it.

But surely an RFU hearing should not be conducted in that way.

It should be more about fact finding than an adversarial contest?

Discipline Report wrote:
We were dismayed that his previous character was introduced and disapprove of that course of action 

That does not read as it was possible for it to be included and they just decided it wasn't this time. It reads as though there was no way it should have been mentioned. The fact they said they didn't raise it at the time doesn't help.

The stupid thing in all this is that it wasn't needed. It seemed pretty clear cut. Instead Mr Green decided to add stuff which, from the RFU wording, was completely inappropriate.

I agree with mrsp, how can a rfu hearing be run like a normal court one that izzy has been describing when the judge and prosecution are both from the rfu.

"17. In the course of his opening submissions, Mr. Green QC made reference on two separate occasions to Mr. Cockerill’s previous disciplinary record. The current Regulations state that previous disciplinary matters are relevant considerations with regard to sentence. There is no basis upon which the Panel is entitled, pursuant to the Regulations, to consider such matters as being relevant to whether the accused was guilty of the alleged charge. Whilst the references were not challenged at the time, we put them entirely to one side in considering Mr. Cockerill’s guilt or innocence of the offence alleged. We were dismayed that his previous character was introduced and disapprove of that course of action."


They are relevant for deciding sentencing.

So the panel have been clear that they did not take his previous into consideration when coming to the judgement. Therefore the panel have done nothing wrong.

You can argue that the part of the RFU that was prosecting was wrong to thrown them in, but they are not the ones that have made the decision of guilt.

Had the panel said, we took into account his previous when deciding on his guilt, then there would be grounds for appeal as correct procedure was not followed by the panel.

nathan wrote:But ask yourself why are they different offences?

They are different offences because they were different acts.

Hartley called the referee a cheat and was dismissed.

Cockerill ran down to the 4th official questioned something the ref had done, was given an answer and went away, and then came back ranting and raving and attempting to have an affect on how the referee officiated the rest of the match.

Different acts, therefore different offences.