Cockerill farce continues

First topic message reminder :

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?

It has also changed the shape of some minor games like RWC semi-finals (and a final), doc.

I'm only suggesting one touchline appeal per game. Not like NFL where flags are chucked in like the US Air Force on a bombing run.

Ahh, down to the nitty gritty now, eh? Which RWC semi-final?

And I do agree the USAF do like to drop theor load, so to speak, all over the place. Don't think they are too familiar with the expression 'less is more'.

Monday for the appeal apparently.

I suppose Leicester will also try to convince the arbitrator that 'less is more'.

"Fewer matches will teach Cockers better than a long suspension"
"Really?"
"Oh, yes! He will think it is all part of a plot"
"What kind of a plot?"
"The kind of plot hatched by the brain trust at the RFU who want to see Cockers diminished. Obviously, they are afraid the wide body of adoring fans across the globe will present an ultimatum to the RFU demanding Cockers become England Head Coach"



"Really?"

Having seen the fixture list I was wondering if it might be a greater punishment to allow him to return before the 11th of October?

He certainly didn't enjoy his previous trip. And I would miss him and his "Not straight!!!!" catch phrase!

 

Agree.
Get him.
Get him
Get him
Get him
Welcome the cute little bald guy to Belfast with open arms..............

I'm hoping we actually have a 10 for Ravenhill this time MrsP, on the back foot away from home in the HEC and we couldn't kick for toffee. Really made a bad situation worse.

I do sympathize with Cockers in that game as Best seemed to have borrowed McCaw's invisibility cloak for that game. Couldn't throw straight, off his feet, in at the side and nothing given. Added to our inability to halt even the most basic Ulster attack on the gainline, a very frustrating evening.

Burke as a proud Munster man will be in charge and will be rather unhappy should we perform as badly again. Though he doesn't shout when angered he was this unblinking glare thing. You can tell who was the hooker and who was the 10.

Hmmmm?

Those are not the things I remember about that evening Sam.

 

I had the dubious pleasure of sitting about 3 seats from RC that night.

What a night it was.

Under no illusions about how irrelevant it is to this season though.

I must say that both of you gents are from amazing fan bases. Genuine affection and respect for the fans of both your clubs from the Ravenhill faithful.

 

 

Just caught sight of this headline on the Beeb and thought they had already decided to "make an example" of RC in a different way!

Cockerill Unveiled on 4th Plinth!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23448832

Mrs P it was a great game for the Ulster fans, I hope you enjoyed it and the rather frank comments of pur director of rugby did not effect your enjoyment.

A game most Tigers fans would prefer to forget though. Looking forward to the HEC this season, hopefully the result at Ravenhill is a little less one sided.

Cockers ban still for 9 matches - but brought forward by the appeal panel to include pre-season matches. He still misses the visit to Ravenhill though.

Quickly, schedule a few more friendlies then he'll only miss a game or two of the regular league!  

The RFU chose to ignore the Notts friendly but not the Jersey friendly. That's a touch odd as both are at the same level. Don't think they are counting the friendly in France either just the Jersey and Ulster games. Guess adding more friendlies won't help.

It's a bit crap, this. He wasn't banned for his conduct during a friendly.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's a bit crap, this. He wasn't banned for his conduct during a friendly.

Is it as crap as Hartly's ban from the same game in which he questions the refs integrity? His ban was for a time span allowing him to serve a great proportion of it in the close season! There's consistency for you!

Two wrongs don't make me any less self-righteous.

tigerleghorn wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's a bit crap, this. He wasn't banned for his conduct during a friendly.

Is it as crap as Hartly's ban from the same game in which he questions the refs integrity? His ban was for a time span allowing him to serve a great proportion of it in the close season! There's consistency for you!

 Hartley missed a Lions tour as a result of his actions, which is a bit more of a punishment than missing a couple of friendlies.

It is strange that they included some friendlies and not others.

Never mind MrsP. With or without Cockers, I'd still expect five points from Ulster

Good that the RFU makes the penalty for unsatisfactory behaviour still sticks into the HEC.

Hartley missed the Lions tour but also had a proportion of the ban suspended until the start of this season. That suspended part of his suspension was allowed to be offset against friendlies. Tigers are questioning why the Montpellier game is not considered a worthy fixture but a jaunt to Jersey is.

Tigers have a case here. There should be consistency as to whether pre-season games count in any case of a suspension. In my view they should not. Suspended players should be able to reach match fitness during the pre-season and prepare for the season, notwithstanding that they miss the requisite number of competitive games at the outset of the season.

That Hartley missed the Lions is completely irrelevant in my opinion. Competitive games are competitive games, and none should carry more weight than another.

FES I don't think there is consistency - Schalk Brits ban as things stand doesn't include warm up matches.

He probably didn't nibble biscuits during the interview, 'shocked.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:He probably didn't nibble biscuits during the interview, 'shocked.

Cockerill or Brits?

There's also mutterings that the RFU stopped the legal chappy Tigers originally hired representing Cockers at the tribunal. Mutterings are Tigers are furious with the RFU conduct.

Tigers are always furious with something, or is that just Cockers! 

Not generally. Cockers is just loud. Hard to know what's going on as Tigers aren't disclosing much.

beshocked wrote:FES I don't think there is consistency - Schalk Brits ban as things stand doesn't include warm up matches.

I agree. Exactly the point I was making, there should be consistency as to which games are and are not treated as relevant for the purposes of suspensions.

To be clear I'm thinking about the clubs and the fans here. I have less sympathy for the players. The simplest way for them to avoid getting caught up in this is to not get suspended!

Ozzy3213 wrote:Tigers are always furious with something, or is that just Cockers! 

Really......

Apparently the Tigers instructed Richard Smith to represent Cockers but instead Ray Tully turned up - The tigers are angry with how this happened. (reading how it was put, do the RFU have a say who represents cockers?)

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-Tigers-furious-Rugby-Football-Union-RFU/story-19591558-detail/story.html

nathan wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Tigers are always furious with something, or is that just Cockers! 

Really......

Ozzy!!!!

Now you've gone and made Nathan furious because you said Tigers are furious!!!!

 

MrsP wrote:

nathan wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Tigers are always furious with something, or is that just Cockers! 

Really......

Ozzy!!!!

Now you've gone and made Nathan furious because you said Tigers are furious!!!!

 

lol, not at all!

That wasn't me being furious!!

 

Seriously though.

The RFU haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in their handling of this incident.

I have no problem with RC being banned for 9 games. I have no problem with that ban including the pre-season friendlies. But the messy way it has been handled just distracts from the issue at hand, ie. that RC behaved in a totally unacceptable way.

That is what Tigers should be focusing on addressing, not the nuts and bolts of the process.

Unfortunately the RFU have given them cause to deflect attention away from the real problem.

MrsP wrote: 

Seriously though.

The RFU haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in their handling of this incident.

I have no problem with RC being banned for 9 games. I have no problem with that ban including the pre-season friendlies. But the messy way it has been handled just distracts from the issue at hand, ie. that RC behaved in a totally unacceptable way.

That is what Tigers should be focusing on addressing, not the nuts and bolts of the process.

Unfortunately the RFU have given them cause to deflect attention away from the real problem.

The tigers (and 99% of the fans) have come out and said the ban is fine but it should either include the friendlies or not - not guess work by the RFU. The tigers also need to give Cockerill a muzzle!

Unfortunately though if the processes are flawed then it isn't the RFU that's going to raise the issue, so someone needs too.

Mrs P, I imagine behind closed doors words that were similar to those used by Cockers have been used towards him in a general theme of next time try and exert more control. Tigers always try and show a united front though. Things like his rebuke will be done behind closed doors and won't ever be discussed.

One of the BBC Radio Leicester Rugby chappies reported that Cockers will miss as many games as Saints Mr Niceguy. Not sure how accurate that is (they are prone to exageration) but if it's true that's a shocking inditement of the RFU inconsistentcies.

It's farcical that this incident with Cockerill has taken over 2 months. It's not as if the RFU have much to do. Perhaps they were too busy watching other sports like Wimbledon, the Ashes and the golf and of course expense paid trips to watch the Lions.

Schalk Brits ban - happened just one day after the match by the IRB disciplinary panel.

Dylan Hartley ban - also just one day after the match by the RFU.

Leicester used up their appeal time but given an extension which meant Cockerill was given a lesser ban (friendlies being included in his ban).

I wouldn't say Leicester have dealt with the incident in the correct manner either. They too have allowed this incident to drag on and on - making the RFU look even more spineless.

Leicester are still complaining despite at least two friendlies being included.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/rugby-mixed-feelings-tigers-114437090.html

Why can the RFU deal with Hartley quickly, the IRB dealt with Brits quickly yet the RFU have dealt with Cockerill so slowly?

Are they frightened of Leicester?

More to the point, will Cockers have actually learned anything from this whole crapulent jamboree? From what I've read, he still thinks that the RFU were wrong and he was right. I'd think a lot more of him if he said that he was a passionate man, felt he had the right end of an argument but accepted that swearing at or near officials is conduct unbecoming a man in his privileged position.
 
He won't, of course. But underneath all of the procedural Horlicks lay a case to answer.

Nathan's reference to the Leicester Mercury's report is more enlightening.

I have every sympathy with people who (like me) feel that the penalty is fine and equitable given the severity of the offence, past history etc. but the case has dragged on for far too long.

Clearly it appears that the Tigers feel that there is a problem with the jurisprudence and/or the procedural mechanism.

"Are they frightened of Leicester"?
I don't know. But clearly the Tigers are not bowed by the RFU.
And if there is a procedural problem, then it should be addressed as everyone entering the process should be confident that it will be conducted fairly and equitably irrespective of the defendant or his club.

If that's the case, the good on the Tigers I say as it may avoid future penalty decisions being made up on the hoof.

George Carlin that's the problem. Cockerill has shown no admission of guilt in this case has he?

Cockerill should taken the ban on the chin and move on as Brits and Hartley have.

Portnoy's Complaint fairly and equitably? You mean dragging on like a bad smell? Appeals allowed to be passed after the deadline? Extensions given?

The RFU have given Leicester leniency with an extension to their appeal and including two friendlies in the ban.

As I said the Brits and Hartley incidents were dealt with swiftly. Why not the Cockerill one?

I think RFU have handled this badly but I don't think Leicester have handled it well either.

If this wasn't Cockerill I might be more sympathetic. Cockerill has a history of causing trouble though he is an effective coach. Cockerill deserves this ban.

Incidentally, justice in our country is personified by the lady atop the Old Bailey

blind justice:

However, as is the English way, the blindfold is omitted.

beshocked wrote:George Carlin that's the problem. Cockerill has shown no admission of guilt in this case has he?

Cockerill should taken the ban on the chin and move on as Brits and Hartley have.

Portnoy's Complaint fairly and equitably? You mean dragging on like a bad smell? Appeals allowed to be passed after the deadline? Extensions given?

The RFU have given Leicester leniency with an extension to their appeal and including two friendlies in the ban.

As I said the Brits and Hartley incidents were dealt with swiftly. Why not the Cockerill one?

I think RFU have handled this badly but I don't think Leicester have handled it well either.

If this wasn't Cockerill I might be more sympathetic. Cockerill has a history of causing trouble though he is an effective coach. Cockerill deserves this ban.

Agreed.But I have to wryly smile at your prejudicial reasoning-cum-argument. I don't recall such high moral tones from you in the case RFUvVenter.

Portnoy Complaint I am still anti RFU. That hasn't changed.

Venter is similar to Cockerill in the sense of causing trouble.

Venter is no longer in the AP. Cockerill is.

True.
Cockerill is still live and dangerous in the Jeff.
Venter just appears occasionally in the Sarries management box and the Boks' one in Internationals on the telly thereby undermining the Saracens' brand claims as an Anglo-centred side.

Cockerill and Tigers do admit guilt. Twice in fact. Once at the original hearing where Cockerill states that he will continue to try and ensure the safety of his players but will use different language in the future and then the club who appealed the procedures of the trial and not the guilty verdict.

Why should he not appeal? Hartley for a very similar offence was allowed all of his club's pre season friendlies to count. Brits misses a game is it? For a punch. That's not a bad return for him.

I think you'll find that Cockerill pleaded 'not guilty' Sam, therefore his subsequent remarks about modifying his language appear to me to be nothing more than lip service.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I think you'll find that Cockerill pleaded 'not guilty' Sam, therefore his subsequent remarks about modifying his language appear to me to be nothing more than lip service.

See. There you go again making assumptions Oz.
At least the RFU has an appeal mechanism by which any misunderstandings can be clarified rather than being the defendant being subjected to the random dispensation of summary 'justice'.

I make no assumptions Portnoy, I merely state my opinion on Cockerill and what he has said.  Like it or lump it old bean.

Yes Bwana.

I know Ozzy. Presumably because he felt his language expressive rather than offensive. Doesn't alter the fact he says he may alter his choice of language in the future at the initial trial.

May alter his choice of language in the future? Oh, that's okay, then.