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?

Never said it was ok but It's acceptance by him that his conduct needs alteration. I wouldn't expect him to be all quiet and restrained next season though. Hopefully he'll choose more appropriate language when conducting his remonstrations.

formerly known as Sam wrote: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.

He shouldn't appeal because it doesn't reflect well on him or Leicester. Take the ban, serve your sentence, show some humility.

Brits missed 3 AP matches as it stands. Not insignificant warm up matches. He also apologised for his actions. The incident also happened in an insignificant warm up match. The whole situation was dealt with quickly.

I have seen people getting into fights not get any bans or citings at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjsUw8qWn4



Hartley for a similar offence had his ban confirmed in a day. If Hartley had the same panto as Cockerill he could have been on the Lions tour.

Saints didn't moan - they didn't appeal and allow the whole situation to drag on and on.

Leicester need to take the same approach as Saints and Sarries have in this case.

RFU's conduct has been poor but Leicester have not shown themselves in a good light. To others outside Leicester they look like they being petulant, particularly Cockerill.

Leicester paint themselves as victims yet they are far from it. Cockerill's comeuppance is long overdue.

Saints should not be held up as a banner of integrity. They lied in order to get a shorter sentence for Clark. The fact the RFU couldn't see through the lie despite every fan forum doing so is embarrassing for the sport.

Just because you dislike Cockerill and believe he deserves some "comeuppance" doesn't mean it is ok for the RFU to contact his defence team and stop them representing him which is what appears to have happened. It is not ok for them to make up the rulings as they go along and it is not ok for the RFU prosecution to conduct themselves in away that draws criticism from the RFU panel. The guilty verdict was never appealed. The manner in which the case conducted was. Cockers irrelevant of guilt deserved a fair hearing, if the club feel that hasn't happened then they should appeal. The disciplinary process is supposed to be transparent.

Sam I am not saying that Saints are a banner of integrity. Neither are my own club for that matter.

I am talking about the most recent cases though - Saints dealt with the incident of Hartley swiftly, Saracens dealt with the Brits incident swiftly.

This mess with Cockerill has gone on and on. Leicester have to take some responsibility. I am not saying RFU have dealt with it well. They haven't but they dealt with Hartley quickly, why not Cockerill.

What is a fair hearing in your opinion? The way I see it - Cockerill deserves to be banned. I would like to have seen it done swiftly like Brits and Hartley. It has not.

The RFU have dealt with this wrongly I agree but this needs to be put to bed now.


I have similar sentiments with Oscar Pistorius - lock the bloke up for life for killing his girlfriend. Stop all this verbal jousting rubbish.

Cockerill is guilty of abusing the 4th official. Pistorius is guilty of killing his girlfriend. Both should get their comeuppance.

By the way I am not saying what Cockerill did is anywhere near as serious but it's an incident that is straightforward yet made far more complicated than should be.

I want things to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.

Much as I agree that the Cockerill situation has gone on for a tedious length of time, beshocked, I very much hope that your work has nothing to do with the justice system.

IIRC Cockerill was not found guilty of abusing the forth official, who said that he didn't feel abused, but of bringing the game into disrepute with his language & actions

thomh no it doesn't involve the justice system. You'll be pleased to know that a murderer like Oscar Pistorius will probably get off scot free.

beshocked wrote:You'll be pleased to know that a murderer like Oscar Pistorius will probably get off scot free.

Wow

broadlandboy oh is that the technical term they are using to charge Cockerill? Okay.

Are Leicester allowed another appeal to go with their current appeal or has the case now been closed?

'shocked wrote:I have similar sentiments with Oscar Pistorius - lock the bloke up for life for killing his girlfriend. Stop all this verbal jousting rubbish.

Cockerill is guilty of abusing the 4th official. Pistorius is guilty of killing his girlfriend. Both should get their comeuppance.

Attaway boy!

That's the way to run a justice system!
Although it seems a tad closer to Mugabe than Mandella.

What I do find peculiar is why Tigers on behalf of Cockerill are wriggling on this particular hook. Not even their most ardent fans appear to reckon that Cockers was anything but bang out of order.

There must be a huge underlying grievance somehow and somewhere.

Portnoy Complaint how would you deal with the Pistorius situation?


If indeed there is a huge underlying grievance then what is it?

I am not fault the Tigers fans most have acknowledged Cockerill deserved the punishment. It's Cockerill digging his heels in and Tigers still kicking up a fuss.

beshocked wrote:Portnoy Complaint how would you deal with the Pistorius situation?


If indeed there is a huge underlying grievance then what is it?

I am not fault the Tigers fans most have acknowledged Cockerill deserved the punishment. It's Cockerill digging his heels in and Tigers still kicking up a fuss.

I firstly would have hoped that the initial police handling of the case might not have been so hopelessly incompetent and that the media were not provided with such intrusive rights so as to render the case subject to such prominence so as to make it impossible to make any trial non-prejudicial.
But that's all painting my views over a foreign jurisdiction.

As for the Cockers case, it seems to me as like you suggested maybe the Tigers are attempting to bully the RFU (and I don't dismiss that as a real possibility), As for some other reason for a hidden grievance between the parties, I haven't a clue as to why the Tigers should feel it necessary to press the case although as I've said before, a procedural issue - maybe borne out of paranoia, maybe not - of a summary, on the hoof judgement.

Who knows?

I bring up the Oscar Pistorius case because I think the South African police have been just as incompetent as the RFU - both Oscar and Leicester/Cockerill have tried to focus attention on the incompetence rather than acknowledging guilt.

In both cases the media has had far too much involvement - both have dragged on whereas I think both should be nipped quickly and effectively in the bud.

Oscar did kill his girlfriend - he is guilty yet that case is going to drag on and on too.

In regards to Tigers I don't know whether they are bullying the RFU. They do have rightful grievances but then again I feel like they are trying to take away focus from Cockerill I feel it would be in their interests to not let this drag on and on.

The South African police are incompetent, the RFU are incompetent. Even though that's the case it doesn't stop Pistorius being guilty or Cockerill being guilty in my eyes.

beshocked wrote:Sam I am not saying that Saints are a banner of integrity. Neither are my own club for that matter.

I am talking about the most recent cases though - Saints dealt with the incident of Hartley swiftly, Saracens dealt with the Brits incident swiftly.

This mess with Cockerill has gone on and on. Leicester have to take some responsibility. I am not saying RFU have dealt with it well. They haven't but they dealt with Hartley quickly, why not Cockerill.

What is a fair hearing in your opinion? The way I see it - Cockerill deserves to be banned. I would like to have seen it done swiftly like Brits and Hartley. It has not.

The RFU have dealt with this wrongly I agree but this needs to be put to bed now.


I have similar sentiments with Oscar Pistorius - lock the bloke up for life for killing his girlfriend. Stop all this verbal jousting rubbish.

Cockerill is guilty of abusing the 4th official. Pistorius is guilty of killing his girlfriend. Both should get their comeuppance.

By the way I am not saying what Cockerill did is anywhere near as serious but it's an incident that is straightforward yet made far more complicated than should be.

I want things to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.

As BB mentioned, he wasn't found guilty of abusing the 4th official.

Nathan if it's already mentioned then what's the point of repeating it?

IIRC Leicester have not questioned the guilty verdict they seem to be questioning the procedure of which there do seem to be some questions to be answered

beshocked wrote:Nathan if it's already mentioned then what's the point of repeating it?

In the hope you'll get the message. You really do get your knickers in a twist far to easily.

Nathan you are just parrotting Broadland boy which adds nothing to the discussion.

Well perhaps if people did their jobs properly like the RFU and the South African police I would be less annoyed.

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

-"Cockerill was banned after being found guilty of unprofessional behaviour and using "extensive foul language" in a touchline exchange with fourth official Stuart Terheege during the Premiership final."

"extensive foul language" does not count as abusing the 4th official? Sorry I have to be very careful with my phrasing don't I?

broadlandboy sounds like Leicester are questioning the ban length to me. Their appeal worked to a degree - the ban was brought forward yet still they want more.

Beshocked, I know that it is Leicester centered but if you have time listen to the first part of http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004f80x

beshocked wrote:Nathan you are just parrotting Broadland boy which adds nothing to the discussion.

Well perhaps if people did their jobs properly like the RFU and the South African police I would be less annoyed.

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

-"Cockerill was banned after being found guilty of unprofessional behaviour and using "extensive foul language" in a touchline exchange with fourth official Stuart Terheege during the Premiership final."

"extensive foul language" does not count as abusing the 4th official? Sorry I have to be very careful with my phrasing don't I?

broadlandboy sounds like Leicester are questioning the ban length to me. Their appeal worked to a degree - the ban was brought forward yet still they want more.

There's a difference between using colourful language when speaking to someone and aiming that language a someone. I mean have you ever heard a builder swear or a car technician, of course you have. Would you say they all abuse people when talking like that?

"Leicester are questioning the ban length to me"
What makes you say that then as all the articles, judgements I've read they only queried when the ban starts.

I'm really not sure why people are concerned about the time frame for the initial hearing. The incident happened in the final game of the season. There was absolutely no urgency in calling a hearing as RC would not ne involved on the touch line in any further games for quite some time.

I suspect the delay was either to allow RC to have time to mount a defence or, simply because some of those involved had already planned holidays at the end of the season.

Hartley's hearing was held extremely quickly because he had been selected to tour with the Lions was a decision was required urgently.

Brits was on tour and hearing of matters arising on tour are also frequently held very quickly.

There was no need to rush in the case of RC.

I was never bothered about the lead-up to the hearing as the close season had already kicked in.

I'm curious however, exactly why the Tigers' board feel so disgruntled. I feel sure that there is an underlying grievance either in the case (process) or unrelated.

172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

Yeah, but just check out how many of them are from Defrocked!

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

That's no way to speak about Graeme Obree, George.  

Jimpy wrote:

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

Yeah, but just check out how many of them are from Defrocked!

Welcome back troll. We missed your not so witty posts.  

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

That's no way to speak about Graeme Obree, George.  

 

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

Yeah, but just check out how many of them are from Defrocked!

Welcome back troll. We missed your not so witty posts.  

Cheers, although i will say I havent missed you at all. Nice to see you're still the same old one-eyed mouth piece though. At least you're consistent.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

Yeah, but just check out how many of them are from Defrocked!

Welcome back troll. We missed your not so witty posts.  

Cheers, although i will say I havent missed you at all. Nice to see you're still the same old one-eyed mouth piece though. At least you're consistent.

If you say so troll. At least I discuss about rugby unlike yourself. You call me one eyed? Perhaps you should look in the mirror?

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

George Carlin wrote:172 posts about a 40-something, pugnacious, potty mouthed baldy from Warwickshire.
Cockers would be delighted he's generated this much copy.

Yeah, but just check out how many of them are from Defrocked!

Welcome back troll. We missed your not so witty posts.  

Cheers, although i will say I havent missed you at all. Nice to see you're still the same old one-eyed mouth piece though. At least you're consistent.

If you say so troll. At least I discuss about rugby unlike yourself. You call me one eyed? Perhaps you should look in the mirror?

Ah, its good to be back, I can tell i'm going to have fun with you this coming season. it will be interesting to see just what levels of hysteria you can reach as Saffacens struggle to finish in the top four...

You wouldnt be best mates with Logansrun would you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23712031

The saga continues...

If the RFU wanted to pick a fight well it seems that they have got one with the best funded and best supported club in the home nations.

I always said it was the process and not the penalty.

But for the life of me I don't see why they are kicking up such a fuss.
Have I missed something here? It is a match-day touchline/coaching seat ban were talking about isn't it?

He'll probably fire his instructions down a phone anyway.

So much of continuing the discussions in private. If the club feel that the RFU has conducted itself badly then they should be discussing it with the RFU abs if required releasing a press release on completion of those discussions not stoking the fire every few weeks whilst revealing nothing.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:If the RFU wanted to pick a fight well it seems that they have got one with the best funded and best supported club in the home nations.
.

Wooo scary stuff  

RFU better watch themselves.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:If the RFU wanted to pick a fight well it seems that they have got one with the best funded and best supported club in the home nations.
.

Wooo scary stuff  

RFU better watch themselves.

Ah but it's easy to take selective quotes out of context isn't it, Dodge?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:If the RFU wanted to pick a fight well it seems that they have got one with the best funded and best supported club in the home nations.
.

Wooo scary stuff  

RFU better watch themselves.

Ah but it's easy to take selective quotes out of context isn't it, Dodge?

It was the first sentence in your post so what was the context? Comes across to me as the sort of egomania that has gotten Cockerill and Tigers into this position in the first place. Leicester Tigers are not beyond reproach and being one of the best supported and funded clubs in the home nations is an absolute irrelevance here. All comes across as a lot of big talk and posturing from Tigers based on arrogance instead of just taking the punishment on the chin as anybody else would.

At no point have the contested the ban handed down in the initial verdict Artful. At no point have they been arrogant. They merely asked for friendlies to count towards the ban as in the Hartley case. The RFU have then decided that two of the three friendlies can count on the basis that the 6 Lions players were unlikely to play vs Montpellier. To suggest to the age grade, Saxons and other internationals on display for Tigers and the Montpellier stars Trunh Duc, Mas and Beattie were insufficient to justify a "meaningful friendly" is plain BS.

There's also the matter of the RFU preventing the lawyer Tigers had contracted actually representing Cockerill. That's very dodgey behavior.

The head of the RFU is on a witch hunt dating back from his warning letters which were dismissed by their recipients Cockerill and O'Shea at the start of last season. There is no excuse for the laws not to be applied evenly and no reason for shenanigans behind the scenes ahead of hearings.

Having said all that Cohen should have kept his mouth shut on the radio show last night.

The post was the context, Dodge.
And what is wrong with questioning the process? As an Irishman I'd expect you to understand the sentiment of aggrievement in a case of what you feel is summary justice.

But like as always, you need the wonga to get your justice in this country.

Now read what I actually said.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The post was the context, Dodge.
And what is wrong with questioning the process? As an Irishman I'd expect you to understand the sentiment of aggrievement in a case of what you feel is summary justice.

I can't be bothered reading all that has gone before but, in isolation and in the cold light of day, that comment looks mighty inflammatory, Portnoy.

What a mess.

RC was so totally out of order that his ban is absolutely in order but the RFU really did make a shambles out of the process.

There has to be some demonstrable logic behind the punishments handed out and this one has not had that for me.

Has this process been correct? Probably not.

Are the Tigers going the right way about getting that clarified? Probably not.

I wholly agree MrsP with the proviso the neither side has handled this dispute well.

Mrs P has summed it up nicely.

Now if Tigers can keep quiet until a conclusion is reached and the RFU can actually provide a set of standards for the application is suspensions then we might actually have a good outcome.

Another one to agree with Mrs P.

The big problem that Tigers have is that the way that Cockerill behaved meant that most neutrals think that he deserved a ban. Whether the process was correct is largely immaterial and it just sounds like whinging about something he deserved and is looking for a loophole.

I assume that Tigers/Cockerill has never said that he was wrong about what he was ranting about (Flood getting knocked out by his own player) and that the referee was actually correct.

Far from just the neutrals 289. Pretty much everyone - the ban is not in dispute, just the management of the process.

289, he said he will continue to defend his players. Given the Lawes tackle looked pretty bad in real time (and fairly ordinary in slow mo) his initial reaction would have been similar to most coaches. Most coaches would have reigned in their tempers though, that's where Cockers falls down, his initial interactions with the 4th official were deemed fine it was when he went back after the spinal board went past he overstepped the line. Maybe some anger management sessions before the season starts might be a good idea.

Don't think you can attribute the injury to Cole as he was merely behind Flood and the fractionally late hit came in.

I agree that the process might be wrong but this is a fight that looks too much like they are trying to say that the ban is wrong.

If he had maybe come out and said I was wrong but please understand why I did it he may have got some sympathy.

Look at the same match with Hartley who is still saying that his comments were addressed to Youngs but is also saying that he has taken his punishment and understands that it could be conceived as wrong. I'm not saying that I believe him but the Saints PR bod has advised him well whereas I think that Leicester have not.

Having said all of this Leicester like nothing more than a good chip on their shoulder to motivate themselves to another Premiership so maybe their is some method to this!

Cockerill doesn't help himself does he? I just heard a report on R5 quoting him suggesting that all DORs swearing on the touchline should face disrepute charges...

No Cockers. Expletives are one thing. Firing expletives at officials is in a different ballpark.

The expletives weren't aimed at the 4th official they were used as a means of expression and exageration according to the 4th officials testimony. That doesn't make it acceptable and I think that the coaches and players on the touchline should keep their language civil in that Cockers is correct. However, that comment is not well thought out or helpful.

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12552/8873630/leicester-tigers-boss-richard-cockerill-rfu-must-enforce-similar-swearing-bans

Full interview there.