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?

Ozzy in your opinion then is it acceptable for players and coaches to face bans based on fan complaint emails and views of the opposing team?

In the case of a dangerous tackle would the opposing teams coach get to stick in his two cents in? No. The footage is reviewed the victim interviewed and that is considered adequate, why in this case the RFU felt the need to produce so much additional and pointless material I don't know. Even the RFU panel felt that some of it shouldn't have been there at all. Therefore Tigers are surely within their rights to ask some questions over the conduct of the prosecution.

At no point have they actually said they plan to appeal they are considering their options whilst their complaints are dealt with.

Sam,

All the stuff you mention could correctly be used by the panel when considering sentencing. They do look at the impact of the incident on the game at the time as well as how the general public were affected by the actions of the accused.

The only complaint Tigers could have, in my opinion, is that those things were presented in the wrong part of the hearing.

It would be very hard to suggest that they were in anyway instructive when deciding RC's guilt.

Should not have happened but had no bearing on the outcome.

fkas

He is not facing a ban based on fan complaint or the input of West.  He is facing a ban because his behaviour was unacceptable.  The offence he was charged with effectively has two parts as I explained earlier and proving the second part (that what he did was prejudicial to the interests of the game) can be in part shown by the fact that many people e-mailed the RFU to complain about his behaviour.

Let me equate it to this.

Section 3 Public Order Act 1986 which is an offence of affray.

A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.


In order to prove this offence in court no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene. What I would have to do would be to prove to the jury that a person of reasonable firmness would have been in fear.  Now, if there was a person of reasonable firmness that saw what was happening and was in fear, I would get him to tell the court that as I then need do know more to prove that part of the offence.


So in relation to what Cockerill is charged with, the fact that an opposition coach takes exception as he feels that Cockers is trying to influence the ref and viewers write in to complain that what he has done is not acceptable go to show that his act was prejudicial to the interests of the game.




You yourself have alluded to the fact that the Tigers gripe is with the prosecution not with the panel, but the panel have made it clear that the stuff produced by the prosecution about Cockers previous did not form part of their decision making process, therefore I cannot see where they have grounds to appeal the decision.  Do you honestly think that the panel had no knowledge of Cockers previous behaviour prior to the prosecution bringing it up.  I very much doubt that was the case.


I have no issue whatsoever with Tigers questioning the general disciplinary process where the RFU are both prosecutor and panel, however if you then alter this decision based on that fact you have to alter all previous decisions arrived at under the same system which is not going to happen.  This is the system, right or wrong and the rules have not been altered in order to find Cockerill guilty as you appeared to suggest earlier.

Tigers fan site view of the ban... http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s103.htm?106,14111243

Can I summarise?

Whatever the legal legal niceties,who'd complain if

Cockerill was suspended from the touchline (or equivalent) for nine weeks
Hartley was banned for nine weeks
Dorian West was given an asbo for nine weeks
Dr Venter was put under strong medication in a padded room for nine weeks?

Appropriate in each case I'd say.

Oops!

Typos typos...

Cockerill was suspended from the touchline (or equivalent) for nine weeks matches
Hartley was banned for nine weeks matches
Dorian West was given an asbo for nine weeks matches
Dr Venter was put under strong medication in a padded room for nine weeks years?

Portnoys complaint you really do suffer from verbal diarrhea don't you. Perhaps you should get it checked out?

Regardless of the legal niceties of the case, does anyone think that the way Cockerill behaved was acceptable - do we really want the game to become like football with Cockerill as Fergie and Conor O'Shea as Wenger?
I think the RFU are trying to stamp down on this to set a precedent - I should point out that if a fan went from the top of the stands and berated the fourth official with a stream of obscenities they would at least be ejected and would probably looking at a public order charge.
Just because the game has gone fully professional does not mean that it has to go down the same route as football, if we don't want football fan behaviour in the stands then we can't have football manager behaviour from the coaches.

beshocked wrote:Portnoys complaint you really do suffer from verbal diarrhea don't you. Perhaps you should get it checked out?

Diahorrea

It trips off the tongue.

Irish Londoner wrote:Regardless of the legal niceties of the case, does anyone think that the way Cockerill behaved was acceptable - do we really want the game to become like football with Cockerill as Fergie and Conor O'Shea as Wenger?
I think the RFU are trying to stamp down on this to set a precedent - I should point out that if a fan went from the top of the stands and berated the fourth official with a stream of obscenities they would at least be ejected and would probably looking at a public order charge.
Just because the game has gone fully professional does not mean that it has to go down the same route as football, if we don't want football fan behaviour in the stands then we can't have football manager behaviour from the coaches.

Absolutely not.

Cocker's behaviour was an embarrassment and unacceptable.

Nine weeks off the touchline sounds perfect.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

beshocked wrote:Portnoys complaint you really do suffer from verbal diarrhea don't you. Perhaps you should get it checked out?

Diahorrea

It trips off the tongue.

Shouldn't that be "drips"?

Irish Londoner wrote:Regardless of the legal niceties of the case, does anyone think that the way Cockerill behaved was acceptable - do we really want the game to become like football with Cockerill as Fergie and Conor O'Shea as Wenger?
I think the RFU are trying to stamp down on this to set a precedent - I should point out that if a fan went from the top of the stands and berated the fourth official with a stream of obscenities they would at least be ejected and would probably looking at a public order charge.
Just because the game has gone fully professional does not mean that it has to go down the same route as football, if we don't want football fan behaviour in the stands then we can't have football manager behaviour from the coaches.

Interesting from the report the 4th official said the language didn't both him and he's heard it plenty of times before. It was the fact RC said he was going to tell his players to smash 'them' that he was concerned with.

How how is that different to any other player/team/coach saying they want to hurt another player?

Also you can legally smash another player.

So.

Tigers are appealling "solely against elements of the sentence rather than the guilty verdict".

Do they mean the length of the ban or how it was arrived at?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23348543

I think it's about the process, not the guilt MrsP.

You as (especially) an Ulsterwoman must understand that.

So effectively what they are appealling is contained in this part of the report...
 
Sanction
22. The sanction for offences of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game and/or Union is at large. The Panel took submissions from Mr. Green as to the RFU’s assessment of the seriousness of Mr. Cockerill’s conduct. Mr. Green presented a second witness statement of Mr. McEvilly which related only to sanction. Appended to that statement was a copy of a previous judgment against Mr. Cockerill for two counts of Match Official abuse during the half time interval of the LV Cup match Leicester v Newport on 14
th November 2009. He had received a four week suspension and a fine of £2,000.00.

23. The Panel considered the similarities and differences between that case and the evidence it had heard. Though that was a case of verbal abuse of Match Officials, the same swear words were common to both. In the previous case, Mr. Cockerill had admitted the offences, accepting in so doing that he had behaved in an offensive manner, for which he apologised, stating this to be out of character. That Panel had also found him to be genuinely contrite, with the genesis of the offending being his frustration by on-field occurrences and his wish to convey messages to the Match Officials, which he was unable to do. The Panel also found the previous offending spontaneous, whereas in this case we have found that Mr. Cockerill deliberately returned to the touchline after the incident should have been over. In both cases, Mr. Cockerill was described as very passionate, allowing his emotions to get the better of him.

24. Mr. McEvilly’s second statement also deposed that Mr. Cockerill’s comments made in a BBC interview on 29
th December 2012 following the Leicester Tigers v Gloucester rugby match had been referred to him in view of criticism made of the Match Referee. That resulted in his writing a private and confidential letter to Mr. Cockerill warning him about his conduct and that a copy of the letter was to be kept on file. Mr. Cockerill’s response to this included the following comments:-
"I have either brought the game into disrepute or I have not. If I have, charge me. If I have not, don’t send me pointless e-mails".

25. Mr. Green QC pointed out to the Panel that in the earlier case Mr. Cockerill had described "a Micky Mouse competition with Micky Mouse refereeing". By comparison, the Aviva Premiership Final was the biggest match of the season on the biggest day and drew the Panel’s attention to what he submitted was a perceived lack of contrition, apology or acceptance that he had done anything wrong on this latter occasion.

Mitigating Features

26. Mr. Tully asked Mr. Peter Wheeler to speak on Mr. Cockerill’s behalf. Mr. Wheeler was anxious to ensure the Panel knew that there was another side to Mr. Cockerill to that which it had heard. He was a committed and passionate man, setting high standards of honesty and discipline. He inspires loyalty and commitment and the Club’s on-field disciplinary record is exemplary. He has a good relationship with Referees and a passion for player safety. He has been at the Club for 30 years. The Club knows him well and regards him positively, whilst acknowledging that some aspects of his character are "not controlled". He asked us to distinguish the previous finding, which was deliberately aimed at Match Officials and called their integrity and ability into question. The genesis for this incident lay in player protection and welfare. The exchange with Mr. Terheege was limited and the latter was not upset by the behaviour

Sanction

27. We have two major concerns. The first is that in 2009 Mr. Cockerill accepted that his disparaging remarks concerning the competition and its officiating had been wrong. He was contrite, apologised and maintained that it would not happen again. In 2013, he received a written warning and within a matter of months was involved in this incident. Our second major concern was that when giving evidence Mr. Cockerill maintained that the use of the words "f***" and "f*****g" were justified in the circumstances. He also maintained that players who swear at Referees need not be sent off or disciplined. His use of swear words which he did not deny did not, he maintained, make his actions aggressive, obscene, inappropriate or unprofessional. Certain of the game’s core values, namely respect, discipline and sportsmanship, seem to us to have passed Mr. Cockerill by.

He does not seem to appreciate the corrosive effect of his behaviour upon players, medical staff and other coaches with its attendant loss of moral authority, nor the effect of his behaviour upon the viewing public and the press. If subjectively he feels entitled to behave in this manner, that appears to be enough justification for him to do so, which is a continuing concern which must be factored into our approach to sanction.

28. The previous suspension of four weeks was clearly not enough to concentrate Mr. Cockerill’s mind and remind him of his position and responsibility within the game. He remains in a position of authority in his Club and a role model for aspiring players and coaches and is still a highly respected figure in the game. Any suspension from coaching on match days must be immediate and meaningful, hence the sanction referred to above. This means that he will have no input whatsoever on match days for the following seven Aviva Premiership League games and the first two rounds of the European Cup:

th September 2013 Worcester (H)
th September 2013 Bath (A)
st September 2013 Newcastle (H)
th September 2013 Exeter (A)
th October 2013 Northampton (H)
th October 2013 Europe (1)
th October 2013 Europe (2)
th October 2013 London Wasps (A)
nd November 2013 Harlequins (H).

29. In coming to the above, we have taken note of Mr. Cockerill’s engagement (or lack thereof) with the disciplinary process and sanctioning regime, together with the need to protect the image of the game and the Match Officials who operate within it. The sanction covers the first one third of the Premiership season and the first one-third of the European Cup pool games.

It is tricky to see how they will get much mileage out of an appeal right enough.

Will he say that sometime in the past 3 and a 1/2 years it has become acceptable to use that sort of language to officials?

I suspect that their appeal may centre around some sort of claim that the RFU have lumped a bit on for what they percieve as insolence from Cockerill in relation to his reply to their e-mail. You could I argue that it should have no bearing on snentece for this, however there is an argument that it goes to show his attitude towards officials, which this charge relates to.
 
Given that he got 4 weeks on a guilty plea for a similar but slightly more minor offence previously, 9 weeks on a not guilty plea for a second offence sounds about right to me. I stand by my original statement on this, that the appeal is frivolous and if not upheld his ban should be extended.

I reckon RC would spontaeniously combust if they did that Ozzy!

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Given that he got 4 weeks on a guilty plea for a similar but slightly more minor offence previously, 9 weeks on a not guilty plea for a second offence sounds about right to me. I stand by my original statement on this, that the appeal is frivolous and if not upheld his ban should be extended.

The appeal is not frivolous as they are not appealing the guilt, just the way the sentence was decided, what was allowed as evidence and when the sentence actually starts. The RFU behaved like complete kumquats. They did it to you last season and almost got away with it.

Agree with LT. When the disciplinary panel express disappointment in the conduct of it's own prosecution you have to ask questions.

In a sense, an analogous problem will arise when the 4Ns start. Just as the admissibility of evidence is central to this case, what is the legality of applying new scrum laws to IRB-sanctioned International matches whilst the old Laws technically still apply?

Two sets of rules surely cannot happily coexist.

[ed] Strike that. The T14 starts on the same day as the 1st 4Ns match (Aug 17) - so as the NH season also starts, it would be incorrect to apply the old Laws (excluding time zone differences). 

LT, I don't see that they are appealing what evidence was allowed.  They have said that their appeal is 'solely against elements of the sentence'.  Having read the judgement, and how the sanction was arrived at I don't see that they have any leg to stand on.

Think he should put up and shut up!
After all he could be banned from any contact with his team or even enter the stadium.....

It probably would never have occurred had in-play appeals similar to cricket and tennis been allowed.

But I tend to agree: it reflects badly on Cockerill and the Tigers unless there is an over-riding proscribed procedural issue.

The Police may come on all thumbs in braces to present their eloquent summaries, but sadly some of them should keep quiet when it comes to views regarding procedural processes.

If the process was wrong, then the sentence should be appropriately adjusted. And I don't particularly care how long Cockers gets for behaving like a pillock.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:It probably would never have occurred had in-play appeals similar to cricket and tennis been allowed.

But I tend to agree: it reflects badly on Cockerill and the Tigers unless there is an over-riding proscribed procedural issue.

The Police may come on all thumbs in braces to present their eloquent summaries, but sadly some of them should keep quiet when it comes to views regarding procedural processes.

If the process was wrong, then the sentence should be appropriately adjusted. And I don't particularly care how long Cockers gets for behaving like a pillock.

 Not sure I agree with that.  Cockerill thought it was late and deserved a card.  I watched the replay and it was never a yellow card.  An in play appeal I would suggest was likely to have concurred with the referee and Cockers would still have mouthed off believing that Lawes shoudl have been punished.

Cockerill's testimony does explain his actions somewhat (not that they are acceptable). He was clearly concerned about his players safety after the last cup final where a Saints player committed GBH and was then defended by his club. His conversations with the head of referees preceding the game clearly showed his level of concern. In real time the tackle does look bad, only in slow motion can you see It's not that bad. Cockerill's initial conversation with the 4th official is deemed to be fine It's only after he's seen the spinal board (which was thankfully not needed) go past that he loses his temper goes back and gets himself cited.

I doubt he stayed to watch the replay and was down on the touchline quickly. As you say in real time it looked worse than it was and with previous concern Cockerill's actions are understandable if unacceptable. An in play appeal would have sorted the situation would swiftly as Cockers would have been looking at the results of that in his seat instead. Not sure we want to go down that route though as rugby is a momentum sport.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:It probably would never have occurred had in-play appeals similar to cricket and tennis been allowed.

But I tend to agree: it reflects badly on Cockerill and the Tigers unless there is an over-riding proscribed procedural issue.

The Police may come on all thumbs in braces to present their eloquent summaries, but sadly some of them should keep quiet when it comes to views regarding procedural processes.

If the process was wrong, then the sentence should be appropriately adjusted. And I don't particularly care how long Cockers gets for behaving like a pillock.

 Not sure I agree with that.  Cockerill thought it was late and deserved a card.  I watched the replay and it was never a yellow card.  An in play appeal I would suggest was likely to have concurred with the referee and Cockers would still have mouthed off believing that Lawes shoudl have been punished.

I agree entirely with you Oz.

Lawes' tackle didn't appear to be late. But what I'm saying is that if he had made a touchline appeal (electronically), he could have had his review, lost it and got on with the game.

However. As the rules currently stand for coaches, fans et. al., at least they'd have a chance of immediate review. Like in the Wales Ireland ball-boy fiasco, an immediate review would probably (?) have changed the final result.

But there is where we differ Portnoy. My perception of Cockerill and how he was on the day leads me to believe that had he been entitled to a review, and it had not gone his way, he would not have just left it and got on with the game, but would have continued to mouth off at the officials.

Ozzy3213 wrote:But there is where we differ Portnoy. My perception of Cockerill and how he was on the day leads me to believe that had he been entitled to a review, and it had not gone his way, he would not have just left it and got on with the game, but would have continued to mouth off at the officials.

Presumption, Oz. Just presumption.
Take your 'elmet off.

Maybe. Just maybe, he'd have accepted it and let it go.
But I'd be in line to support a stiffer sentence had he'd not.

You are right, I am making a presumption that he wouldn't have accepted it, similarly you are making a presumption that he would.  

Ultimately it matters little as there was no in game appeal and the incident is as is.

Except I'm making no presumption Oz.

Just saying that I see the potential benefit of in-game ref appeals.

It really isn't that relevant to ask what might have happened if the rules were different.

RC knows, or shoulld, the rules as they currently stand and he behaved in a way which contravened them.

I sympathise with his concern for his player but not how he chose to express that concern.

Exactly MrsP. All that is expected for justice to be not only done but seen to be done.

And fairly - within the solid walls of the Laws and the established procedures.

Interesting discussion about the quiet and unassuming Mr. Cockerill.  I have only two questions.  

First, why did Tigers wait until now to appeal?  They have the right to do so apparently, but the timing seems a bit strange in my opinion.  

Second, is don't you think his act is getting a bit old?  He is obviously a good coach and certainly can get his team motivated (at least in the Premiership, if not the Heineken Cup).  But this always on the edge stuff wears a bit thin. Ironically, he doesn't seem so different than Dylan Hartley. Hartley has better hair, though.

doctor_grey wrote:Interesting discussion about the quiet and unassuming Mr. Cockerill.  I have only two questions.  

First, why did Tigers wait until now to appeal?  They have the right to do so apparently, but the timing seems a bit strange in my opinion.  

Second, is don't you think his act is getting a bit old?  He is obviously a good coach and certainly can get his team motivated (at least in the Premiership, if not the Heineken Cup).  But this always on the edge stuff wears a bit thin.  Ironically, he doesn't seem so different than Dylan Hartley.  Hartley has better hair, though.  

 


I didn't realise RC had a brother!

doctor_grey wrote:Interesting discussion about the quiet and unassuming Mr. Cockerill.  I have only two questions.  

First, why did Tigers wait until now to appeal?  They have the right to do so apparently, but the timing seems a bit strange in my opinion.  

Second, is don't you think his act is getting a bit old?  He is obviously a good coach and certainly can get his team motivated (at least in the Premiership, if not the Heineken Cup).  But this always on the edge stuff wears a bit thin.  Ironically, he doesn't seem so different than Dylan Hartley.  Hartley has better hair, though.  

They were waiting for the written judgement. Notice as a saints supporter you fail to mention how long it took the rfu to cite RC....

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Interesting discussion about the quiet and unassuming Mr. Cockerill.  I have only two questions.  

First, why did Tigers wait until now to appeal?  They have the right to do so apparently, but the timing seems a bit strange in my opinion.  

Second, is don't you think his act is getting a bit old?  He is obviously a good coach and certainly can get his team motivated (at least in the Premiership, if not the Heineken Cup).  But this always on the edge stuff wears a bit thin.  Ironically, he doesn't seem so different than Dylan Hartley.  Hartley has better hair, though.  

They were waiting for the written judgement. Notice as a saints supporter you fail to mention how long it took the rfu to cite RC....

Well, now that you mention it.............

doctor_grey wrote:

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Interesting discussion about the quiet and unassuming Mr. Cockerill.  I have only two questions.  

First, why did Tigers wait until now to appeal?  They have the right to do so apparently, but the timing seems a bit strange in my opinion.  

Second, is don't you think his act is getting a bit old?  He is obviously a good coach and certainly can get his team motivated (at least in the Premiership, if not the Heineken Cup).  But this always on the edge stuff wears a bit thin.  Ironically, he doesn't seem so different than Dylan Hartley.  Hartley has better hair, though.  

They were waiting for the written judgement. Notice as a saints supporter you fail to mention how long it took the rfu to cite RC....

Well, now that you mention it.............

Hehe. RC deserves a ban, the rfu also deserve a kick up the arse to deal with these matters better.

nathan wrote:Hehe. RC deserves a ban, the rfu also deserve a kick up the arse to deal with these matters better.

Couldn't agree more. Especially about the RFU.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Except I'm making no presumption Oz.

Just saying that I see the potential benefit of in-game ref appeals.

 You're opening gambit was 'It probably would never have occurred had in-play appeals similar to cricket and tennis been allowed'.


Fair bit of presumption in there to be honest.  In game appeals do not make things clear cut and without controversy.  You only have to have watched the first ashes test to see that.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Except I'm making no presumption Oz.

Just saying that I see the potential benefit of in-game ref appeals.

 You're opening gambit was 'It probably would never have occurred had in-play appeals similar to cricket and tennis been allowed'.


Fair bit of presumption in there to be honest.  In game appeals do not make things clear cut and without controversy.  You only have to have watched the first ashes test to see that.

True. I did write 'probably'. Hands up. I thought I'd typed 'possibly' or something of that ilk.

As for the last Ashes test and the appeal system, it seemed to be the result of a mixture of bad appeal management and appalling sportsmanship within the spirit of the game from Broad.

But still I don't see how that invalidates a call for touchline appeals when a team feels sorely aggrieved.
It's not all about Cockers and his display/s of outrageous dissent.

If you go through a rugby game, somebody tends to feel aggrieved at pretty much every breakdown.  Where do you draw the line on appeals?  We have now extended TMO powers where the referee can ask for foul play to be looked at, surely that is enough.

In relation to the cricket, there was bad management of appeals for sure, but there were also errors with the technology, and with the 3rd umpire interpretation.  Even with technology we will never get everything right, and in a fast paced game such as rugby, I would not want to see the game continually stopped for an appeal of a decision.

I'd allow one appeal per side per match. Lose it and it's gone. Win it and it's replenished.

I used to think one appeal per side per half but now on consideration, I think that they'd just use them up for the heck of it after 30mins are on the clock.

Does anyone actually think that RC would have gone from raging, swearing, furious coach to calm, accepting coach on having the tackle reviewed by the TMO?

I suspect he still thinks it should have been a yellow card, even now.

I have seen nothing to suggest he would have been able to control himself any better if a TMO had looked at the tackle.

What needs to change here is RC's behaviour, not the Laws of the Game.

No change in Laws required MrsP. Only Jeff regulations.

I don't think that anyone on this thread has suggested that Cockers behaved anything but reprehensibly.

As for TMO appeals, then it seems that only the prejudiced can tell.

Oz wrote:In relation to the cricket, there was bad management of appeals for sure, but there were also errors with the technology, and with the 3rd umpire interpretation. Even with technology we will never get everything right, and in a fast paced game such as rugby, I would not want to see the game continually stopped for an appeal of a decision.

There you go. Watson out. Plumb lbw.
Bad TMO appeal management.
Oz 42-1. 1 TMO appeal left.

Watching a number of NFL games each season, they allow in-game TMO-ish appeals from the touch...err sideline. Stops the game cold for a couple of minutes. The NFL stops and starts constantly, and yet, may fans, whilst liking the accuracy this brings, really don't like the extra time delay it engenders. I would be averse in Rugby because we want to keep play going. I do like the expanded TMO powers. Maybe this can be folded into those, but only when the referees or assistant referees ee something.

doctor_grey wrote:Watching a number of NFL games each season, they allow in-game TMO-ish appeals from the touch...err sideline.  Stops the game cold for a couple of minutes.  The NFL stops and starts constantly, and yet, may fans, whilst liking the accuracy this brings, really don't like the extra time delay it engenders.  I would be averse in Rugby because we want to keep play going.  I do like the expanded TMO powers.  Maybe this can be folded into those, but only when the referees or assistant referees ee something.

What should have been done with my representative case - the Wales v Ireland ball-boy incident, doc?
A game-changing officials' blunder if ever I saw one.

The assistant referee was right there and missed it. Flog the assistant referee and let's just keep going. I don't think we need to legislate more and more rules, laws or TMO replays to account for when a professional referee misses a play. This was a major cockup and changed the match, for sure. But still these are few and far between.