Is Irish rugby truly the beacon of inclusiveness it is purported to be?

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Confesses in the comments section that he is not a rugby fan, goes on to call the team "underachievers".

Probably wouldn't have bothered writing the article if Ireland had beaten Argentina, much like the rest of the gibberish written about the game by people who have no interest in it.

Nice bit of press for his blog though.

Hi Magico. I'm the author of the piece. I saw from the blog's stats page that some readers were linking from Boards, so just thought I'd respond here.

I'm primarily a football fan - this is true - but that doesn't disqualify me from observing and critiquing rugby and its relationship with the Irish media, surely? That's not so much a "confession"; more a clarification of my background. Also, as you'll see from other pieces I've written, I'm more than happy to criticise those who run or are involved in football in Ireland too when I see fit, just so you know I'm not on some blind anti-rugby crusade.

A lot of the first half of the piece is more-or-less vocalising or documenting the debate (headed by Ewan MacKenna over recent days) over rugby's actual status or popularity in Ireland and the level and nature of the media coverage devoted to it. I have tried to avoid making any claims that I wouldn't be qualified to make myself. Is there anything particular (gibberish?) that I personally have stated in the first half with which you take issue?

Is the "underachievers" comment unfair? The team have done relatively poorly in what you have to admit is a very small "global" pool, in spite of great expectations and public adoration.

I'm not a unionist myself, but the issue of unionist representation is something on which I've long had feelings, as there's a very clear disparity there in favour of the nationalist ethos. I'm not here to lecture or to tell rugby how to run itself; just pointing out what I perceive to be a discrepancy in terms of representation. Admittedly, there's a politico-cultural aspect or motivation to what I've written as well; I'd like to think I can encourage fellow nationalist or southern readers to engage in some self-reflection and to think about what we expect for ourselves in comparison to what we expect of unionists - I think a double standard is applied here - and then to weigh that against our liberal or republican perceptions of ourselves. It's an Irish societal issue as well as an IRFU issue.

For what it's worth, I had the bulk of the article written in the hope of publishing it about half a week before the Argentina game but a trip to Amsterdam in the mean time held it back.

Thank you for your interest though and any further criticism of specific assertions or arguments is more than welcome.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think his points are interesting enough, it's just not a fair reflection of how rugby in Ireland has got to the point it is at now. I think he's almost entirely unfamiliar with the sport and it's history (as he himself admits) so it's always going to be difficult for him to fairly consider the reality of things.

I wouldn't say I'm entirely unfamiliar with the sport and its history. One can observe with interest from the outside. Is there anything in particular that makes you say that?

Cu Choileain wrote: »

Hi Magico. I'm the author of the piece. I saw from the blog's stats page that some readers were linking from Boards, so just thought I'd respond here.

I'm primarily a football fan - this is true - but that doesn't disqualify me from observing and critiquing rugby and its relationship with the Irish media, surely? That's not so much a "confession"; more a clarification of my background. Also, as you'll see from other pieces I've written, I'm more than happy to criticise those who run or are involved in football in Ireland too when I see fit, just so you know I'm not on some blind anti-rugby crusade.

A lot of the first half of the piece is more-or-less vocalising or documenting the debate (headed by Ewan MacKenna over recent days) over rugby's actual status or popularity in Ireland and the level and nature of the media coverage devoted to it. I have tried to avoid making any claims that I wouldn't be qualified to make myself. Is there anything particular (gibberish?) that I personally have stated in the first half with which you take issue?

Is the "underachievers" comment unfair? The team have done relatively poorly in what you have to admit is a very small "global" pool, in spite of great expectations and public adoration.

I'm not a unionist myself, but the issue of unionist representation is something on which I've long had feelings, as there's a very clear disparity there in favour of the nationalist ethos. I'm not here to lecture or to tell rugby how to run itself; just pointing out what I perceive to be a discrepancy in terms of representation. Admittedly, there's a politico-cultural aspect or motivation to what I've written as well; I'd like to think I can encourage fellow nationalist or southern readers to engage in some self-reflection and to think about what we expect for ourselves in comparison to what we expect of unionists - I think a double standard is applied here - and then to weigh that against our liberal or republican perceptions of ourselves. It's an Irish societal issue as well as an IRFU issue.

For what it's worth, I had the bulk of the article written in the hope of publishing it about half a week before the Argentina game but a trip to Amsterdam in the mean time held it back.

Thank you for your interest though and any further criticism of specific assertions or arguments is more than welcome.



I wouldn't say I'm entirely unfamiliar with the sport and its history. One can observe with interest from the outside. Is there anything in particular that makes you say that?

A point I've made before on here is this. In 2007 Ireland played a game at Ravenhill v. Italy. Since that time, at various levels from schoolboy rugby upwards there have been about 200 representative Ireland games. 1 has been in Northern Ireland. That is ONE. Less than 1% of the representative games have been held in that part of Ireland with about 33% of the population.

To further poosibly estrange rugby fans in Northern Ireland, are you aware that the IRFU entered into a t.v. deal with Sky in which viewers in the R.o.I get to watch Non-6 Nations games for free but viewers in N.I. have to pay. How is that for inclusivity despite what appear to be mealy mouthed sentiments from the IRFU about being inclusive.

As for flags and tunes, I couldn't care less and in reality I've never heard anyone in N.I. in any rugby club or pub make any noise about it at all. I'm outraged at the lack of games played here and also about the t.v. deal. I am a Sky subscriber but that is not the point. Again, what is supposed to be one team and one rugby population is tossed overboard. So much for principles. Tossed out the window and beggar those up North. Imagine the outcry there would have been if the roles were reversed and 'we' got it free. It's just of a piece with the philosophy that governs rugby from Lansdowne. Fortunately the game is bigger than the closed minds who run it.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

As an outsider living here, I have to ask... why does sport have to be politicised? Why can't we celebrate achievement? Why does every sport have to be compared and set against each other? Rugby v GAA v soccer v cricket v boxing v horse racing v tiddlywinks v who gives a f***! Back your countrymen/women. Celebrate success.

Can I be a fan of more than one sport? Is that allowed? If it isn't, then **** you and kiss my ass because I am and will support those teams till I die.

Life is inherently political on account of people's/society's competing and contrasting interests coming into mutual contact. That inevitably seems to find its way into sport as well; sport being a human-led endeavour, of course. If it is felt that rugby is treated in a particular way on account of some aspect of its seemingly-integral nature, it is only fair to look at how other high-profile or popular sports are treated in comparison. Distinguished or apparently-favourable treatment will naturally prompt questions. That's not to say there's a competition or that you need to choose one sport over the other; certainly not. It's fine to support as many as you wish; go for it. I am happy to see the rugby team do well myself, even if football is my primary sport of interest, although I'm not sure there was any success to celebrate on this occasion.

What you advise in terms of "just backing your countrymen and women" is a nice sentiment, but it's naive. Questioning perceived favouritism, distinguished treatment or hypocrisy in a constructive manner, instead of blindly following "because we're all Irish, aren't we?" and assuming all is fair and dandy, isn't a bad thing, is it? What you're advocating is blind patriotism; it can breed zombie-esque complacency in its most benign forms or it can be positively dangerous for society when it allows those with more malicious intentions "in the national interest" off the hook. It's good to question things; embrace challenge. It's how we learn about one another and, indeed, ourselves.

jacothelad wrote: »

A point I've made before on here is this. In 2007 Ireland played a game at Ravenhill v. Italy. Since that time, at various levels from schoolboy rugby upwards there have been about 200 representative Ireland games. 1 has been in Northern Ireland. That is ONE. Less than 1% of the representative games have been held in that part of Ireland with about 33% of the population.

To further poosibly estrange rugby fans in Northern Ireland, are you aware that the IRFU entered into a t.v. deal with Sky in which viewers in the R.o.I get to watch Non-6 Nations games for free but viewers in N.I. have to pay. How is that for inclusivity despite what appear to be mealy mouthed sentiments from the IRFU about being inclusive.

As for flags and tunes, I couldn't care less and in reality I've never heard anyone in N.I. in any rugby club or pub make any noise about it at all. I'm outraged at the lack of games played here and also about the t.v. deal. I am a Sky subscriber but that is not the point. Again, what is supposed to be one team and one rugby population is tossed overboard. So much for principles. Tossed out the window and beggar those up North. Imagine the outcry there would have been if the roles were reversed and 'we' got it free. It's just of a piece with the philosophy that governs rugby from Lansdowne. Fortunately the game is bigger than the closed minds who run it.

Cheers for that, jacothelad. Some interesting points you make, there.

Does the fact that many Ulster rugby fans of the unionist tradition just keep quiet about the symbols matter, possibly because it's "just the way it is/always has been" or because they don't want to be seen to be "moaning", "moping" or "pushing their weight around", negate the reality or fact that there is a disparity there in terms of symbolic representation? If there is disparity there, surely that is unfair in principle, whether or not some seek to push the issue in practice or not on account of weighing it up with other concerns.

CatFromHue wrote: »

This is a lie.

The rugby team toured Argentina in 07 and 14, the world cup in SA was in 2010. The Tribune shut down less than a year after it, the SA world cup, and 07 was the height of the Celtic Tiger madness.

What you say is indeed correct. I have tweeted this to Ewan and also highlighted it in a comment underneath my piece.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

+1

I think the reason why Rugby players get a bit more respect is because they give more respect: to the ref, to the jersey and to the opposition usually than those in say Soccer do. Soccer players dive, shout at the ref and sometimes look disinterested even though they make 100K a week. Fans are sick of this.

See, I feel this sort of generalised, haughty and self-righteous social superiority complex is an inherent politicisation (or socio-political analysis) of sport and the games of rugby and football, and that's in what these sorts of claims are ultimately rooted, no matter what way you wish to present it. It's an overtly contentious remark. But you'll thank Yeah_Right when he or she tells me I'm the one doing the politicising when I take issue with things like this.

What would Craig Joubert say to the claim that the rugby fraternity respects its officials? He has been harangued since his Scotland-Australia error. He sprinted off the field to avoid an verbal onslaught from crowd and players. Those involved in rugby are not above disrespect, nor do they command the moral high ground because of some insulting notion that the sport is played by an inherently better and more honest stock of person. Any human, whatever their circumstances, has potential for negative traits and all sports are consequently afflicted with instances of disrespect. There's a piece in the Telegraph by Oliver Brown entitled 'How once-proud gentlemen's game has become the new football' that might be worth checking out, if you can Google it. I cannot post direct URL links at present, as I'm a new user.

Simulation in soccer is a curse that FIFA need to stamp out, but there's gamesmanship, dishonesty and rule-bending in rugby too. It's only inevitable that participants in professional sport will push the rules to their limits when winning is the priority. Soccer players who are disinterested don't make it very far. They're found out pretty quickly.

I thought this post from a thread on Foot.ie was worth noting (as, I say, unfortunately, I cannot seem to provide a direct URL as I'm a new user; sorry):

tetsujin1979 wrote:

I made this point elsewhere, just reposting here. While sports journalists will always criticise the national side after a loss in their sport (Fanning/McDonnell on football, Thornley on rugby, etc), it's the treatment of footballers on the front page of the paper that exposes the bias in my opinion.

A footballer will make it on the front page for getting behind the wheel of a car after having a drink, losing a bundle on a horse, or spending the night with a woman who isn't their partner. For whatever reason, this rarely happens for athletes in other codes, not just GAA and rugby, both of which have players with problems with alcohol, gambling and fidelity. More than one person that I know has been convinced that because Ashley Cole and John Terry are utter scumbags, that this must mean all footballers are.

Cu Choileain wrote: »

Cheers for that, jacothelad. Some interesting points you make, there.

Does the fact that many Ulster rugby fans of the unionist tradition just keep quiet about the symbols matter, possibly because it's "just the way it is/always has been" or because they don't want to be seen to be "moaning", "moping" or "pushing their weight around", negate the reality or fact that there is a disparity there in terms of symbolic representation? If there is disparity there, surely that is unfair in principle, whether or not some seek to push the issue in practice or not on account of weighing it up with other concerns.

I suppose from the perspective of a member of the Unionist community who is British by heritage, not choice and having an enduring love of both all of Ireland and rugby, it's easy for me to ignore what is probably - well definitely - a situation where those of us from this part of the island are getting the short end of the stick in terms of rugby. Also, like most middle class Unionists we don't place any importance on flags and symbols. In my view that is for those of little intellect and low self esteem who need to shore themselves up with something to wave. Like that pathetic loon in the Celtic shirt at Croke in 2007 with the 'No foreign games ' placard.

I've been travelling to Dublin Since 1955 for rugby games, both to play and to watch at Lansdowne Road and never once did it cross my mind that there was anything odd or imbalanced about the playing of or the displaying of Irish symbols. I suppose if I'd been asked I would have thought that if a representative game was played at Ravenhill it would have been to the musical strain and emblem of that part of the U.K. After all rugby is supposed to be even handed but it just never came up. In fact I find such things tedious and boring. I'm interested in the game, not the flag waving.

Out there in the big, bad world however it seems that it's o.k. to be an Irish patriotic rugby fan and espouse all things Irish and have your flag and your anthem. Apparently though this generosity of spirit is limited exclusively to that group. It isn't o.k.to be a part of the inherently British community playing and supporting the Rugby team that represents me and those like me and to have the same freedoms. We apparently are responsible for all those really bad things that happened 100 years ago so we can't be seen in public as it were.. It's a bit like in Victorian or Edwardian times when you had a strange or mad relative. They were excluded from the 'conversation' and locked out of sight so that hopefully one day they will just disappear off into the night and the problem will be solved.

It's not as if anyone chooses to be born Irish or chooses to be born British on this island. We are what we are. There are of course those of narrow minds that see only the Irish bit as important. I am not talking here about politics. For every narrow mind on one side of politics there is narrow mind on the other. I'm sure you have heard the derogatory and pejorative expression to be a 'Little Englander.' It is an epithet applied in criticisms of English people who are regarded as xenophobic and/or overly nationalistic and are often accused of being 'ignorant' and 'boorish'. Well stop the press but there are plenty of 'Little Irelanders' out there, certainly in regard to the situation in rugby. Yes, we don't get a completely fair crack of the whip but the thing is this, by saying nothing or not making any waves it keeps us above those who think we haven't noticed.

I love rugby with a passion. As I approach my 70s I don't feel and never have felt myself to be a second class rugby citizen because we are ignored by people too thick to notice or too arrogant to think they've 'got away with it.'

jacothelad wrote: »

Don't you get that it is the principle that we are supposed to be inclusive. It's not about blagging a free transmission. I pay for Sky Sports anyway so it doesn't cost me any more. What it does show however is that I am no longer equal in the eyes of the IRFU.

Its not the IRFU though that sells the broadcasting rights. Its the 6Ns company.

Did BBC NI bid for the rights? Since Ulster get such good PRO12 cover, it wouldn't surprise me that their rugby budget is all used up on that.

jacothelad wrote: »

As for flags and tunes, I couldn't care less and in reality I've never heard anyone in N.I. in any rugby club or pub make any noise about it at all. I'm outraged at the lack of games played here and also about the t.v. deal. I am a Sky subscriber but that is not the point. Again, what is supposed to be one team and one rugby population is tossed overboard. So much for principles. Tossed out the window and beggar those up North. Imagine the outcry there would have been if the roles were reversed and 'we' got it free. It's just of a piece with the philosophy that governs rugby from Lansdowne. Fortunately the game is bigger than the closed minds who run it.

Where do you propose these rugby internationals you want in NI to be held?

jm08 wrote: »

Where do you propose these rugby internationals you want in NI to be held?

Can you not work that out for yourself? Well, for a start how about a few U20s games or U18 games at Ravenhill/Kingspan. Maybe a Womens international game instead of at Ashbourne? What about one of those fake internationals like the one against Fiji at Thomond? A Club International? What about a Barbarians game? You see it's not hard to comprehend.

If the UCD Bowl is good enough,
If 'Irish Independent Park is good enough,
If DuBarry park is good enough,
if Ashbourne RFC is good enough,
if Donnybrook is good enough,
if Thomond park is good enough,
If Cork Con ground is good enough,
if Coolmine RFC in Ashbrook is good enough,
if Templeville Road is good enough,
if Malahide is good enough,
if the Sportsground is good enough,
if Old Belvedere is good enough,
if Anglesea Road is good enough,
if the RDS is good enough,
if the Tallaght Stadium is good enough,
if the Bellefield Bowl is good enough,
if Cork IT is good enough, then I am pretty sure that the likes of Ravenhill, Stevenson Park, Eaton Park, Shaws Bridge et al; are just as or more capable of hosting representative games as anywhere else on the Island.

"As the Governing Body for rugby across the island of Ireland and following almost two years of research and consultation with stakeholders, it is our collective resolve that this next stage in our vision for Irish rugby should be titled:

It's a pity the IRFU doesn't practice what they preach. Actions after all speak louder than mealy mouthed platitudes.

jm08 wrote: »

Its not the IRFU though that sells the broadcasting rights. Its the 6Ns company.

Did BBC NI bid for the rights? Since Ulster get such good PRO12 cover, it wouldn't surprise me that their rugby budget is all used up on that.

The 6 nations Rights are not at issue. The BBC broadcast the 6 Nations to the U.K. It is the IRFU that sold the coverage of non-6 Nations games to Skyand giving it free to one section of the population while charging the other to see their team play. If you can't see a problem with this principle, you'll not understand the principle of equal treatment for all rugby on the island.

jacothelad wrote: »

The 6 nations Rights are not at issue. The BBC broadcast the 6 Nations to the U.K. It is the IRFU that sold the coverage of non-6 Nations games to Skyand giving it free to one section of the population while charging the other to see their team play. If you can't see a problem with this principle, you'll not understand the principle of equal treatment for all rugby on the island.

I fail to see how the IRFU can sell the rights when its the 6Ns that have sold the rights to the BBC who have sold them onto Sky, RTE, ITV etc. We would be in exactly the same situation here if RTE didn't bid for them.

edit: Oops - misread.

The same principle though. Did BBC NI bid for the rights for the AIs?

jm08 wrote: »

I fail to see how the IRFU can sell the rights when its the 6Ns that have sold the rights to the BBC who have sold them onto Sky, RTE, ITV etc. We would be in exactly the same situation here if RTE didn't bid for them.

The 6 Nations Committee have sold the rights of Ireland Autumn Internationals to Sky? err No!

jm08 wrote: »

They are played in Athlone because its in the centre of Ireland. It might also have something to do with the sponsors being based in ROI.



Again I would say its about access - you don't see any of these games being held in Cork, Limerick or Galway.

Not too many games going to Thomond Park (which has up to recently double the capacity of Ravenhill). 18k capacity is not big enough for some of those games.
Less than 18,000 turned up at Thomond for that Fiji game in 2012 if I recall correctly. As for capacity - catch a grip. Look at the list of grounds in which all those other games are played.

Ravenhill is hosting the semi-finals and final of the Women's Rugby world cup in 2017.

There has been a Junior World Cup in Belfast and a Wolfhounds v Saxons game in Belfast in recent times. The 'A' games seem to be rotated around the Provinces.

Athlone is the centre of Ireland so that's why games are there. What a load of twaddle. You can drag up all sorts of loony excuses and twist and swing in the wind but it's nonsense. Should the 1.8 million inhabitants of N.I. get down on our knees and thank the IRFU for the Womens RWC in 2017? No we feckin' shouldn't. As for Thomond - when exactly was it developed into a 26,000 capacity ground from 12 -`13,000.

It's very simple. The IRFU does not allocate lower level Internationals to the provinces on a fair basis.

jacothelad wrote: »

Athlone is the centre of Ireland so that's why games are there. What a load of twaddle. You can drag up all sorts of loony excuses and twist and swing in the wind but it's nonsense. Should the 1.8 million inhabitants of N.I. get down on our knees and thank the IRFU for the Womens RWC in 2017? No we feckin' shouldn't. As for Thomond - when exactly was it developed into a 26,000 capacity ground from 12 -`13,000.

It's very simple. The IRFU does not allocate lower level Internationals to the provinces on a fair basis.

Its common sense to put the games in an IRFU ground in the centre of Ireland where there are reasonable connections from all parts of Ireland. It would be a heck of a journey from Belfast to Cork, or vice versa.

Who asked you to thank the IRFU for the Women's World Cup, though in fairness its a bit of a drag for the citizens of Cork to get to Belfast, but I'm sure they won't complain about that

Thomond was developed into a 26K seater in 2008 and got 1 international game since then (v Canada) in 2009. The sale of naming rights to Aviva requires that no international games are played outside of Lansdowne Rd for the next 15 years.

I seem to recall that the IRFU agreed to stage some internationals in the redeveloped Maze Stadium, but since that fell through I'd imagine 18K isn't enough.

PS - you forgot to mention that Belfast got an underage world cup a few years ago.

super_furry wrote: »

I don't think Irish rugby could ever be accused of being inclusive. There are tentative steps being taken to expand the player base but just look at the number of people in the Irish squad who didn't attend a private school.

Mike Ross
Rory Best
Paul O'connel
Sean O'Brien
Connor Murray
Robbie Henshaw
Keith Earls

From the starting 15