The Cock up to end all Cork Ups

losthorizon

Seriously, How did someone in the editorial of the Evening Echo not spot this?

BTW Its OK to click on this as there is a further click to get to anything rude

http://gaabanter.ie/pic-the-cock-up-to-end-all-cock-ups-nsfw/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pic-the-cock-up-to-end-all-cock-ups-nsfw

wazky

Someone made a balls of that.

snubbleste

My search history will indicate I visited "pic-the-cock-up-to-end-all-cock-ups-nsfw"

The Backwards Man

This should be in the ballsports forum.

up for anything

Good to see it's the uncut version and not the director's cut.

studiorat

No mandatory helmet rule in the GAA football anyway.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I genuinely honestly can't understand why every sport isn't played naked from the waste down.

It also would see women's sport get more popular.

Who doesn't win from this?


*Thinly veiled Dublin beat Cork thread*

Pro Hoc Vice

Always knew Dublin are small fry.

ollaetta

Almost a hand ball there.

Tweej

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/361/281/8d0.gif

Red Nissan

losthorizon wrote: »

Seriously, How did someone in the editorial of the Evening Echo not spot this?

They did. They had a chat with Nial Prenderville on morning there like, I didn't bother to listen, boys should wear under garments.

The Aussie

Red Nissan wrote: »

They did. They had a chat with Nial Prenderville on morning there like.

A tosser (w@nker) talking about another mans Knob. :pac:

btw, love how you Corked it up by finishing the sentence with "like".

Jester252

I guess at the next game he will be sporting some under armour

dmc17

At least the Cork player was trying to cover it up

CdeC

Cannot believe they did that, although it is funny it is really bregrudging to make a fool out of a young lad like that with his bits hanging out just because your county lost at a football game.
He puts in a lot of work training and playing for his county and entertaining the country and doesn't need some bollix with a high speed camera putting out his junk for the world to see. He should sue the editor and the photographer for as much as he can get.

Real Life

Hes going to get a lot of money out of this, i remember the same thing happened in the local paper where im from some years back. the guy got a nice sum of money for it.

Balmed Out

CdeC wrote: »

Cannot believe they did that, although it is funny it is really bregrudging to make a fool out of a young lad like that with his bits hanging out just because your county lost at a football game.
He puts in a lot of work training and playing for his county and entertaining the country and doesn't need some bollix with a high speed camera putting out his junk for the world to see. He should sue the editor and the photographer for as much as he can get.

Do you think it was on purpose????

Red Nissan

CdeC wrote: »

He should sue the editor and the photographer for as much as he can get.

Actually it is the player who faces sanctions for public indecency.

It is not the first time this has occurred.

In the past editors would choose an image, probably just checking for sharpness and suitability for placement and it would be sent to a box address on the network.

No one else would see the original after that, it would have been displayed in low res in Quark Express and the next time anybody would see it is after printing.

I Heart Internet

Did this really appear in print?? Wow

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Jesus, do people really think they did it on purpose?

It's going to cost them a lot of money if brought to court. Had to laugh and joe.ie idiotically reposting the image on their site, making them just as accountable as the echo

Why oh why did I look at the uncensored version?

gobnaitolunacy

Nawful bunch of langers in the Echo office, not spotting that.

pickarooney

Ha ha. That man has a willy.

Rasheed

Red Nissan wrote: »

Actually it is the player who faces sanctions for public indecency.

It is not the first time this has occurred.

Seriously? I've never heard that before. The poor lad didn't pull it out on purpose.

RikkFlair

That's the problem with those GAA shorts, they are very short :pac:

Rasheed

RikkFlair wrote: »

That's the problem with those GAA shorts, they are very short :pac:

Any if anyone suggests lengthening them, THAT'S when I start protesting!

Red Nissan

Rasheed wrote: »

Seriously? I've never heard that before. The poor lad didn't pull it out on purpose.

In the last few years there has been a whole raft of regulations and recommendations, sports wear should be worn, and the kit colours worn over that. Some of the regs are now mandatory, gum shields and helmets as example.

floggg

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Jesus, do people really think they did it on purpose?

It's going to cost them a lot of money if brought to court. Had to laugh and joe.ie idiotically reposting the image on their site, making them just as accountable as the echo

Sued for what exactly?

What type of action do you think he can take?

kraggy

CdeC wrote: »

Cannot believe they did that, although it is funny it is really bregrudging to make a fool out of a young lad like that with his bits hanging out just because your county lost at a football game.
He puts in a lot of work training and playing for his county and entertaining the country and doesn't need some bollix with a high speed camera putting out his junk for the world to see. He should sue the editor and the photographer for as much as he can get.

Assuming that it was indeed printed, I agree with you.

GAA players are normal people who are amateur players. And they give up essentially their whole lives for the 10 or so years that they represent their county. They give up nights out, a year working abroad, and mind their diet so as to give it their all.

He's somebody's brother and son and importantly, appears very young so could be sensitive to the attention that this will bring, ironically in part by the OP.

He also has to go to work or college like any of us unlike professional soccer or rugby players. If the editor knew it was going out, he and the photographer should be seriously reprimanded.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

floggg wrote: »

Sued for what exactly?

What type of action do you think he can take?

Under Irish defamation law, it's happened before. GAA players balls shown in a local paper and he took a hefty sum off them, think it was a title in Laois

And under those same set of laws, joe.ie repeating the defamation makes them just as liable to action, which any editor with half a brain should know

kraggy

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Under Irish defamation law, it's happened before. GAA players balls shown in a local paper and he took a hefty sum off them, think it was a title in Laois

And under those same set of laws, joe.ie repeating the defamation makes them just as liable to action, which any editor with half a brain should know

Joe.ie comes across to me as a website run by braindead jocks, for braindead jocks.

Talib Fiasco

It was printed alright. Tuesday's paper. Got my own copy at home :rolleyes: In fairness I spotted it straight away....when you're scanning the page it actually jumps out like. Ahem...

I'll quit while I'm ahead....shocking tbh. The lad probably will laugh it off but I'm still gutted for him.

Rasheed

Red Nissan wrote: »

In the last few years there has been a whole raft of regulations and recommendations, sports wear should be worn, and the kit colours worn over that. Some of the regs are now mandatory, gum shields and helmets as example.

Fair enough protective wear. Still don't think the lad should face sanctions over an accidental peek a boo. He's a long time playing football and should know what underwear to use for support but the togs/ underwear could easily have being pulled just before the picture. God help him though, he must be mortified!

I remember a photo, i think it was Darragh O Shea, taking a leak on the pitch on day, which was ridiculous alright.

gobnaitolunacy

kraggy wrote: »

Joe.ie comes across to me as a website run by braindead jocks, for braindead jocks.

It harvests all the stories that were put out months ago on news sites/Facebag/the meeja and mushes them into an easily digestable paste.

Red Nissan

kraggy wrote: »

If the editor knew it was going out, he and the photographer should be seriously reprimanded.

The editor knew, they actually mention it in their article, I don't have it nor did I listen to the fuss on the morning radio programme.

Covering a match one may not even see one's pictures. A big match like this would as likely have the data cards collected, even so, the photographer would be using a laptop for editing and would zoom to the face to identify the players as he'd have a caption editor open on top of the image. The image sent vis WiFi in seconds, one cannot recall images.

Procasinator

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Under Irish defamation law, it's happened before. GAA players balls shown in a local paper and he took a hefty sum off them, think it was a title in Laois

And under those same set of laws, joe.ie repeating the defamation makes them just as liable to action, which any editor with half a brain should know

He could sue, but I don't think the defamation act is relevant. Defamation deals with false statements, which this isn't.

The last guy was to be awarded damages based on there being an intrusion on his privacy:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gaa-player-awarded-damages-over-photo-of-privates-26282488.html

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Red Nissan wrote: »

The editor knew, they actually mention it in their article, I don't have it nor did I listen to the fuss on the morning radio programme.

Covering a match one may not even see one's pictures. A big match like this would as likely have the data cards collected, even so, the photographer would be using a laptop for editing and would zoom to the face to identify the players as he'd have a caption editor open on top of the image. The image sent vis WiFi in seconds, one cannot recall images.

Please explain what exactly they said

There is simply no rational basis for doing something like this on purpose. If the editor did do it deliberate it's one of the stupidest editorial decisions I've ever come across, not only putting his title in line for a hefty payout, but also more or less guaranteeing his own p45 when Johnston Press find out what he's done (if he did it on purpose, which he didn't)

frozenfrozen

A lot more goes into editing, colouring, and cropping an image for print than simply looking at the players face. You can't miss a flying cock when you're working in photoshop on a 27 inch screen. It's not professional football where there are several shooters taking several thousand images per game.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Procasinator wrote: »

He could sue, but I don't think the defamation act is relevant. Defamation deals with false statements, which this isn't.

The last guy was to be awarded damages based on there being an intrusion on his privacy:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gaa-player-awarded-damages-over-photo-of-privates-26282488.html

Defamation is everything that makes people look less in the eyes of their peers(heavy paraphrased). People have taken claims over appearing the background of photos outside court during perp walks because they've said it implies they're associated with the accused

So not just false statements

Red Nissan

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Please explain what exactly they said

I already said I did not listen.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Red Nissan wrote: »

I already said I did not listen.

So you can't really back up your claim that he did it on purpose so? Interesting....

Red Nissan

frozenfrozen wrote: »

A lot more goes into editing, colouring, and cropping an image for print than simply looking at the players face. You can't miss a flying cock when you're working in photoshop on a 27 inch screen. It's not professional football where there are several shooters taking several thousand images per game.

One would be surprised at how automated it is, after the picture is assigned a box number it's assigned a caption and placement holder ~ the main reason we see pictures with the wrong captions is because page setters actually cannot see the images and they rely on the tags to point to the right items for collection for output.

I think smaller weekly papers may well be using non industrial software and therefore would see the full resolution image all the time.

floggg

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Under Irish defamation law, it's happened before. GAA players balls shown in a local paper and he took a hefty sum off them, think it was a title in Laois

And under those same set of laws, joe.ie repeating the defamation makes them just as liable to action, which any editor with half a brain should know

There is no defamation here. He does have a penis - that's actual fact.

Defamation essentially is false statements which adversely affects a persons reputation.

Assuming the picture wasnt doctored, to make him look smaller and that he is actually a man, it's not defamatory.

A terrible invasion of privacy certainly, but not defamatory.

Red Nissan

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

So you can't really back up your claim that he did it on purpose so? Interesting....

No, see I did not think it was interesting, I know how these things work and I did not see the image before following the link today.

My wife brought my attention to the radio conversation and I said I was not interested she insisted on telling me about it anyway, but I did not hear it myself.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

floggg wrote: »

There is no defamation here. He does have a penis - that's actual fact.

Defamation essentially is false statements which adversely affects a persons reputation.

Assuming the picture wasnt doctored, to make him look smaller and that he is actually a man, it's not defamatory.

A terrible invasion of privacy certainly, but not defamatory.

have a read of Irish defamation law, it doesn't have to be a false statement, and there have been numerous incidents of photos being considered defamatory in the past

Now act of privacy is another method of perusal in this case but photographs have been seen as defamatory in the past

Either he could very easily make a case against the newspaper and seek damages

floggg

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

have a read of Irish defamation law, it doesn't have to be a false statement, and there have been numerous incidents of photos being considered defamatory in the past

Now act of privacy is another method of perusal in this case but photographs have been seen as defamatory in the past

Either he could very easily make a case against the newspaper and seek damages

I would suggest you have a look at the Defamation Act 2009.

Section 16 provides that it shall be a defence to a defamation action to prove that the statement concerned was true in all material respects.

Ergo you cannot sue somebody for defamation where the statement or publication was true.

A photo can certainly be defamatory, but only where it suggests something which is not true. For example it's manipulated or is posted out of context to suggest something untrue about the subject.

As for privacy, I don't believe there is any common law right of action for breach of privacy as a result of publication of photos, and neither is there any statutory right of action to my knowledge.

Hence Irish papers are free to publish photos of that Middleton one topless last year with no come back.

I'd be happy for you to correct me if I'm wrong on the above though.

Red Nissan

floggg wrote: »

A photo can certainly be defamatory, but only where it suggests something which is not true. For example it's manipulated or is posted out of context to suggest something untrue about the subject.
.

And to that end this picture cannot be altered, suppose for a seconds that it was the ONLY pic that survived a HD crash or card failure and they HAD to use it or have no picture at all ~ just suppose like, well they would have to publish the unaltered picture.

There is little can be done [legally] to an image, it can be cropped, brightened, darkened, sharpened, colour corrected and that's about it.

Recent examples are the Soldier standing over civilians in Libya, Israeli jets dropping rockets, no body parts in some British newspapers after the Spanish train bombings.

Swan Curry

It's a penis.Wow.

Half the population has one,the other half will probably see one at one point in their lives,what's the big deal?

kraggy

Swan Curry wrote: »

It's a penis.Wow.

Half the population has one,the other half will probably see one at one point in their lives,what's the big deal?

His privacy has been affected by displaying it to the public without his knowledge.

floggg

kraggy wrote: »

His privacy has been affected by displaying it to the public without his knowledge.

He probably should have worn some properly fitting jocks in fairness.

Red Nissan

kraggy wrote: »

His privacy has been affected by displaying it to the public without his knowledge.

One cannot say this. Unless it was his first ever game and first time ever in those shorts. I think most men would know and be uncomfortable.

Now if it was his first tackle and he ran off the field thereafter to change ~ I'd accept your analysis, did he change?