Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

jm08

damianmcr wrote: »

I do understand all that Hands.

People here are still livid over the Ruan decision. There are fans who haven't graced Ravenhill since. I'm one of the ones who wasn't happy but understood the decision.

I'm gutted about the two being let go. I'd rather have Jackson than Barrett. I was/am a huge Olding fan. Something special about him. Wish the pair all the luck in the world.

All this protesting and getting offended if things don't go the right way reminds me of something George Mitchell said about when he arrived in Northern Ireland initially. He said David Irvine took him aside and said to him that there was one thing he needed to know about northerners if he was to succeed and that was ''that the people here would drive 100 miles to get offended'!

damianmcr

Love it haha.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

All this protesting and getting offended if things don't go the right way reminds me of something George Mitchell said about when he arrived in Northern Ireland initially. He said David Irvine took him aside and said to him that there was one thing he needed to know about northerners if he was to succeed and that was ''that the people here would drive 100 miles to get offended'!

Yeah, people down south reacted calmly to this whole incident thankfully.

jacothelad

MJohnston wrote: »

They'll only find out how URSC feel, and nothing more. And in fact, they might not even find that out if URSC decide to only communicate the majority opinion.

URSC certainly haven't been representing my point of view as an Ulster supporter in recent weeks.

Well it's impossible to represent every opinion.

jm08 wrote: »

All this protesting and getting offended if things don't go the right way reminds me of something George Mitchell said about when he arrived in Northern Ireland initially. He said David Irvine took him aside and said to him that there was one thing he needed to know about northerners if he was to succeed and that was ''that the people here would drive 100 miles to get offended'!

Holy Fork. :eek::eek: Well he should have told him about the likes of you who only need to travel an inch to be offended when someone mentions Munster in anything other than glowing love. Self awareness and irony are clearly missing from your life.

prawnsambo

jacothelad wrote: »

Holy Fork. :eek::eek: Well he should have told him about the likes of you who only need to travel an inch to be offended when someone mentions Munster in anything other than glowing love. Self awareness and irony are clearly missing from your life.

Ehh, it's possible that you've failed to grasp that metaphor. I mean I see what you're saying because, well I've been around here a long time, but surely it would be a thousand miles? :P

Paul Smeenus

Deleted User wrote: »

mfceiling wrote: »

So you got the stats to prove his kicking was indeed the best at over 90% so rather than accept that fact you then want to know where the kicks were taken from.
Do you want wind readings, decibel noise from the crowd, length of grass?

As I said...move the goalposts.

Setting the 'goalposts' as only being PJ's best season isn't exactly a good place to start from!

As has been previously posted, when it comes to overall kicking stats:
http://linebreakrugby.com/2016/06/rugby-kicking-stats/

Player Name | Attempts at Goal | Success Percentage
Johnny Sexton | 830 | 88.7%
Ian Madigan | 411 | 87.6%
Ronan O’Gara | 1276 | 86%
Paddy Jackson | 488 | 81.3%


PJ's international record is at 82.6% (76/92), Madigan is at 79% (45/57) and Sexton is at 79% (234/295).

Interestingly, over Keatley's entire career, he's at 82.3% (717/871) which I found very surprising.

But do we know where all those kicks were taken from?

awec

MJohnston wrote: »

My point of view is that I think them being moved on from Ulster and Ireland was the correct choice for everyone, and that Ulster Rugby needs to move on and get on with appointing a new DoR.

URSC, and McBride representing them, have been either naively or ignorantly pushing for the two players to return with the presumption that this was what their entire supporter base wanted, and are only now stopping to ask what people think. I doubt they'll get anything other than C/D/E responses now that they've essentially alienated anyone who might have been in URSC that was of the A/B opinion.

Their position as "Official Supporters Club" also gives them a perceived public standing as representatives of Ulster fans in general, and I'm pretty angry that they felt like getting involved with this was acceptable or indeed welcome.

The URSC is the only properly organised body representing any section of the Ulster support so it would be pretty bizarre if they didn't have an opinion on these events.

As for alienating people, I call nonsense on that. The only statement they have made is to distance themselves from the "concerned fans" bollocks in the paper.

They are balloting their membership, who knows what the outcome will be? I can guess, based on reaction on their facebook page and the official ulster facebook page and the official ulster twitter that it'll not be the response you are hoping for.

Not really sure why you'd get angry about it. Is it because they might put forward a view that is different to yours?

bilston

So how many backs do we need to sign for next season.

At the minute we are losing Jackson, Olding, Bowe and Piutau, sadly there is a significant chance we will be adding Jared Payne to that list as well. There are also rumours that we might lose McPhillips.

So far our only addition is Will Addison.

Unusually there seems to be more forwards than backs in the academy, however hopefully the likes of Angus Curtis, James Hume and Michael Lowry can step up.

It seems to me that we definitely need an out half, but we probably need at least one and maybe two outside backs as well.

Our backs roster at present looks like this

Cooney
Shanahan
Marshall (unsure what is happening with Paul)
Stewart (Academy)
McPhillips (rumoured to be leaving)
Nelson
Lowry (Academy)
Curtis (Academy)
McCloskey
Cave
Marshall
Payne (chance he may have to retire)
Hume (Academy)
Ludik
Stockdale
Gilroy
Lyttle
Busby
Kernohan (Academy)
Addison
Trimble (seems to be semi retired)

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

Not really sure why you'd get angry about it. Is it because they might put forward a view that is different to yours?

Isn't that a legitimate fear?

The thing about going on the inputs on the media you mention is that it's not really conducive to an opposing pov. In other words, people who go against the zeitgeist would expect to be lynched. So they just wouldn't. And they'd express their opinions direct to UR.

awec

prawnsambo wrote: »

Isn't that a legitimate fear?

The thing about going on the inputs on the media you mention is that it's not really conducive to an opposing pov. In other words, people who go against the zeitgeist would expect to be lynched. So they just wouldn't. And they'd express their opinions direct to UR.

It's a private ballot.

The outcome will be representative of the views of the majority of the URSC membership.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

It's a private ballot.

The outcome will be representative of the views of the majority of the URSC membership.

I was referring to your guess based on the reactions on the media you listed.

Former Former

Question; does membership of the URSC automatically happen with season ticket purchase, or does one have to make a separate effort to join?

awec

Former Former wrote: »

Question; does membership of the URSC automatically happen with season ticket purchase, or does one have to make a separate effort to join?

I believe you have to join separately.

Downlinz

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As much as we need to have a conversation about consent etc I think the IRFU should be made to have a conversation about redemption.

Can these players hope to play for Ulster and Ireland again? And if not, why not?

Do the sponsors and social media run the show ultimately. I think any young player needs to know this.

I don't think there's any place for a redemption discussion unless the victim decides to publicly forgive the players, which would seem unlikely.
What's done is done at this stage and the players must live with the consequences of their actions.
And no, sponsors don't run the show. The public run the show and the sponsors provide financial backing to court favour among the public. They're soulless entities making decisions on the basis of profitability, the only moral judges are the average folk. It would seem like a very good lesson for any young player to not do things the general public consider reprehensible, you'd think any person in the public spotlight would be aware of that already.

errlloyd

Downlinz wrote: »

I don't think there's any place for a redemption discussion unless the victim decides to publicly forgive the players, which would seem unlikely.

What should she apologise for?

bilston

Downlinz wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As much as we need to have a conversation about consent etc I think the IRFU should be made to have a conversation about redemption.

Can these players hope to play for Ulster and Ireland again? And if not, why not?

Do the sponsors and social media run the show ultimately. I think any young player needs to know this.

I don't think there's any place for a redemption discussion unless the victim decides to publicly forgive the players, which would seem unlikely.
What's done is done at this stage and the players must live with the consequences of their actions.
And no, sponsors don't run the show. The public run the show and the sponsors provide financial backing to court favour among the public. They're soulless entities making decisions on the basis of profitability, the only moral judges are the average folk. It would seem like a very good lesson for any young player to not do things the general public consider reprehensible, you'd think any person in the public spotlight would be aware of that already.

What victim are you talking about?

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

It's a private ballot.

The outcome will be representative of the views of the majority of the URSC membership.

Prevailing URSC Logic.

"The decision of the judge and jury are absolutely final we shouldn't even discuss the case again it's over. Not guilty is completely unquestionable why are you protesting the verdict?"

And then.

"The IRFU / UR made a decision we didn't like? Burn the season tickets"

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

Prevailing URSC Logic.

"The decision of the judge and jury are absolutely final we shouldn't even discuss the case again it's over. Not guilty is completely unquestionable why are you protesting the verdict?"

And then.

"The IRFU / UR made a decision we didn't like? Burn the season tickets"

URSC banned all conversation of the trial itself and the actual events to protect itself from legal problems.

Not really sure what your point is here.

Hands Like Flippers

Bilston

Think we might get a few good additions to the Academy from school leavers this year as well.

FrancieBrady

errlloyd wrote: »

Prevailing URSC Logic.

"The decision of the judge and jury are absolutely final we shouldn't even discuss the case again it's over. Not guilty is completely unquestionable why are you protesting the verdict?"

And then.

"The IRFU / UR made a decision we didn't like? Burn the season tickets"

What is illogical about that?

That the punishment is too harsh is not contradicting the verdict.

molloyjh

errlloyd wrote: »

What should she apologise for?

He/she didn't say the victim should apologise. He/she basically said that unless the victim is willing to forgive then UR shouldn't. In other words we should only start talking about redemption if/when the victim is ready to.

molloyjh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is illogical about that?

That the punishment is too harsh is not contradicting the verdict.

I think saying that "the decision has been made, you need to respect that" for the trial vs "the decision has been made and we refuse to accept it" for the internal review seem somewhat at odds logically speaking.

bilston

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Bilston

Think we might get a few good additions to the Academy from school leavers this year as well.

Houston, Sexton and Moore? Unlikely they are going to feature in the senior team next season though.

I know there is definitely a decent bunch of players coming through but even two or three injuries to our backs next season, especially with Stockdale going to be away for large parts, and we could be struggling a bit.

Former Former

From their website, URSC would seem to have about 1-2,000 members.

And assuming not all of them reply by 5pm today to an email that went out yesterday, whatever outcome there is from the poll is going to be a very small subset of Ulster fans and an insignificant proportion of Irish rugby fans.

awec

Former Former wrote: »

From their website, URSC would seem to have about 1-2,000 members.

And assuming not all of them reply by 5pm today to an email that went out yesterday, whatever outcome there is from the poll is going to be a very small subset of Ulster fans and an insignificant proportion of Irish rugby fans.

And?

The fact remains they are the only organised body representing any set of Ulster supporters. Their view is completely relevant.

irishbucsfan

I've no problem at all with URSC doing whatever they choose to do. It's a small group of people and they absolutely should be free to voice their opinion in whatever way they see fit.

They've the same freedom as groups buying adverts in newspapers. If they want to boycott Ulster then more power to them (although they might need to change their name!). As long as they don't infringe on anyone else I don't see the problem.

And if you're one of the Ulster fans who vehemently disagree with them, you can resign your membership and tell them why you're doing so.

FrancieBrady

molloyjh wrote: »

I think saying that "the decision has been made, you need to respect that" for the trial vs "the decision has been made and we refuse to accept it" for the internal review seem somewhat at odds logically speaking.

Thats ridiculous. They are two separate things.

awec

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thats ridiculous. They are two separate things.

Indeed, it is not as if the URSC are affiliated with the UK legal system or hold any sway over court proceedings.

It's a comparison of apples and oranges.

bilston

It seems the three main newspapers up here this morning are reflecting on the anger from some Ulster fans. It is real. I really expect some sort of protest this weekend. But then again what will it achieve? I think personally it will be a vent for the supporters.

If it's done properly it could be used our advantage against Glasgow, but if done wrong, namely a boycott, then it will just be divisive and will have a negative effect on the team.

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

URSC banned all conversation of the trial itself and the actual events to protect itself from legal problems.

Not really sure what your point is here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thats ridiculous. They are two separate things.

My point is that there are two processes. One that gave an uncertain verdict that is favourable to most Ulster fans. They seem to be willing to stand over that verdict without fallibility. The other process gave a certain verdict that is negative to Ulster fans, that process they are critical of.

But the verdicts are very definitely linked.

I'm not sure if it's denial or it's misunderstanding what trial verdicts actually mean. People are acting like its a perfect process that had an infallible certain answer. Even in this thread posters have balked at the possibility that the players could still have committed rape and (correctly) got this very verdict.

The IRFU process has to start at that point That's not to say the IRFU are re-judging guilt or innocence, I'd hope they are not. However the IRFU and their sponsors are reacting to a public who are judging guilt and innocence themselves. Even if we don't want amateurs reanalyzing trial evidence, we should at least aim to understand what the verdict means and what the verdict does not mean.

If we are not allowed, or not willing to discuss the verdict of the trial, then there is no point in discussing the verdict of the review. They are inextricably linked, and if you don't think that is true, imagine this hypothetical. In court a convincing new piece of evidence presents itself that indicates the entire prosecution case was a conspiracy against Ulster Rugby. The 4 defendants get a not guilty verdict. There is a much stronger surge of public sympathy for them. In that case the IRFU review would very possibly have a different conclusion.