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

irishbucsfan

mangobob wrote: »

Ah come on now. Anyone who has ever been to a match in almost any sport knows that "abuse" directed at players, managers and officials, both by supporters and even the players themselves, is absolutely par for the course. How often have we heard shouts of "f-off ref" from the stands? Or players calling each other every expletive under the sun? Or managers losing the plot and hurling abuse at, well, everyone?

I know we like to think rugby is a gentleman's game, but its not bloody Tiddleywinks. Emotions run high and insults and obscenities are regularly heard and tossed around in the heat of the moment. T'was ever thus. Why are we suddenly getting precious about language and decorum? When did it suddenly become a rule that fans not allowed to rant and rave and shout expletives at people?

Thats just bizarre.

There's a major difference between getting angry and shouting a bit of abuse to let some steam off, and pre-meditating abuse towards someone and going through a lot of effort to insult them. You're completely free and within your rights to do it, and the team are completely within their rights to refuse you entry.

And you're acting as if people don't get ejected for abuse from sports events when its actually quite a common occurrence. It's just not a noteworthy thing.

Buer

mangobob wrote: »

Ah come on now. Anyone who has ever been to a match in almost any sport knows that "abuse" directed at players, managers and officials, both by supporters and even the players themselves, is absolutely par for the course. How often have we heard shouts of "f-off ref" from the stands? Or players calling each other every expletive under the sun? Or managers losing the plot and hurling abuse at, well, everyone?

I know we like to think rugby is a gentleman's game, but its not bloody Tiddleywinks. Emotions run high and insults and obscenities are regularly heard and tossed around in the heat of the moment. T'was ever thus. Why are we suddenly getting precious about language and decorum? When did it suddenly become a rule that fans not allowed to rant and rave and shout expletives at people?

Thats just bizarre.

There's a big difference between going to the game and reacting in the heat of the moment and someone going to the trouble of purchasing a custom printed piece of clothing telling the coach of your own team to f*ck off.

And ranting, raving and shouting expletives at players/officials/staff was never seen as par for the course or acceptable even if we are all guilty of it to some level. I've seen it called out on multiple occasions by other supporters if they believe a line to have been crossed or young children are present.

I stand by my point. You pay to watch a match. That does not entitle you to attend planning to abuse someone.

prawnsambo

mangobob wrote: »

As for prawnsambos suggestion that it was an act of cowardice to use an acronym, would you really prefer that he walked around with the full obscenity spelled out on his chest for all to see including kids? I for one think he chose the lesser of two evils...

Well, yes I would. Because I believe that this would constitute an offence and they could be arrested. Hence the use of an acronym. Hence the cowardice.

But good post otherwise. You kind of skipped over the offensive language element that could be construed as crossing the line on free speech.

Yeah_Right

mangobob wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, but one is perfectly entitled to be a "dick" also. One persons dickhead is another persons straight shooter.

As it happens I disagree with his view and disapprove of the the manner in which he chooses to express it. But I support his right to do so.

Increasingly in this country we are seeing peoples right to freedom of expression being drastically curtailed or even denied when they don't hold "the right view" as determined by certain highly vocal sections of our populace and virtually our entire mainstream media who act as their mouthpieces. I would go so far as to say actual freedom of expression is a cherished myth, much vaunted when it suits the agenda and conveniently ignored when it doesn't. We have seen that demonstrated in the most stark terms recently with the disgraceful treatment of a certain public personality whose only crime was to publicly express an opinion, albeit clumsily.

All the while, opinions and views that I regard as shocking and offensive are actively and forcefully peddled in public these days, while daring to vocalise widely held commonsense views that are contrary to the currently prevailing ideology is enough to bring a tsunami of outrage and abuse upon ones head. Freedom of expression is not some hackneyed cliche to pay lip service to. You either believe in it or you don't.

As for the suggestion that people should confront individuals such as this supporter and give them an earful for having the temerity to express contrary opinions that we may find juvenile, distasteful or even obnoxious, I would respectfully suggest that that is crossing the line. Unless the people in question are actively interfering with your ability to watch or enjoy the game, folks should mind their own business and let other people mind theirs. Continue giving people you disagree with or disapprove of an earful and sooner or later you are going to end up with a faceful. The man is paying his money and giving his time to support his team and he is perfectly entitled to express his views on how that team is being managed or run.

As for prawnsambos suggestion that it was an act of cowardice to use an acronym, would you really prefer that he walked around with the full obscenity spelled out on his chest for all to see including kids? I for one think he chose the lesser of two evils...

It's interesting that you say he has the right to publicly express his opinion and views about how the team is run but that others don't have the right to tell him what they think of his opinions.

Yes he is giving up his time and money to support the team. I'm pretty certain that there are T&Cs when you purchase a ticket. If that tshirt contravenes those then he has no right to wear it at the ground. (I don't know if it does break the rules).

He has the right to express his opinion but he doesn't have an automatic right to have that opinion accepted or even tolerated. He can say FO Les Kiss and Ulster rugby and their fans can FO to him.

When I go to a game I don't see it as giving up time and money. I see it as paying to go and watch live sport and I appreciate that I get to do this. I don't see the team as owing me anything, quite the opposite in fact.

Also I don't believe for a second that the right to freedom or expression is being shot down in this country by the media or anyone else. As was posted in another thread recently - if everyone you meet is an asshole...

MJohnston

So many people these days crying like babies about freedom of expression and then saying that you can't express yourself to someone who already has. Bull. ****.

Freedom of expression does not protect your bad opinions from being ridiculed or confronted.
Freedom of expression does not apply to privately-owned spaces like Facebook, boards.ie, most radio and TV stations, or other people's businesses.

Simple as.

mangobob

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a major difference between getting angry and shouting a bit of abuse to let some steam off, and pre-meditating abuse towards someone and going through a lot of effort to insult them. You're completely free and within your rights to do it, and the team are completely within their rights to refuse you entry.

And you're acting as if people don't get ejected for abuse from sports events when its actually quite a common occurrence. It's just not a noteworthy thing.

Several points to make here. The first is that for fans who are watching a team they love and pay money to support being (in their view) mismanaged and regressing under a coach they perceive to be incompetent or not up to the task, that frustration can build and build all season with no real outlet. Thats where this kind of thing comes from. Its no different in principle to a fan venting their frustration over any other issue. So what if he wore it instead of said it? For me, apart from the level of vulgarity, there is little essential difference between saying "get out Les Kiss" and "f*ck off les Kiss". Yet the we are acting as if the latter is some kind of unforgivably abusive assault on his personage. Its not. Its simply a more vulgar way of expressing the same sentiment, and as you have noted he is perfectly free to do so. That was my main point. As distasteful as I may find it, I support his right to express his feelings and opinions.

As to your point about ejections, the number of times I have ever seen fans being ejected from the event is MINISCULE relative to the number of times I have seen "abuse" being shouted. And in fact on every occasion that I can recall, the person in question was guilty of more serious behavioural infractions that merited their removal.

Buer wrote: »

There's a big difference between going to the game and reacting in the heat of the moment and someone going to the trouble of purchasing a custom printed piece of clothing telling the coach of your own team to f*ck off.

And ranting, raving and shouting expletives at players/officials/staff was never seen as par for the course or acceptable even if we are all guilty of it to some level. I've seen it called out on multiple occasions by other supporters if they believe a line to have been crossed or young children are present.

I stand by my point. You pay to watch a match. That does not entitle you to attend planning to abuse someone.

In terms of children being present I agree. But in countless other circumstances I would contend that, while it was hardly encouraged per se, the use of coarse language was ABSOLUTELY seen as par for the course. And still is. These are not religious services. They are full on, emotionally driven competitive rugby matches. The only instance that I can say was and is taboo is players making derogatory comments about the ref. In all other cases, its completely unremarkable and to suggest otherwise is bizarre to me.

Also I must say I think the statement "planning to abuse" someone is really a bit OTT. While it may meet a technical or legalistic definition of abuse, lets get real for a minute. Telling someone to f*ck off is not what I would consider "abusive". Even less so when delivered in the form of an acronym! The word abuse calls to mind violence, rape, torture or some kind of prolonged physical or verbal assault. Not using the F word to someone. If it that is the case then every single person in this forum is an "abuser". Its total hyperbole in my view.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well, yes I would. Because I believe that this would constitute an offence and they could be arrested. Hence the use of an acronym. Hence the cowardice.

But good post otherwise. You kind of skipped over the offensive language element that could be construed as crossing the line on free speech.

What do we choose to define as offensive though? While there is some generally agreed common ground, there is nonetheless a huge swathe of contentious ground. What seriously offends one person could be seen as completely innocuous by another. Who gets to decide? The answer, it would seem to me, is whoever has the biggest public platform, and the largest bully pulpit.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's interesting that you say he has the right to publicly express his opinion and views about how the team is run but that others don't have the right to tell him what they think of his opinions.

Yes he is giving up his time and money to support the team. I'm pretty certain that there are T&Cs when you purchase a ticket. If that tshirt contravenes those then he has no right to wear it at the ground. (I don't know if it does break the rules).

He has the right to express his opinion but he doesn't have an automatic right to have that opinion accepted or even tolerated. He can say FO Les Kiss and Ulster rugby and their fans can FO to him.

I think you are missing my point here somewhat. I am not saying that others don't have the right tell him what they think of his opinions. I am saying that THEIR opinion seems to be that we should not tolerate people like him expressing his view. That is what im objecting to. He is not telling people that they cant support Les Kiss as manager. He is simply expressing his view rather forcefully that Kiss needs to go. Its other fans who are saying "we wont tolerate dickheads like that expressing views which offend us, so lets confront him to shut him up or get him banned or ejected from the ground". Thats what I am arguing is unacceptable as its an infringement of his right to freedom of expression.

I am also saying that its unwise to go around confronting every person whose opinion you find objectionable, or sooner or later you are going to provoke a tense situation which may turn violent. People should mind their own business and not seek to police other peoples right to expression just because you object to their views.

However if as you put it the wearing of such a T-shirt contravenes a given rule or law, then of course thats a different matter. But even if that were the case he is still perfectly entitled to wear it in every other locale, just not that particular ground.

mangobob

Deleted User wrote: »

Also I don't believe for a second that the right to freedom or expression is being shot down in this country by the media or anyone else. As was posted in another thread recently - if everyone you meet is an asshole...

I understand that you may not believe it. But just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean its not actually true. It simply means that you don't see it. Which means that either you share the same values, views and prejudices of the prevailing ideological regime for which the media is increasingly just a mouthpiece, in which case you are blind to its inherent bias, or else you are just not paying enough attention. There have been myriad cases recently where people have expressed views that were contrary to that which is deemed by our press to be "acceptable" and were subsequently harassed and persecuted by the very same media organisations for it.

mangobob

mangobob wrote: »

I understand that you may not believe it. But just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean its not actually true. It simply means that you don't see it. Which means that either you share the same values, views and prejudices of the prevailing ideological regime for which the media is increasingly just a mouthpiece, in which case you are blind to its inherent bias, or else you are just not paying enough attention. There have been myriad cases recently where people have expressed views that were contrary to that which is deemed by our press to be "acceptable" and were subsequently harassed and persecuted by the very same media organisations for it.

I've no idea what you are talking about so can you give some examples of these opinions that have been deemed unacceptable by the deep state meeja?

awec

What the feck am I reading.

Ulster thread folks. Issues of society at large can be discussed somewhere else.

mangobob

Ok saw the mod instruction. I will end here. Didnt mean to derail the thread.

mangobob

mangobob wrote: »

You seem like a nice person :rolleyes:



But it IS supposed to protect them from being intimidated, bullied and persecuted for expressing that view. Thats what freedom of expression means.

So many people think it means simply the right or ability to open your mouth and verbalise your thoughts. It doesn't. Even in North Korea people can do that.

What it actually means is the right to express an opinion without being persecuted for doing so. People ridiculing your opinion or telling you that your opinion is "bad" (lol) is absolutely fine. Subjecting you to bullying, harassment and/or seeking to destroy your career, ostracise you or punishing you in any way because you expressed an opinion that they disagree with is absolutely contravening your right to freedom of expression.

Simple as indeed.

You mean like wearing a t-shirt telling you to 'FOLK'?

Just saw mod note so will leave it there.

prawnsambo

mangobob wrote: »

What do we choose to define as offensive though? While there is some generally agreed common ground, there is nonetheless a huge swathe of contentious ground. What seriously offends one person could be seen as completely innocuous by another. Who gets to decide? The answer, it would seem to me, is whoever has the biggest public platform, and the largest bully pulpit.

Offensive as defined by the law. And the word that's initialled on that tee shirt is one that is so defined. On both sides of the border. It was the law I was speaking about, not somebody's delicate or otherwise sensibilities. I actually referred to 'being arrested'. Was that not a hint?

Edit: Sorry awec, just saw your post there. I think I'm sticking to an Ulster subject as it was being discussed initially, but if not, delete the above.

bilston

Anyway...Gilroy is out of the Wasps game.

I guess Cave to 13, Ludik to the wing and Lyttle to the bench?

Utah_Saint

Just noticed the Ulster 'Team News/Injury news' is sponsored by the Ulster Independent Clinic. http://www.ulsterrugby.com/news/16901.php#.Wl9tcnkSGM8

Ulster really know how to milk every penny out of the system...

stephen_n

They'll be selling FOLK t-shirts in the shop next week.

$ausage$

Regarding Ulster and the 6 Nations squad. We all know we are struggling to find home grown forwards, ok. But with all the centres and wings we have shipped to other clubs/provinces I am disappointed in the lack of backs we have in the squad.
Last week in the cup Munster where able to field a full back line of irish tallent. 

Is it maybe time to say we can not produce irish level players at the rate of other academies and if so why? If it is a case of the academy are doing the work now do you really see more than 4 ulster players in the u20's squad?

Something is not right. To pick just two Sam Arnold and Ian Whitten two centres that went else where and flourished and I would go as far as to say are better than our current players. So what was the issue here?

awec

Has Arnold flourished? Wouldn’t say so.

I’m not bothered about the Irish squad announcement. Better for Ulster to lose as little as possible.

irishfan9

Ulster players elsewhere:

Paddy McAllister(LH Prop)
Conor Carey(TH Prop)
Niall Annett(Hooker)
Michael Heaney(Scrumhalf)
Gareth Steenson(Outhalf)
Ian Whitten(Centre)
Chris Farrell(Centre)
Mark Best(Centre)
Rory Scholes(Wing)
Ross Adair(Wing)
Conor Gaston(Wing)

irishfan9

irishfan9 wrote: »

Ulster players elsewhere:

Paddy McAllister(LH Prop)
Conor Carey(TH Prop)
Niall Annett(Hooker)
Michael Heaney(Scrumhalf)
Gareth Steenson(Outhalf)
Ian Whitten(Centre)
Chris Farrell(Centre)
Mark Best(Centre)
Rory Scholes(Wing)
Ross Adair(Wing)
Conor Gaston(Wing)

Finlay Bealham

irishfan9

connemara man wrote: »

Finlay Bealham

Is from Australia.

awec

awec wrote: »

Has Arnold flourished? Wouldn’t say so.

I’m not bothered about the Irish squad announcement. Better for Ulster to lose as little as possible.

In the very, very short term. Medium to long term you would want to have guys exposed to that level and a strong enough panel of players that a good number are being called up for International honours.

irishfan9

irishfan9 wrote: »

Is from Australia.

Was in the Ulster academy before coming to connacht

Bazzo

connemara man wrote: »

Was in the Ulster academy before coming to connacht

You're forgetting. The academy and youth rugby has nothing to do with a player's development, it is strictly only to do with where they are from roughly ages 14-17.

bilston

To be fair Jackson, Olding, Payne and Marshall would probably all be in the squad if they were available.

But it's ironic how we've gone from being able to let Farrell and Arnold go because of our midfield options to having to rely on Louis Ludik to play 13.

Buer

bilston wrote: »

To be fair Jackson, Olding, Payne and Marshall would probably all be in the squad if they were available.

But it's ironic how we've gone from being able to let Farrell and Arnold go because of our midfield options to having to rely on Louis Ludik to play 13.

I don't think Farrell was ever let go, as such. He wanted a change and sought a move outside Ireland after a brutal injury spell. I'm not sure what the situation was specifically at Ulster but I know there were approaches from within the provinces. I suspect Leinster were front of the queue as Schmidt has always been a fan.

irishfan9

Bazzo wrote: »

You're forgetting. The academy and youth rugby has nothing to do with a player's development, it is strictly only to do with where they are from roughly ages 14-17.

so where a player spent the first 18/19 years of his life isn't a factor.. as opposed to a year in the ulster academy?

Utah_Saint

Buer wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

To be fair Jackson, Olding, Payne and Marshall would probably all be in the squad if they were available.

But it's ironic how we've gone from being able to let Farrell and Arnold go because of our midfield options to having to rely on Louis Ludik to play 13.

I don't think Farrell was ever let go, as such. He wanted a change and sought a move outside Ireland after a brutal injury spell. I'm not sure what the situation was specifically at Ulster but I know there were approaches from within the provinces. I suspect Leinster were front of the queue as Schmidt has always been a fan.

Yeah he had just came of the back of a really bad injury but tbh at the time he wasn't as good as the other options available.

$ausage$

People in glass houses  Chris....
'If foreign players have been caught doing that, it is hindering home-grown players who are doing it the right way'
Chris Henry is less than impressed with Gerbrandt Grobler’s doping past.

http://www.the42.ie/gerbrandt-grobler-christ-henry-3803449-Jan2018/?utm_source=facebook_short

irishbucsfan

Chris Henry sounds like he is speaking with the bravery of someone who is retiring/leaving soon?