nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Burkie1203

How has this come about

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/962763672358735874

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

prawnsambo

Sangre wrote: »

Can someone please summarise quickly what has happened?

This is probably the bones of it.

Sangre

Can someone please summarise quickly what has happened?

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly don't see how anyone can defend this.

I'm sure the IRFU think they're doing the right thing to protect their brand. I'm sure Joe doesn't want anything distracting the team's focus from the Six Nations. Fair enough, but the IRFU would want to get their own sh*t together before blaming the media for asking the questions they are employed to ask.

All of these controversies are of the IRFU's own making and it could all have been nipped in the bud with a little bit of cop-on. The bunker mentality that they think is protecting them is what is shooting them in the foot.

I don't think anyone's actually defending this. We're like the blind man in the coal cellar looking for the black cat at the moment. I get the impression that some people here know more than they're saying, but it's frustrating as hell trying to have a discussion on something with so little information.

What some people (Venjur motly) are saying is that without more information (for those plebs amongst us who don't have any insight), we can't really jump to judgment and that there are quite possibly good reasons for the IRFU's stance. Or not.

Having personally been in the position of getting requests for comment (as a spokesperson for a sport) on a very tangentially related matter and knowing that the choice was damned if I did or damned if I didn't, I chose the lesser of two evils and refused to comment and participate. There was absolutely no upside to getting involved in my view, and at the very worst, was the prospect of lack of comment being highlighted. I chose the latter route. Another individual who did partcipate was absolutely blindsided and their message was never heard. It was a complete ambush and I've never trusted journalists since. What was worse is that this was on TV and on a high profile show.

So perhaps I'm coming from a position of bias, but that's been my experience. It wasn't the first, but the first was a lot less damaging.

[Deleted User]

Who is the journo that was banned and what was the honest mistake they made, referenced by Watterson above?

Former Former

I honestly don't see how anyone can defend this.

I'm sure the IRFU think they're doing the right thing to protect their brand. I'm sure Joe doesn't want anything distracting the team's focus from the Six Nations. Fair enough, but the IRFU would want to get their own sh*t together before blaming the media for asking the questions they are employed to ask.

All of these controversies are of the IRFU's own making and it could all have been nipped in the bud with a little bit of cop-on. The bunker mentality that they think is protecting them is what is shooting them in the foot.

[Deleted User]

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You mean Kearney over O'Halloran, surely ?

not happening

The Rape of Lucretia

Bazzo wrote: »

What the hell is going on in this thread? I'd take a thousand pages of O'Halloran and Kearney over this.

You mean Kearney over O'Halloran, surely ?

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

One of the journalists being targeted by this is an IT journalist. Smarter for them not to write about it until they get something out of the IRFU though they're very aware that there are fans who will back the IRFU no matter what and the optics of them complaining in their own newspapers isn't great. Interesting to look at the byline on the Indo article. For what its worth, the IRFU can't cancel the main press conference or the TV interviews even if they wanted to.

No, I know they can't cancel that PC, I just mentioned it in case people were confusing the two.

There's no byline on the Indo article (at least not on the online one). Is that your point?

irishbucsfan

kilns wrote: »

I think people and group get annoyed as there are a few sensationlist journalists out there like Ewan McKenna and Eamon Sweeney and while 95% of what the write is mostly bull sh1T and is done for "clicks" there are some people in society who buy into what they are writing.

I dont blame the IRFU from not wanting to interact with guys like that, I am sure they have no issues with genuine journalists who dissect a game and discuss it

No, sorry. Neither Ewan McKenna or Eamon Sweeney go to this briefing.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Indo mentions it and refers to it as a press 'huddle' that usually happens under the stands after the game and is separate to the press conference that happens afterwards. They also seem to be pointing the finger at Joe Schmidt rather than the IRFU. Interestingly The Irish Times makes no mention of it whatsoever.

One of the journalists being targeted by this is an IT journalist. Smarter for them not to write about it until they get something out of the IRFU though they're very aware that there are fans who will back the IRFU no matter what and the optics of them complaining in their own newspapers isn't great. Interesting to look at the byline on the Indo article. For what its worth, the IRFU can't cancel the main press conference or the TV interviews even if they wanted to.

EDIT: Actually Cummiskey in the IT did mention it:

The Ireland coach refused to be surrounded by the usual “print huddle” after this emphatic 56-19 victory over Italy. The new rules of engagement, now firmly on his terms, worked well after beating nations ranked 10th and 14th in the world (sixth and seventh up next). Until Saturday, daily papers were granted an off-camera forum where repetitive messaging could be interrupted – as reporters are trained to do when direct questions go unanswered – but this never sat well with the former deputy-principal.

However, as relations between the IRFU and written journalists plummet, relations between Ireland’s rising stars and the public grows stronger. Like most coaches, Schmidt manipulates the media to serve his team, as shown by balanced comment on the performances of Larmour, Andrew Porter, Bundee Aki and Dan Leavy.

As did Johnny Watterson

prawnsambo

Interested Observer wrote: »

Yes well I don't disagree with this. Even in that 2 minute clip the rugby journalist says he doesn't know why the press conference was cancelled. I hope we get clarity on that because again, we're losing out.

The Indo mentions it and refers to it as a press 'huddle' that usually happens under the stands after the game and is separate to the press conference that happens afterwards. They also seem to be pointing the finger at Joe Schmidt rather than the IRFU. Interestingly The Irish Times makes no mention of it whatsoever.

kilns

I think people and group get annoyed as there are a few sensationlist journalists out there like Ewan McKenna and Eamon Sweeney and while 95% of what the write is mostly bull sh1T and is done for "clicks" there are some people in society who buy into what they are writing.

I dont blame the IRFU from not wanting to interact with guys like that, I am sure they have no issues with genuine journalists who dissect a game and discuss it

[Deleted User]

DGRulz wrote: »

Sure, but maybe its that certain posters are up on their moral high horses continuously spouting "you people" and "people like you", ready to slate an entire organisation over a few tweets and an assumption in a ~2 minute video clip. Last I checked good journalism isn't based on assumptions, witch hunts are started on them though as we've seen all too recently.

Yes well I don't disagree with this. Even in that 2 minute clip the rugby journalist says he doesn't know why the press conference was cancelled. I hope we get clarity on that because again, we're losing out.

DGRulz

Sure, but maybe its that certain posters are up on their moral high horses continuously spouting "you people" and "people like you", ready to slate an entire organisation over a few tweets and an assumption in a ~2 minute video clip. Last I checked good journalism isn't based on assumptions, witch hunts are started on them though as we've seen all too recently.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Where on earth do I go to get the last 20 mins of my life back ? Those last 15 pages or whatever it was were tough reading.

What did you find so tough about it? The relationship between the IRFU and the press is worth discussing, it affects us as rugby supporters.

[Deleted User]

Where on earth do I go to get the last 20 mins of my life back ? Those last 15 pages or whatever it was were tough reading.

kilns

I think the Italian game showed what some Irish players can offer and what some cant, namely in the back row. If you want to play a tough battle like Paris then Stander and POM are the men for that but you could see that when you want to play a fast game flowing game it doesnt suit them and they dont have the skills for that, that is where the likes of Conan is ahead of them.

It will be an interesting call now for the Welsh game, I think Conan if fit will get the nod as with a back row of Stander and POM you dont have great pace, which you may need against the Welsh

[Deleted User]

NollagShona wrote: »

They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs

You have completely failed to demonstrate anything of the sort. Suarez failed in his appeal. Give some evidence or at least stop posting the same unverified comment over and over and over again.

swiwi_

NollagShona wrote: »

They can’t wait to publish the most seletios detail on the front of their webpage, without any regard for the alleged victim

Said the salacious Mexican.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Is there a full moon out or something. More pages to be waded through filled with people taking at length about a topic they simply don’t know much about.

We have no idea why relations between the IRFU and the press have soured. They said as much on OTB. Maybe this has been coming for years? Maybe it’s over 1 specific issue. Maybe the IRFU want to manage the message they send out more (they aren’t cutting all ties with the media lets not forget). We simply have no clue. So why are some of you making statements like you know?

In the same way some are saying “people are happy to jump to the defence of the IRFU” they themselves are happy to do the opposite. Isn’t that a little hypocritical. Passing judgement on a situation where you have only a tiny amount of info?

We have the opinions of the journalists as to why the relations have soured. They're there for all to see. We know they refused a credentialed journalist access, which is outright bullying.

As for your last paragraph, the only thing you know is how much you know, I wouldn't be so certain about anyone else if I were you.

The reasons you have given are probably along the right lines and they are absolutely nowhere near good enough. And you shouldn't try to shame people for passing an opinion on that. The things we already know are the things we are passing judgement on. If we have to wait for an official statement from the IRFU to tell us how to feel about everything then all the IRFU have to do is say nothing and they'll be given a free pass by people like you into eternity. Forgive me for coming to my own conclusions.

Bazzo

What the hell is going on in this thread? I'd take a thousand pages of O'Halloran and Kearney over this.

molloyjh

Is there a full moon out or something. More pages to be waded through filled with people taking at length about a topic they simply don’t know much about.

We have no idea why relations between the IRFU and the press have soured. They said as much on OTB. Maybe this has been coming for years? Maybe it’s over 1 specific issue. Maybe the IRFU want to manage the message they send out more (they aren’t cutting all ties with the media lets not forget). We simply have no clue. So why are some of you making statements like you know?

In the same way some are saying “people are happy to jump to the defence of the IRFU” they themselves are happy to do the opposite. Isn’t that a little hypocritical. Passing judgement on a situation where you have only a tiny amount of info?

joseywhales

Banning journalist and "trying to control the narrative" is the policy of dictators and psychopathic senior corporate managers, it fails 100% of the time but usually after a long and traumatic time for everyone involved.

Regarding the best attendance of a trial of an unconvicted(and assumed innocent) teammate, I think it's prudent that he sees all arguments before agreeing to be a character witness, we've seen only recently the damage that was done to the reputation of a former cork hurling goalkeeper when he naively provided character references for a friend.

Neil3030

Flincher wrote: »

My understanding is Munster / IRFU are perfectly free to have a policy of not employing drug users. There are certain specified grounds that employers can't discriminate on (gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc). Outside of those grounds, employers are free to use other grounds to determine who they employ.

I don't get the Suarez argument. The right to work aspect of his appeal related to him not being allowed train during his ban, and nothing got to do with employment prospects after his ban was served.

How would discrimination work in a scenario where the employer doesn't advertise a position, nor interview several candidates. I.e., just offers one person a job. Seems to me that the rules can't even be enforced there.

Flincher

My understanding is Munster / IRFU are perfectly free to have a policy of not employing drug users. There are certain specified grounds that employers can't discriminate on (gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc). Outside of those grounds, employers are free to use other grounds to determine who they employ.

I don't get the Suarez argument. The right to work aspect of his appeal related to him not being allowed train during his ban, and nothing got to do with employment prospects after his ban was served.

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work

He didnt argue it successfully. He lost. What are you reading ???

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs

And a sportsperson can't take BANNED drugs. So a sporting organisation can quite rightly refuse to hire such a person.

And you just said a few posts ago that if they've served their time their fine. Which is it?

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work

That link says nothing of the sort.

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

I could see that comment being challenged in the courts as it is not legally enforceable

Under what law specifically? Please post specific law?

If it is challengable why have Team Sky not been taken to court over the exact policy they have

Edit
IRFU using his doping ban to refuse to sanction his signing doesnt prevent Grobler from seeking employment elsewhere be it in rugby or outside the game. Its just a private organisation making a decision. So its not challengable.

Yeah_Right

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU refused access to a single, specified journalist to the press conference after the French game.

Is anyone going to defend that?

Who was that and what was the reason given?