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

awec wrote: »

People saying "we can't pass judgement without the facts" or "we need concrete information" are missing the point entirely.

This is the kind of opaque comment that I'm having trouble with. What's the point I'm missing?

sioda

The high horseness of the last few pages are just unreal.

Yes he took drugs yes he got caught and lost 2 formative years of his career to the ban. I mean ffs get off the lads back. Anyone who was in thomond on Saturday night (all brave souls myself included Feic it was cold) would have seen the cheer he got entering the pitch and that to me is the key to this.

After his ban he could have walked away tried a different life path but he didn't he stood with the stigma and went on about his job. I for one am very impressed with both the irfu and munster for giving this lad a second chance and standing by him.

With the matter if the rugby press you know what they are dinosaurs in a world of modern media and a kick up the hole is something they
are not used to and imo deserve. Shows backbone on the part of the irfu.

Just my two cents

awec

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is the kind of opaque comment that I'm having trouble with. What's the point I'm missing?

It is very odd to suggest everyone should just take the IRFU's side until we have the facts, given the issue is the people who give us the facts are the ones being shut out.

Very convenient indeed for the IRFU, a great way to avoid all independent accountability and a great way to ensure that people only hear what you want them to hear.

Dangerous game for the IRFU to play, if for no other reason the IRFU and the Irish Rugby team have for a long time been the darlings of the media in Ireland. Biting the hand that feeds you springs to mind.

dregin

Would it make sense to have a thread dedicated to the IRFU v The Media conversation?

Sanjuro

dregin wrote: »

Would it make sense to have a thread dedicated to the IRFU v The Media conversation?

Yes, please.

irishbucsfan

sioda wrote: »

Yes he took drugs yes he got caught and lost 2 formative years of his career to the ban. I mean ffs get off the lads back. Anyone who was in thomond on Saturday night (all brave souls myself included Feic it was cold) would have seen the cheer he got entering the pitch and that to me is the key to this.

Well done guys. You cheered someone for having done nothing apart from having been banned for cheating. That's serious levels of chip on shoulder. The fact it's something you'd then try to wear as a badge of honour is embarrassing.

Rather than driving drugs cheats out of the game, we're giving them standing ovations.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

It is very odd to suggest everyone should just take the media's side until we have the facts, given the issue is the people who give us the facts are the ones being shut out.

Very convenient indeed for the media, a great way to avoid all independent accountability and a great way to ensure that people only hear what you want them to hear.

You can literally replace the IRFU with the media in your post as I've done above and come to the same conclusion.

Christy42

awec wrote: »

It is very odd to suggest everyone should just take the IRFU's side until we have the facts, given the issue is the people who give us the facts are the ones being shut out.

Very convenient indeed for the IRFU, a great way to avoid all independent accountability and a great way to ensure that people only hear what you want them to hear.

Dangerous game for the IRFU to play, if for no other reason the IRFU and the Irish Rugby team have for a long time been the darlings of the media in Ireland. Biting the hand that feeds you springs to mind.

Why is not taking any side automatically taking the IRFU's side? It seems weird to make this a you are with us or against us situation. People are really trying to take a middle ground here of wait and see. No one has said the IRFU are definitely in the right that I have seen. I just find it very hard to judge a situation on basically 0 context.

irishbucsfan

Christy42 wrote: »

Why is not taking any side automatically taking the IRFU's side? It seems weird to make this a you are with us or against us situation. People are really trying to take a middle ground here of wait and see. No one has said the IRFU are definitely in the right that I have seen. I just find it very hard to judge a situation on basically 0 context.

Because the people not taking any side are the same people who are bringing up the likes of Piers Morgan and trying to pin the RWI with it. Or bringing up the court case out of absolutely nowhere. There's absolutely a side being taken there, it's just behind a veil of escapability.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

It is very odd to suggest everyone should just take the IRFU's side until we have the facts, given the issue is the people who give us the facts are the ones being shut out.

But this isn't the case and certainly not with me. Most people are just at sea on this and looking for more clarity [continued below].

awec wrote: »

Very convenient indeed for the IRFU, a great way to avoid all independent accountability and a great way to ensure that people only hear what you want them to hear.

Dangerous game for the IRFU to play, if for no other reason the IRFU and the Irish Rugby team have for a long time been the darlings of the media in Ireland. Biting the hand that feeds you springs to mind.

Yes, I get that. It is easy to sit back and say nothing and hope it will go away (whatever 'it' is). But everyone's being coy about it, including the RWI (a reference to an article that no longer exists is not really clarity). I do have some press contacts who I'll enquire off and if there's something I can post here, I will.

But thanks for the response.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Because the people not taking any side are the same people who are bringing up the likes of Piers Morgan and trying to pin the RWI with it. Or bringing up the court case out of absolutely nowhere. There's absolutely a side being taken there, it's just behind a veil of escapability.

No. That's you making assumptions based on the square root of feck all. You need to step outside your bubble of knowledge and think how this can be so confusing to us lesser mortals. People are guessing, in some cases wildly, but that's all we've got here so far. Earlier you suggested that the byline for the Indo article was somehow significant. I replied that there was no byline and aksed what you meant. You ignored the question as if it was in some way self-evident.

That's the stuff that gets right up people's noses and suggests that you're being unbelievably superior based on some inside track that the rest of us aren't privy to.

The Rape of Lucretia

sioda wrote: »

Yes he took drugs yes he got caught and lost 2 formative years of his career to the ban. I mean ffs get off the lads back. Anyone who was in thomond on Saturday night (all brave souls myself included Feic it was cold) would have seen the cheer he got entering the pitch and that to me is the key to this.

Jaykers, that fricking scandalous. Who were those people (didnt look like very many there at all though). Ovation for a cheat really is a morality flip. Maybe the empty seats could equally be interpreted as the majority giving their opinion with their non-passing of the turnstiles ?

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

When and how is that going to happen though?

Unless the IRFU choose to come out and discuss this, and I'd be shocked if they do, then the only ones left are the media.

But since people don't trust the media, how can the debate move on?

It's not about trusting the media or not. The media aren't telling us the whole story themselves. We know they aren't, because we don't know exactly what journo or what story was involved. So even taking just the medias perspective we're still not really sure what happened. We may never be. Just because we might never know doesn't mean we should rush to judge regardless. Sometimes it's just okay to not know.

Former Former wrote: »

And that's what the IRFU want. They want their twitter feed and facebook to be the source of information about Irish rugby. They want to control their own narrative. Don't believe me? They were adamant that they absolutely could not discuss Best's attendance at court - except then they did, but only when it suited them and only in the way that suited them.

And look, if this was one journo or one publication in a feud with the IRFU, then I'd say fair enough, it's a guy with an axe to grind. That is very much not the case here though.

It's 1 avenue for questioning and reporting on the Irish set-up we're talking about here. Not all of them. You're making it sound like there's a media black out from the IRFU or something. There isn't.

awec wrote: »

People saying "we can't pass judgement without the facts" or "we need concrete information" are missing the point entirely.

Please enlighten us then as to what point that is. Because otherwise this is a total non-post.

awec wrote: »

It is very odd to suggest everyone should just take the IRFU's side until we have the facts....

I've seen the sum total of zero people say anything remotely like this. These things aren't binary, i.e. you're with us or you're against us. There's varying degrees of grey. And sitting on the fence saying "I've no idea who is right or wrong and to what degree" is a totally rational position to take when, you guessed it, you don't know who is right or wrong and to what degree. Admitting ignorance isn't an excuse, it's not taking a side, it's not missing the point. It is just a factual statement and a balanced approach when you don't know what the hell is going on.

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

It's not about trusting the media or not. The media aren't telling us the whole story themselves. We know they aren't, because we don't know exactly what journo or what story was involved. So even taking just the medias perspective we're still not really sure what happened. We may never be. Just because we might never know doesn't mean we should rush to judge regardless. Sometimes it's just okay to not know.

An Irish Independent journalist who wrote extensively on the Grobler situation. He hasn't been named but I think we can piece it together...

Burkie1203

Former Former wrote: »

An Irish Independent journalist who wrote extensively on the Grobler situation. He hasn't been named but I think we can piece it together...

Kimmage or OConnor

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

An Irish Independent journalist who wrote extensively on the Grobler situation. He hasn't been named but I think we can piece it together...

Was is def the Grobler story? I haven't seen that referenced as the reason anywhere. And I'm not too sure what it has to do with Joe or why he'd get pissed off about it. It was Joe after all who made the call on this.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Was is def the Grobler story? I haven't seen that referenced as the reason anywhere. And I'm not too sure what it has to do with Joe or why he'd get pissed off about it. It was Joe after all who made the call on this.

Peter O’Reilly said it was the Grobler story in the original article. Cummiskey came out after and said it’s not the Grobler story but I think he means this has been building up for a while. It’s not just the one story that started all this.

Former Former

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Kimmage or OConnor

Paul Kimmage does not attend rugby press conferences.

[Deleted User]

If this turns out to be about Paul 'Heaslip wasn't injured' Kimmage I'm going to have a little chuckle to myself.

Based on his remarks last year alone I wouldn't blame the IRFU for not giving him the time of day.

Hurrache

sioda wrote: »

Anyone who was in thomond on Saturday night (all brave souls myself included Feic it was cold) would have seen the cheer he got entering the pitch and that to me is the key to this.

For a different thread, but yes, that was a key moment, but not for the reasons you believe.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Peter O’Reilly said it was the Grobler story in the original article. Cummiskey came out after and said it’s not the Grobler story but I think he means this has been building up for a while. It’s not just the one story that started all this.

Interesting. I only read the Cummiskey article. Seems to be a bit of confusion around it because didn't they say on OTB that they didn't know that is was that article, and inferred the whole "IRFU media first" idea?

As I said, I've no idea why Joe would even be fielding questions about Grobler. It has nothing at all to do with him. I also have no idea why he'd be bothered by Grobler articles for that very same reason. It just seems odd to me that this would be that straw that broke the camels back. Unless Joe feels very strongly about it and was misrepresented or something?

irishfan9

well it's clear the IRFU have been trying to control the message using their PR/Media.

sioda

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well done guys. You cheered someone for having done nothing apart from having been banned for cheating. That's serious levels of chip on shoulder. The fact it's something you'd then try to wear as a badge of honour is embarrassing.

Rather than driving drugs cheats out of the game, we're giving them standing ovations.

Ah here he's done the crime paid the price and is trying to move on. Substance abuse is a tough thing to come back from and he's trying. I would hope that nothing ever befalls the people who are calling for his head.

sioda

Hurrache wrote: »

For a different thread, but yes, that was a key moment, but not for the reasons you believe.

Indeed 😉

Buer

molloyjh wrote: »

Was is def the Grobler story? I haven't seen that referenced as the reason anywhere. And I'm not too sure what it has to do with Joe or why he'd get pissed off about it. It was Joe after all who made the call on this.

I would have thoughit the Belfast/Best situation was a far more likely source of upset particularly given the terse responses offered by Schmidt on the topic recently.

Anyway, it will blow over whether people want it to or not. David Kelly was blacklisted for a spell, I recall, after being overly critical of the set up. You'd hardly remember it now.

jacothelad

sydthebeat wrote: »

I just saw seven pages of posts in 50 mins.

Im not touching this with a badge pole

Sorry for barging in on this one but is this for your lapel?:D

Bazzo wrote: »

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

Careful now Ted.

[Deleted User]

Former Former wrote: »

Once more for the cheap seats: BEST CHOSE, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, TO ATTEND.

AND WHAT WAS THE ISSUE THERE??

He's free to attend a public hearing and neither he or the IRFU needs to explain why.
Also, Paddy and Stuart have been convicted of nothing and are, for now, deserving of their friend's support

Former Former

Buer wrote: »

I would have thoughit the Belfast/Best situation was a far more likely source of upset particularly given the terse responses offered by Schmidt on the topic recently.

Peter O'Reilly said it was a journalist who had written extensively about Grobler, not that he was excluded because he had written about Grobler.

IIRC it was Gavin Cummiskey asking about Trialgatetm, not O'Connor

Buer wrote: »

Anyway, it will blow over whether people want it to or not. David Kelly was blacklisted for a spell, I recall, after being overly critical of the set up. You'd hardly remember it now.

Indeed. I think most of us who are objecting to what is happening, whatever the reasons, would like it to blow over asap.

who_me

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well done guys. You cheered someone for having done nothing apart from having been banned for cheating. That's serious levels of chip on shoulder. The fact it's something you'd then try to wear as a badge of honour is embarrassing.

Rather than driving drugs cheats out of the game, we're giving them standing ovations.

Do you not differentiate between a zero tolerance for the offence, and zero tolerance for the player?

Bearing in mind the things in rugby that DON'T result in lifetime bans:

- punching a player in the face
- swinging arm to the head/neck
- stamping on a prone player
- kicking a player
- spitting at/on a player
- heat butting a player
- lifting a player and driving them into the ground
- eye gouging a player
- biting a player
- racially abusing a player
- verbally abusing the referee
- pushing the referee
- punching the referee
(and many, many more)

Clohessy got a 6 month ban for stamping on Roumat's face (one of MANY transgressions in his career). 6 months - in comparison to 2 years. Yet, he still played again for Ireland. Are Ireland "soft on stamping on the head"? Or did he serve his time and the world moved on.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

AND WHAT WAS THE ISSUE THERE??

He's free to attend a public hearing and neither he or the IRFU needs to explain why.
Also, Paddy and Stuart have been convicted of nothing and are, for now, deserving of their friend's support

You've just chosen to ignore all the posts where FF said repeatedly that this isn't about anyone having an issue with whether or not Best attended the trial. Then you've completely misunderstood this post.