IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

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?

dregin wrote: »

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

Yes, please.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.