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; } } }

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

irishbucsfan

who_me wrote: »

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

The IRFU don't differentiate. Whether or not I do is irrelevant.

prawnsambo

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.

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.

Yeah. I think we'll find that it's all just been a storm in a coffee tea cup.

Neil3030

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.

Or a group of fans showing support to a young man who has probably been through an incredible amount of stress recently?

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. I think we'll find that it's all just been a storm in a coffee tea cup.

Ah it will definitely have been about something quite serious. The way some of the media have been spinning this it's clear something quite inappropriate on the part of the IRFU has occurred and I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up bringing down the entire organisation.

Sure I'll be heading down to the unemployment office to have a latte with Phillip Browne by this time next week.

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962982866756997120

The IRFU are trying to single out and bully a single journalist. I'd imagine the writers won't go into more detail because they want to protect the journalist.

My heart bleeds for him

[Deleted User]

Interested Observer wrote: »

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.

What was very tough was the back and forth about “employment law” for 50+ posts.

[Deleted User]

The suggestion that people who take a neutral stance of “I’ll wait and see what this is actually about before taking sides or judging” being considered to be siding with the IRFU is completely missing the point and is offensive frankly.

I’ve unfortunately read all the posts and have as of now yet to see one poster defending the IRFU. Plenty of people though straight out saying they are wrong and the media are right, which is just a tad hypocritical to be honest.

Who knew that taking a “let’s wait and see” attitude could upset so many !

Beechwoodspark

[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

Former Former...question for you-What’s your issue with someone attending a court case? Anyone can (except for “in camera” exceptional cases). I don’t understand why you seem to think it’s such a big deal that it demands whole sentences spelled out in capitals!

The Lost Sheep

who_me wrote: »

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.

Many of those infringements can and do see people getting lifetime bans!!!

Yeah_Right

I know exactly what's happened. These journalists have delusions of grandeur. They see all these movies involving great moments in journalism like The Post, Spotlight, All The President's Men, Veronica Guerin and even the one about Lance Armstrong and they want that. They want to break some epic story that will be talked about for years and be made into an award winning movie. They are so desperate for this that they are actually trying to create the story where there is none.
These huddles have turned into the journalists hounding Schmidt about drugs, rape trials, foreign imports, overseas based players, politics, feminism, Trump, Brexit and everything else except the team he coaches and the game they just played. And Schmidt has had enough.

I don't actually know if any of the above is true but I think it's a good theory.

swiwi_

Not sure I’ll read the thread. Are we really that fussed about a tiff with Rugby West Indies?

CatFromHue

agreed, they're just splitters anyway

The Rape of Lucretia

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't actually know if any of the above is true but I think it's a good theory.

Its not bad. I think it can even be extended and viewed as an existential crisis in the sports print journalism profession. Marginalised, passé, left behind by the direct medium of the internet, fora, one man band bloggers, trendy blokey podcasters drinking tea around the kitchen table and mixing rugby with Shakespearean and Heidegger references, these guys are no longer really part of the loop between a sport and its fans. Their bluff has been called. If there were never a 'huddle' (ugh!), again, would the world notice ? Does a journo writing a story for a newspaper that nobody reads anyway, make a noise ?

Neil3030

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I know exactly what's happened. These journalists have delusions of grandeur. They see all these movies involving great moments in journalism like The Post, Spotlight, All The President's Men, Veronica Guerin and even the one about Lance Armstrong and they want that. They want to break some epic story that will be talked about for years and be made into an award winning movie. They are so desperate for this that they are actually trying to create the story where there is none.
These huddles have turned into the journalists hounding Schmidt about drugs, rape trials, foreign imports, overseas based players, politics, feminism, Trump, Brexit and everything else except the team he coaches and the game they just played. And Schmidt has had enough.

I don't actually know if any of the above is true but I think it's a good theory.

I'd agree with a greatly toned down version of this, to be honest. I don't think it's the journalists with delusions of grandeur, but more a problem with filling the hours and pages of content now required by the myriad publications and broadcasts dedicated to rugby. There is only so many column inches and conversations that you can devote to the 80 minutes on the field. It's inevitable that journalists will turn to ancillary issues to try stand out, or to try fill the void. Just be thankful you don't live in Wales!

There is another theory that I don't think has been mooted anywhere - this could simply be man management by Schmidt. You have the Munster lads probably pissed off at the Grobler coverage, and the Ulster lads possibly pissed off about coverage of other things, so by no-showing one media session he buys immediate loyalty from both camps. You could imagine the likes of Alex Ferguson playing this card.

joseywhales

Can you imagine how boring rugby coverage will be without journalists?

"Record wheat yields for the 10th consecutive year in Soviet Ireland!"

thomond2006

Ruaidhri O'Connor was the journalist in question. Confirmed by the man himself on OTB. Other than that he didn't comment on that specific issue.

CatFromHue

Ruaidhri O'Connor was on OTB tonight and was talking about the paper journos interview with Schmidt after the game. He said that Schmidt has never been keen on it and there's been issues with it in the past, the issues being it was going to be cancelled.

O'Connor didn't want to, and didn't, talk about him being excluded from a briefing

From 17mins on

Icemancometh

That interview is a bit odd. If O'Connor's mistake is so innocent as Molloy is suggesting, why are they dancing around it?

joseywhales

Perhaps it's a battle to see who can speak last, exciting times

stl.ire

I’m sorry but why are people so worked up about this??

The IRFU have stopped a privilege (not a right) for journalists and made their jobs more difficult (not impossible) and journalists are upset.

Are the IRFU probably being petty d*cks? Yes.
Have certain members of the Irish media been petty d*cks recently? Also Yes.

20 pages of angry posts about a d*ck measuring contest is weird and frankly boring.

Burkie1203

Icemancometh wrote: »

That interview is a bit odd. If O'Connor's mistake is so innocent as Molloy is suggesting, why are they dancing around it?

What was the mistake?

Icemancometh

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Icemancometh wrote: »

That interview is a bit odd. If O'Connor's mistake is so innocent as Molloy is suggesting, why are they dancing around it?

What was the mistake?

I've no idea

molloyjh

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Icemancometh wrote: »

That interview is a bit odd. If O'Connor's mistake is so innocent as Molloy is suggesting, why are they dancing around it?

What was the mistake?

Nobody knows outside the parties involved. Although ROC wouldn’t have been the first guy I expected to have been in the centre of this.

irishbucsfan

Icemancometh wrote: »

That interview is a bit odd. If O'Connor's mistake is so innocent as Molloy is suggesting, why are they dancing around it?

Because the entire ploy has been to single him out and bully him. They didn't want to name him at all but fair play to him for coming forward I guess, I wouldn't have done it because it just plays into their hands and there's people (not on here) who are petty enough now to go after him just because they perceive him to be "against" Irish rugby.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Because the entire ploy has been to single him out and bully him. They didn't want to name him at all but fair play to him for coming forward I guess, I wouldn't have done it because it just plays into their hands and there's people (not on here) who are petty enough now to go after him just because they perceive him to be "against" Irish rugby.

Then why doesn't he say what the mistake was? If it's as innocent as he says, surely that would expose the alleged bullying?

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

Then why doesn't he say what the mistake was? If it's as innocent as he says, surely that would expose the alleged bullying?

Thornley, who is the chairperson (or whatever the title is) of the RWI, he was on Second Captains yesterday and said there was an 'incident' in Paris that has lead to this. He wouldn't say what this incident was either. It was also mentioned on the podcast the the IRFU have told RWI exactly why the huddles have been cancelled.

[Deleted User]

Interested Observer wrote: »

Thornley, who is the chairperson (or whatever the title is) of the RWI, he was on Second Captains yesterday and said there was an 'incident' in Paris that has lead to this. He wouldn't say what this incident was either. It was also mentioned on the podcast the the IRFU have told RWI exactly why the huddles have been cancelled.

Starting to slowly come out in the wash now alright. Journalists who obviously know what has happened being surprisingly coy about it all. You would think they'd be outraged and putting all the information to print but we're barely any further along than we were yesterday.

Was looking forward to discussing this at the coffee machine this morning.

Hurrache

Unusual for a whole section of reporters to be so secretive about the cause of something that directly affects them when they admit themselves they know the reason why.

prawnsambo

Interested Observer wrote: »

Thornley, who is the chairperson (or whatever the title is) of the RWI, he was on Second Captains yesterday and said there was an 'incident' in Paris that has lead to this. He wouldn't say what this incident was either. It was also mentioned on the podcast the the IRFU have told RWI exactly why the huddles have been cancelled.

Not the huddles generally, that's a separate matter as far as I'm led to believe. The error/mistake that caused ROC to be excluded from the Paris one is what I'm talking about.

It was referred to as an error in an article that was later corrected. That's what we're wondering about.

But now we're talking about an 'incident'. This is just getting muddier and muddier.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Then why doesn't he say what the mistake was? If it's as innocent as he says, surely that would expose the alleged bullying?

Well I don't know specifically why he isn't, I don't know ROC and I'm surprised he even came forward to confirm it was him, I'm sure he was advised against it.