IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not in the same league as a categorical denial of something so specific. Especially since it contradicts statements made by journalists. None of those involved hasve come forward to specifically refute that statement in, what is it now? three days?

Of course, if they do, that's a different matter. But if it were me, I'd be all over it like a cock on a raspberry.

It is in the same league.

You're also referring to something that did not actually happen to be fair to the IRFU. There was never a categorical denial of anything. There are just two conflicting statements. Just as in the above example, and the same sort of inconsistent mental gymnastics could be at play.

I don't remember them denying it was a part-time position. They came out with various hand-wavy statements about how they were fitting in with strategic this-or-that, and I also think I recall they apparently couldn't find a decent full-time coach so went looking for a part-time one instead.

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't remember them denying it was a part-time position. They came out with various hand-wavy statements about how they were fitting in with strategic this-or-that, and I also think I recall they apparently couldn't find a decent full-time coach so went looking for a part-time one instead.

They denied that they were replacing a full-time head coach with a part-time one when asked by media. Confused a lot of people and the outcry prompted a full statement, turns out he was not a full time head coach, he was "a shared resource across the Women's XVs and Sevens programmes". Of course this was made all the more confusing because in the very same statement they said: "The Women's programme has received a significant increase in investment in recent years, with a full-time Director of Rugby"... despite the fact that DoR is also a shared resource across women's rugby and the full 7s program. So as it turns out, they're full-time when they want credit for it but part-time when they don't.

They never took applications for a full-time coach, this was the first position advertised and it was the first time people involved in the game knew about the downgrading of the position.

But this is straying into off-topic territory. The point is I wouldn't take their statement as proof against anyone else.

molloyjh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm trying to understand where your outrage is coming from but I'm struggling. Some journalists from the RWI wrote some pieces that the IRFU didn't like and now they're reducing the access that the RWI has to the employees of the IRFU. Correct?

I don't see what the issue is. That's what I would expect any organisation to do. Why would you give your harshest critics free access to your people so they can write more critical pieces about you? It would be stupid. Of course the IRFU want to put out fluff pieces and use their own PR instruments to make themselves look good.

What this means is that the RWI are going to have get off their holes and go do some work. They absolutely should keep writing indepth, critical stories about the IRFU and keep asking them hard, uncomfortable questions. They shouldn't expect the IRFU to give them the keys to the building and the combo to the safe. If these guys want to be rugby's answer to Woodward and Bernstein, then put the work in.

Best post on the thread IMO.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I've been following this with interest for a while and have made some enquiries. Some of what's been said here is pretty wide of the mark and some has been a bit closer to what I've been told.

Relations between the IRFU and the print media are at an all-time low, that's a fact. It's interesting reading how this is being reported because although it's not very clear, there are areas of conflict that are apparent. Firstly that this is affectinig print media only. There's no discussion on other media such as TV or online outlets. The mention of the 'huddle' is particularly relevant since this is a print media only privilege. As are apparently facilities within the Aviva for print journalists to compile and file their copy.

The IRFU want to expand those 'privileges' to the online media, who are very much the poor relation on match days. I assume this is the likes of Balls.ie and The 42 etc. The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

So in essence it's print vs online. The IRFU can be considered part of that online presence, so the presentation of this being the IRFU pushing their online activities is accurate if you squint a bit and look through your fingers.

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

This is not the first time I have heard this myself. I have no idea as to the veracity of it, but can at least make sense of it which I'm struggling to do with the variety of stories we're hearing elsewhere.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It is in the same league.

You're also referring to something that did not actually happen to be fair to the IRFU. There was never a categorical denial of anything. There are just two conflicting statements. Just as in the above example, and the same sort of inconsistent mental gymnastics could be at play.

That's semantics imo.

The RWI said they hadn't been given the reasons, the IRFU said they had. If you want to charactarise that as 'not a denial', you can, but it's pretty difficult imo.

The essence of the matter is "they didn't" versus "we did". That's pretty categorical and can't really be waved away as a difference of interpretation. I'm not at all sure how you could shoehorn any other explanation into two pretty bald statements of contradictory fact.

Edit: Just to add that the individual from the IRFU side of things has been identified by GT as the press officer. That's who GT said they met with 'during the week'. So if there's inconsistency in the IRFU statement, the responsible individual is already identified.

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's semantics imo.

The RWI said they hadn't been given the reasons, the IRFU said they had. If you want to charactarise that as 'not a denial', you can, but it's pretty difficult imo.

It's not semantics. The IRFU made a statement. You're changing that into a denial. They're very, very different things. You are assuming the question they were asked and assuming they were given context we do not have access to, its not fair on them to assume that's the way they were asked.

prawnsambo wrote: »

The essence of the matter is "they didn't" versus "we did". That's pretty categorical and can't really be waved away as a difference of interpretation. I'm not at all sure how you could shoehorn any other explanation into two pretty bald statements of contradictory fact.

There's no shoehorning. You're changing the IRFU's statement into a "categorical denial" and they never once made reference to any other statement whatsoever.

This is definitely the most pointless discussion in 14 pages of fairly pointless discussion. Dance around it all we like but the RWI said one thing (no reasons given) and the IRFU said another (reasons given). They have contradicted each other.

Interested Observer wrote: »

This is definitely the most pointless discussion in 14 pages of fairly pointless discussion. Dance around it all we like but the RWI said one thing (no reasons given) and the IRFU said another (reasons given). They have contradicted each other.

Yes. The RWI said one thing, the IRFU said another. Exactly.

The statements seem contradictory. I've a feeling it'd turn out they're just not fully representative of what happened, but we'll never know.

What did not happen is that the RWI said one thing and the IRFU denied it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes. The RWI said one thing, the IRFU said another. Exactly.

The statements seem contradictory. I've a feeling it'd turn out they're just not fully representative of what happened, but we'll never know.

Or else the IRFU gave their reasons a day later. Or Gerry hadn't opened his emails for the day. Or he's fibbing.

What did not happen is that the RWI said one thing and the IRFU denied it.

Who cares?

Interested Observer wrote: »

Or else the IRFU gave their reasons a day later. Or Gerry hadn't opened his emails for the day. Or he's fibbing.

Who cares?

Absolutely all possible, agreed. Or one person in the IRFU told one member of RWI who didn't tell anyone else. And prawnsambo does.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Absolutely all possible, agreed. Or one person in the IRFU told one member of RWI who didn't tell anyone else. And prawnsambo does.

Just me?

For the sake of everyone else's sanity, I'll accept that it's not a denial. It's not actually that important in the greater scheme of things. And yes, it could depend on what they were asked.

I'm mostly scratching my head as to how those two contradictory messages can be reconciled given that there are so few people involved.

phog

I recently saw a tweet from a journalist stating that he never calls the stadium in Lansdowne Road by it's official name in his paper, his reasoning is that if the stadium sponsor want's their name to appear in his paper then they should take out adverstising.

I know that journalist doesn't represent the whole print media before anyone jumps down my throat but I think it's an odd position to have.

Hurrache

Is he just a rugby writer, or does he comment on other sports, i.e. does he apply the same for English soccer grounds, or at least expect his colleagues who are soccer writers to apply the same logic?

phog

Hurrache wrote: »

Is he just a rugby writer, or does he comment on other sports, i.e. does he apply the same for English soccer grounds, or at least expect his colleagues who are soccer writers to apply the same logic?

It's a regional paper so he probably covers more than one sport but I didn't interrogate him on his stance.

Good for him, it'll always be Lansdowne to me anyway.

Hurrache

Yeah, I didn't expect you to, I meant more if he can be seen applying the same logic to his other reports. If he tweeted it it's there for the public record, who was it?

Interested Observer wrote: »

Good for him, it'll always be Lansdowne to me anyway.

I admire a man of his word. Kudos.

Searching for aviva in the forum Rugby in posts by Interested Observer
0 Results (0.0002 seconds)

No results found for: "aviva"

Zzippy

prawnsambo wrote: »

Of course, if they do, that's a different matter. But if it were me, I'd be all over it like a cock on a raspberry.

I'm not familiar with this analogy. I'm not sure whether to use the

emoji or the

one... I mean, it's intriguing, it sounds hilarious, but it could mean feckin anything...

aloooof

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this analogy. I'm not sure whether to use the emoji or the one... I mean, it's intriguing, it sounds hilarious, but it could mean feckin anything...

It's not bad, but it's no "saucepans hanging out his arse". :pac:

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this analogy. I'm not sure whether to use the emoji or the one... I mean, it's intriguing, it sounds hilarious, but it could mean feckin anything...

Definitely this

one. The feathered kind, if you need to be sure.

I think it's a Meath expression, I first heard it from someone from there.

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/irish-rugby-and-the-media-383259

Both joe.ie and balls.ie have covered this now with no mention of any rift between print/online

irishbucsfan wrote: »

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/irish-rugby-and-the-media-383259

Both joe.ie and balls.ie have covered this now with no mention of any rift between print/online

Interesting. Not sure about the article that's being quoted as the culprit though. For a start, that seems very tame to have such a falling out about and secondly, that article is still on the Indo website and still names Nigel Owens. So I'm not seeing what needed to be corrected there. Or indeed if anything was.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Interesting. Not sure about the article that's being quoted as the culprit though. For a start, that seems very tame to have such a falling out about and secondly, that article is still on the Indo website and still names Nigel Owens. So I'm not seeing what needed to be corrected there. Or indeed if anything was.

That was last year

After the Six Nations game against France in 2017 a reporter with a national daily newspaper was excluded from a post-match huddle interview with Joe Schmidt.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That was last year

Before your ninja edit, I thought you were talking about the article I linked. I was having a moment...

So no real clarity yet then.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Before your ninja edit, I thought you were talking about the article I linked. I was having a moment...

So no real clarity yet then.

Well the idea this is a conflict between print/online media has been fairly dispelled this week. Pat McCarry at joe.ie was saying on THY that sometimes the online guys already go into the same huddle if they're willing to hold their reporting until Monday.

But no clarity about what the article was. That'll never come out if it hasn't by now, noone saw it in time to grab it clearly. If the IRFU are willing to ban someone because they want to try to edit their newspaper over mention of a referee of an upcoming match, it could be anything.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If the IRFU are willing to ban someone because they want to try to edit their newspaper over mention of a referee of an upcoming match, it could be anything.

Now who's jumping to conclusions? It may be as you say. But it's hardly likely that the IRFU would take the hump if someone reported exactly what one of their coaches said. Is it not more likely that it was agreed in advance that it wouldn't be published? Off the record as it were?

prawnsambo wrote: »

Now who's jumping to conclusions? It may be as you say. But it's hardly likely that the IRFU would take the hump if someone reported exactly what one of their coaches said. Is it not more likely that it was agreed in advance that it wouldn't be published? Off the record as it were?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No

Pithy :rolleyes: