irishbucsfan wrote: » There's pressure put on after each article like that. There's just no big formal response because during the WWC there was no avenue during which to do it, Tierney's dealings with the media weren't as formal. The article was with a non-IRFU employee who had played her last game for Ireland and was published the morning of the last game of the tournament. It was a big moment though and I'm grateful for how Cummiskey handled it.
prawnsambo wrote: » This is why I'm scratching my head at the apparent over-reaction to the article I linked above (if that's the one being referred to in the Balls.ie article). That we know of, there's been no mention of anything being done or said about Gavin Cummiskey's article. So on the one hand, the IRFU are taking such criticism on the chin, but on the other are being incredibly touchy about a referee being singled out in a pre-match article.
rebel girl 15 wrote: » I had a conversation with a person employed by the IRFU regarding the article Cummiskey wrote with Ruth O Reilly before the WRWC final - they were seriously annoyed and disgusted about it. Disgusted at the timing but I thought at the time, annoyed that the poor management of the squad had been leaked and a player would actually stand up to them. from reading the article, there wasn't a lot of writing from him in it, a lot of it was O Reilly's words transcribed. They were annoyed at the fact it seemingly was raining on their parade. Cummisky reported this as well, wouldn't be surprised if he was in for some treatment about this. It was the Irish Times that pushed this and pushed for clarification - and the players came out about it and slated the IRFU. "The guys in the blazers and fancy ties need to decide if women’s rugby is something they are serious about. If not, fine. We will figure out how we manage it ourselves. We will make the most out of it and keep fighting" O Reilly in the article mentioned this.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Cummiskey says its down to their unwillingness to answer questions. He's one to listen to in all this, his reporting makes the IRFU extremely uncomfortable. If he's right, he's exactly the sort of guy they're trying to keep out of the building.
irishbucsfan wrote: » The IRFU have been caught twisting the truth in public statements before. Like when they denied they were replacing full-time Tom Tierney with a part-time head coach, despite having already advertised for a part time replacement. Eventually when they were called on this, they explained that they had said this because Tierney had some some other jobs around the IRFU (7s, specifically) so technically he wasn't full-time. They wouldn't answer how this logic makes sense when they describe Anthony Eddie as full-time in the same statement despite the exact same thing being true. So no, we absolutely don't have to accept what they're saying as gospel truth, that department have lost the benefit of the doubt.
irishbucsfan wrote: » I called it a "potential" story. Have a read. This is exactly what did happen and is exactly what is reported by balls.ie What do you mean another journalist. It was the first journalist to make a mistake. And you are intentionally completely excluding the explanation for why it was ignored that was given in the same article. Your prejudice is shining through very clearly here. They obviously didn't completely ignore it, you're intentionally twisting the facts again, here is the explanation in the article you've already read: The fact that they did in minutes ahead of the huddle and didn't do it face to face reflects poorly, again, on the IRFU.
prawnsambo wrote: » So you're basically saying that the IRFU acted unilaterally and capriciously in excluding the journalist. In fact that they tried to editorialise a print journailst's output. Without any prior agreement or request. And the RWI responded by meekly putting a motion to their AGM and voting on it.
prawnsambo wrote: » And then ignoring it when another journalist made an error. Yeah. I'm convinced.
We've been informed of a couple of reasons for the briefing going ahead, one of them the fact that the journalist in question was eager for his colleagues to go ahead in his absence, as he was set to meet with the IRFU the following day. The timing and delivery of the news by the IRFU has also been cited as a reason for the failure of the 'one out, all out' policy. Rather than communicate directly with the excluded reporter or his employers ahead of the game, a member of the IRFU elected to inform the chair of the Rugby Writers of Ireland of the decision minutes ahead of the huddle, who was told to pass on the news to his colleague.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Slow down a bit. I never once said or even suggested that balls.ie said that. You were the one who started jumping to conclusions and I just said no, after that I wrote what I believe happened there from hearing it reported at the time and it's close to what balls.ie have written, nothing else. I've no idea if there's any more than that but there's certainly no suggestion that there is, so I've no idea why we'd invent something out of thin air.
irishbucsfan wrote: » You made up some potential story about a journalist for a major national paper publishing an off-the-record comment or publishing something that they agreed with the subject they wouldn't. Something which never happened and which there is no suggestion of, whatsoever.
irishbucsfan wrote: » You would have absolutely no grounds, it would be another fabrication. No idea where you're getting any of this. If RWI agreed with the IRFU then why did they vote to impose a one-out all-out policy for the huddle at their next meeting? What you're saying makes no sense and is based on zero evidence, repeatedly. You need to slow down and stop letting your imagination run away with you.
prawnsambo wrote: » Nothing about blowing it up and making a major story of it.
prawnsambo wrote: » On that basis, I could, with some grounds, suggest that some or even a majority of the RWI agreed with the IRFU's decision in that case.
irishbucsfan wrote: » I didn't say anything. balls.ie did. As far as I'm aware it was because the article focused so heavily on one throwaway comment and tried to make it a major storyline. But what you're saying is that a journalist printed something that he had agreed not to or was off the record. That's a pretty serious accusation that you're making with absolutely zero evidence, literally invented off the top of your head. That never happened. If that did happen, the union wouldn't support him (and other journalists have discovered that, I know of a story of it leading to a physical fight between two journalists (in the Shelbourne hotel of all places), one who was a TV personality, in the past... and that journalist was expelled from the union).
We understand that the issue related to a piece written in the build-up to the game, which quoted an assistant coach calling on referee Nigel Owens to protect the Irish players in the wake of bruising encounters. It is thought that Irish management took issue with the referee being made part of the narrative of the build-up to the game.
prawnsambo wrote: » So what you're saying is that of all the journalists present at that press conference; print, online, radio and TV, only one of them managed to publish the super secret trigger word that would get them banned from the next huddle?
irishbucsfan wrote: » No
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: » 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.
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.
irishbucsfan wrote: » That was last year
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.
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: » 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
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...
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.
Interested Observer wrote: » Good for him, it'll always be Lansdowne to me anyway.
Searching for aviva in the forum Rugby in posts by Interested Observer0 Results (0.0002 seconds) No results found for: "aviva"
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?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
