IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Former Former wrote: »

In isolation; nothing. But if they do it for the Dublin footballers, they have to do it for the Cork hurlers, and the Mayo ladies footballers, and the Tipp camogie team, and... well, you see where I'm going with this.

Thats fine though. Isn't it? If they have the footage and a coach would like to see it then I see nothing wrong with giving it to them. And don't tell me that it would be too expensive. It's RTE and the GAA. I'm sure between them they could fund it.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Thats fine though. Isn't it? If they have the footage and a coach would like to see it then I see nothing wrong with giving it to them. And don't tell me that it would be too expensive. It's RTE and the GAA. I'm sure between them they could fund it.

Well, it's somewhat complicated by the fact that RTE don't actually hold the rights to national league matches, Eir and TG4 do. RTE couldn't have given him the footage even if they wanted to. All RTE can provide is a one-hour highlights package.

So Gavin took the hump with RTE because they wouldn't comply with a request that they were technically and legally unable to comply with.

As a neutral observer with not much GAA interest, does it sound like Gavin is being reasonable?

Apparently RTE share all the footage they have with all of the counties for the record, there's a Google Drive or similar that they put all their footage in and all the county managers can access it.

Interested Observer wrote: »

Apparently RTE share all the footage they have with all of the counties for the record, there's a Google Drive or similar that they put all their footage in and all the county managers can access it.

Yes and the side of the story I heard was one RTE employee forgot to update or send on some particular footage and that was he cause for the strop. Albeit I heard this from a filthy scurrying media type so he was probably lying in order to try to lure me into a false sense of security.

Former Former wrote: »

Well, it's somewhat complicated by the fact that RTE don't actually hold the rights to national league matches, Eir and TG4 do. RTE couldn't have given him the footage even if they wanted to. All RTE can provide is a one-hour highlights package.

So Gavin took the hump with RTE because they wouldn't comply with a request that they were technically and legally unable to comply with.

As a neutral observer with not much GAA interest, does it sound like Gavin is being reasonable?

Going by what you have said, no he doesn't sound reasonable. Obviously he should be talking to Eir and /or TG4 about footage. However, I don't know the history or the cause of the tension between Gavin and RTE so I'll hold of on passing judgement on either.

As for Schmidt v Cummiskey yesterday, I will pass judgement because I have been following it more closely and in my opinion Schmidt came across as calm and reasonable. Cummiskey came across as a dick with axe to grind against Schmidt and/or the IRFU.

Buer

Former Former wrote: »

Zzippy wrote: »

Jim Gavin is an amateur coach in an amateur sport. He has a day job that is highly stressful and a coaching gig that requires almost full time commitment in addition to the day job. If I was in his position, I'd want as little to do with the press as possible. The media moaning about him could bear in mind that they're getting paid to work on GAA stories, he's not.

Just to note; I'm a Dublin GAA fan and obviously a big Jim Gavin enthusiast for his achievements.

But when an inter-county coach goes to RTE looking for DVDs of his team's opponents and throws his toys out of the pram when he doesn't get them, then, a spade being a spade, he's acting the dick. Surely no-one thinks Gavin is actually being reasonable? He was the same during the summer with the Connolly incident; Gavin was a disgrace.

But this is the whole problem here. People are weighing in behind the teams and coaches and against the media, I'd say in about a 90% ratio, because while people have an emotional attachment to their teams, no-one has any attachment to a journalist or a radio show.

People want the IRFU, Joe, Jim Gavin, to be in the right because when you spend your Friday night or Sunday afternoon screaming your support at them, then the logical progression is for that support to follow through into other aspects. .

I think plenty of people are taking issue with Gavin. There are three groups. Those that are for the team/coach, those that are for the media and those that are against the team/coach. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I think the reason an overwhelming majority are supporting Schmidt in this instance is that it's hard to see just where the media are coming from really. The IRFU have handled it very poorly but the media are handling it worse. There's more than we'll ever know going on and without that information, people are going to fall on the side of the IRFU.

I know you disagree but I saw very little wrong in the tone or content of what Schmidt said yesterday. It was a pretty standard response and one that the likes of Gatland or Jones would deem bland. Cummiskey's tweet on it, however, was clearly attempting to throw a slant on it that I found bizarre upon actually listening. He is being deliberately inflammatory from what I can see. A journalist should be objective and even handed. He is definitely not being that at the moment.

Buer wrote: »

I think plenty of people are taking issue with Gavin. There are three groups. Those that are for the team/coach, those that are for the media and those that are against the team/coach. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I think the reason an overwhelming majority are supporting Schmidt in this instance is that it's hard to see just where the media are coming from really. The IRFU have handled it very poorly but the media are handling it worse. There's more than we'll ever know going on and without that information, people are going to fall on the side of the IRFU.

TBH, if the IRFU want to push their own media offerings at the expense of the conventional media, that's fine, it's their business.

However, I am still dismayed by quite how few people see what is wrong in excluding a specific journalist from a press conference because he reported on something the IRFU don't want discussed. I can't see how anyone can think that is anything other than outrageous, and it's not the first time they've done it. If it was untrue, IRFU would have denied it. They haven't.

But I fully accept I'm in the minority in caring about that, in fact more people seem to think it's actually a good thing.

Buer wrote: »

I know you disagree but I saw very little wrong in the tone or content of what Schmidt said yesterday. It was a pretty standard response and one that the likes of Gatland or Jones would deem bland. Cummiskey's tweet on it, however, was clearly attempting to throw a slant on it that I found bizarre upon actually listening. He is being deliberately inflammatory from what I can see. A journalist should be objective and even handed. He is definitely not being that at the moment.

Bland is exactly what it was. Nothing happens in a vacuum; in the midst of the IRFU actively seeking to reduce media access, they hold this press conference. Now imagine you're a journalist there. In the space of two minutes, you've heard Joe Schmidt tell you that Wales "are going to vary it up" but then tell you that there's no way Ireland can do likewise. After a display that was pretty sterile against France and pretty flawed against Italy, there's nothing to change?

It must be frustrating. I don't expect Joe to open up the playbook for media inspection, but some sort of engagement is not an unrealistic expectation. I did not and would not condone Cummiskey's response, but I can see why he'd send it out.

Hurrache

Interested Observer wrote: »

Cummisky was absolutely in the wrong. His tweet wasn't even nearly representative of what Schmidt said or the tone he said it in.

Yeah, heard the interview yesterday evening and I was immediately struck that it was an entirely normal interview and nothing like Cummisky tried to portray and exaggerate it as.

Trojan

It's possible to agree with parts of both sides:

Former Former wrote: »

However, I am still dismayed by quite how few people see what is wrong in excluding a specific journalist from a press conference because he reported on something the IRFU don't want discussed. I can't see how anyone can think that is anything other than outrageous, and it's not the first time they've done it. If it was untrue, IRFU would have denied it. They haven't.

I agree that there's an issue here - IRFU have messed up a lot lately and they're seemingly getting stroppy with media for rightly questioning it.

Buer wrote: »

I know you disagree but I saw very little wrong in the tone or content of what Schmidt said yesterday. It was a pretty standard response and one that the likes of Gatland or Jones would deem bland. Cummiskey's tweet on it, however, was clearly attempting to throw a slant on it that I found bizarre upon actually listening. He is being deliberately inflammatory from what I can see. A journalist should be objective and even handed. He is definitely not being that at the moment.

It's only a few words but it changes the tone of that completely. This is shoddy reporting at best, potentially deliberately misleading at worst. I can see IRFU rightly being annoyed with this.

Former Former wrote: »

It must be frustrating. I don't expect Joe to open up the playbook for media inspection, but some sort of engagement is not an unrealistic expectation.

Do you want Joe to be good at making interview answers sound interesting, or do you want to him to be a good international rugby coach.

Joe was extremely engaged and detailed in his answer by the way. He gave loads of sound bites and context, certainly plenty that a competent journalist could glean an article from.

Former Former wrote: »

I did not and would not condone Cummiskey's response, but I can see why he'd send it out.

I don't see where Cummiskey is coming from at all nor why he would send a tweet like that based on what we all heard.

errlloyd

There was the standard Irish Times unedited phone shot video of Cummiskey and Thornley discussing selection, and in the middle of it they had put in an edited SuperCup of JS saying "Fine Margins" like 6 times. Thought it was a bit petty.

I just don't understand how it's petty to point out that a coach is using the same phrase over and over again? Just highlights his thinking and the message he's trying to get across?

Former Former wrote: »

However, I am still dismayed by quite how few people see what is wrong in excluding a specific journalist from a press conference because he reported on something the IRFU don't want discussed. I can't see how anyone can think that is anything other than outrageous, and it's not the first time they've done it. If it was untrue, IRFU would have denied it. They haven't.

To me, it depends on what was reported on and how it was covered as to whether or not I would agree with the IRFU's stance. Does that make sense? If they excluded the journo because of a report about the mess they were making of women's rugby, I'd consider the IRFU petty. If it was because of reports on or questions about a certain trial, I'd side with IRFU. Reports on PEDs or project players, I'd side with the IRFU because those topics have been done to death and a pre or post match conference with the coach is not the place to bring it up AGAIN.

Personally, I'd like to see them ban Cummisky from any press conferences for the rest of the 6 Nations after his childish BS tweet yesterday.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

To me, it depends on what was reported on and how it was covered as to whether or not I would agree with the IRFU's stance. Does that make sense? If they excluded the journo because of a report about the mess they were making of women's rugby, I'd consider the IRFU petty. If it was because of reports on or questions about a certain trial, I'd side with IRFU. Reports on PEDs or project players, I'd side with the IRFU because those topics have been done to death and a pre or post match conference with the coach is not the place to bring it up AGAIN.

Personally, I'd like to see them ban Cummisky from any press conferences for the rest of the 6 Nations after his childish BS tweet yesterday.

He was banned on a Saturday for an article he wrote the previous Monday. It was nothing to do with bringing up anything at a pre or post match conference, or a trial, or women's rugby.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He was banned on a Saturday for an article he wrote the previous Monday. It was nothing to do with bringing up anything at a pre or post match conference, or a trial, or women's rugby.

I must have missed that sorry. I didn't realise that the specific article had been determined/released to the public. What was the article?

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I must have missed that sorry. I didn't realise that the specific article had been determined/released to the public. What was the article?

He didn't say exactly which article. But you're talking in the bolded statement here as if he was kicked out for asking questions about this stuff in a pre or post match press conference. That's not the case, whatever he wrote, he did it on a Monday and was kicked out of the briefing the following Saturday, he was not being punished for asking questions in a pre/post match setting. He didn't write about the trial, he hasn't done anything on women's rugby that I'm aware of (although Cummiskey has).

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What was the article?

It was so incredibly innocuous that the media are protecting the IRFU by not releasing it to highlight the IRFU's over reaction.

Deleted User wrote: »

It was so incredibly innocuous that the media are protecting the IRFU by not releasing it to highlight the IRFU's over reaction.

You mean it was so incredibly offensive that the IRFU have made any statement about it whatsoever, rather than hiding in complete silence.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You mean it was so incredibly offensive that the IRFU have made any statement about it whatsoever, rather than hiding in complete silence.

Why would they?

Does anyone remember when Joe called a press conference to slate Matt O'Connor in the dying days of his era? MOC had bemoaned his missing players during the Six Nations, and Joe and Nucifora went in front of the media to call him out on it. Now, everyone here loved that because it was Joe (yaaaay) taking MOC (booooo) down a peg or two. The actual content of what Joe said went largely unexamined because we were so glad to hear it.

Looking back on that now, Joe was more than happy to engage with the media when it suited him. He held a press conference and the papers, radio and TV turned up and dutifully reported on it, because a spat between a provincial coach and the national coach (with their shared boss weighing in squarely behind the latter) was a story of public interest. Bizarre, looking back on it now.

More recently, Nucifora had no problem going public to administer the smack-down to Ulster over the Pienaar situation which again was pretty unprecedented. That got a slightly more mixed reaction depending on whether you toast your bread or fry it, but again, it suited them to address that particular question.

So the IRFU are more than happy to engage with the media when it suits their ends, so we'll get the full low-down when it paints HQ in a good light, and everything else is taboo, let's just focus on the game at hand etc etc? Are we, as the people who fund them, happy with this?

I guess we are.

Interested Observer wrote: »

Why would they?

If it was something gravely serious, it would force the union to exclude the journalist themselves (which has happened in other settings).

If it was just a silly error, they absolutely wouldn't. For the same reason the journalists would never admit exactly what it was (if they're even allowed to under the terms of their employment).

Former Former wrote: »

Does anyone remember when Joe called a press conference to slate Matt O'Connor in the dying days of his era? MOC had bemoaned his missing players during the Six Nations, and Joe and Nucifora went in front of the media to call him out on it. Now, everyone here loved that because it was Joe (yaaaay) taking MOC (booooo) down a peg or two. The actual content of what Joe said went largely unexamined because we were so glad to hear it.

Looking back on that now, Joe was more than happy to engage with the media when it suited him. He held a press conference and the papers, radio and TV turned up and dutifully reported on it, because a spat between a provincial coach and the national coach (with their shared boss weighing in squarely behind the latter) was a story of public interest. Bizarre, looking back on it now.

More recently, Nucifora had no problem going public to administer the smack-down to Ulster over the Pienaar situation which again was pretty unprecedented. That got a slightly more mixed reaction depending on whether you toast your bread or fry it, but again, it suited them to address that particular question.

So the IRFU are more than happy to engage with the media when it suits their ends, so we'll get the full low-down when it paints HQ in a good light, and everything else is taboo, let's just focus on the game at hand etc etc? Are we, as the people who fund them, happy with this?

I guess we are.

My memory of these incidents are a bit fuzzy but to the best of my recollection, MOC brought it up in the media first. So JS and Nucifora responded. They were probably getting a lot of requests for a response so a conference was easiest. Maybe? If MOC had brough it up only in private to JS and Nucifora do you think they would have called a press conference?

Same with the Pienaar situation. I get the impression that Nucifora would rather do all these discussions and deals in private but if the other party goes to the media and has a whinge he eventually has to respond in the media. Didn't something similar happen with Stephen Moore to Munster? Some journo went off half-cocked with an inaccurate story?

ScissorPaperRock

This all feels a bit blown out of proportion, tbh.

We're talking about the organisation of 23 people to run around with a ball on a rugby field, in the end.

Who cares if they don't want to speak to some journalists.

ScissorPaperRock wrote: »

This all feels a bit blown out of proportion, tbh.

We're talking about the organisation of 23 people to run around with a ball on a rugby field, in the end.

Who cares if they don't want to speak to some journalists.

Well not really, they're the organisation of every single amateur coach/player/ref/volunteer up and down the country. But the press doesn't come into that side of things too much I guess.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

My memory of these incidents are a bit fuzzy but to the best of my recollection, MOC brought it up in the media first. So JS and Nucifora responded. They were probably getting a lot of requests for a response so a conference was easiest. Maybe? If MOC had brough it up only in private to JS and Nucifora do you think they would have called a press conference?

I suppose I would draw the distinction between MOC saying something at a routinely-scheduled press conference during the Pro12 season, and Joe and Nucifora specifically calling a press conference just to contradict something someone else has said. I've never seen it before or since in Irish rugby.

They get a lot of requests for comments about many other issues, but they knew how the wind was blowing on this. MOC was dying on his arse, Joe had just won the 6N, a press conference to put the nail in his coffin was just the ticket as they knew the hard questions were only going in one direction, and that's exactly how it panned out.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Same with the Pienaar situation. I get the impression that Nucifora would rather do all these discussions and deals in private but if the other party goes to the media and has a whinge he eventually has to respond in the media. Didn't something similar happen with Stephen Moore to Munster? Some journo went off half-cocked with an inaccurate story?

But he doesn't "have to" respond at all, that's my point. There have been so many issues that have gone completely unremarked by IRFU that they very obviously don't feel the need to routinely comment on them all, only those they want to.

I think the Stephen Moore story turned out to be 100% accurate IIRC. Munster wanted to sign him, IRFU vetoed it on grounds of a) he was still playing for Australia and b) cost. There was some gibberish from Nucifora about it alright, can't remember the exact details.

Buer

Nucifora said the IRFU never turned it down and if an offer was made, Moore rejected it.

awec

Buer wrote: »

Nucifora said the IRFU never turned it down and if an offer was made, Moore rejected it.

Yea he said that but I am pretty sure this was Nucifora twisting reality a bit for PR purposes.

The IRFU effectively killed the move with stipulations put onto the deal.

Didactic Ninja

the whole affair is very disappointing .

Former Former wrote: »

But he doesn't "have to" respond at all, that's my point. There have been so many issues that have gone completely unremarked by IRFU that they very obviously don't feel the need to routinely comment on them all, only those they want to.

You're right they don't have to respond. They could say nothing and leave the journalists to write fair, balanced and accurate articles without any speculation, accusations or BS. Because the RWI have proven that that is what they are all about :rolleyes: