IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Yeah_Right · 23-02-2018 11:29PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, they have proven that's what they're about. For years and years. If you want to give an example of an article where a RWI member has lied, please do it. If not, you're the guilty party.

Cummiskey's tweet yesterday.

I'm assuming he's a member of the RWI.

irishbucsfan · 23-02-2018 11:30PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Cummiskey's tweet yesterday.

I'm assuming he's a member of the RWI.

Tweets are articles now I guess so

Yeah_Right · 23-02-2018 11:46PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Tweets are articles now I guess so

That's the world we live in. A journo tweeting about the subject they write about is basically the same as them writing an article.

What about the video Cummiskey and Thornley did? There was no pettiness or pot shots at Schmidt in that? I thought it came across as very childish and pathetic. Right up there with the NZ articles portraying Gatland and Cheika as clowns.

irishbucsfan · 23-02-2018 11:51PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

That's the world we live in. A journo tweeting about the subject they write about is basically the same as them writing an article.

What about the video Cummiskey and Thornley did? There was no pettiness or pot shots at Schmidt in that? I thought it came across as very childish and pathetic. Right up there with the NZ articles portraying Gatland and Cheika as clowns.

I'm still yet to see any evidence of these articles with lies and BS or whatever it was you claimed.

Never saw the video, if this is where the accusations and BS is, please point me to it.

Yeah_Right · 24-02-2018 12:52AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm still yet to see any evidence of these articles with lies and BS or whatever it was you claimed.

Never saw the video, if this is where the accusations and BS is, please point me to it.

I never said there were articles. I had a theory that if JS and Nucifora didn't make statements at press conferences (after another poster accused them of using the media when it suited them) that the media might spin their crap that wasn't 100% accurate. In other words, bull****. Cummiskey has proven this point with his tweet.

The video is on the IT site. Under videos. Thornley and Cummiskey.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 07:37AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I never said there were articles.

Yeah, right.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

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:

prawnsambo · 24-02-2018 08:56AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah, right.

He didn't accuse them of lying either. As your quote above shows. You just ramped it up to that level, knowing that's unprovable.

Yeah_Right · 24-02-2018 08:58AM

I'm sure I'm not the only poster on here that has read a rugby article in the past few years and thought something along the lines of "this author is a moron/ full of ****/ out of touch with the modern game/ an egomaniac/ got serious issues with (insert name of player, coach or official)." Then again maybe I am the only one to think that way.

I'm not going to trawl through the archives to find the offending articles because I can't be arsed. I do believe Cummiskey's actions this week have proved my theory correct.

joseywhales · 24-02-2018 09:28AM

I don't understand what Joe Schmidt owes the media in terms of press conference performance, they are not stakeholders in his employment contract, he's not an elected public official, he's under no obligation to give them any insight and even less obliged to partake in his own Inquisition by self appointed critics. He is within his rights to completely control the relationship in terms of the control of information.

How the irfu as an organisation deal with the media I think is a separate issue.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:09AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

He didn't accuse them of lying either. As your quote above shows. You just ramped it up to that level, knowing that's unprovable.

What else is BS supposed to mean? I also said that people in general have accused them of lying.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:12AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm sure I'm not the only poster on here that has read a rugby article in the past few years and thought something along the lines of "this author is a moron/ full of ****/ out of touch with the modern game/ an egomaniac/ got serious issues with (insert name of player, coach or official)." Then again maybe I am the only one to think that way.

A rugby article, or an article from an actual rugby journalist?

I've read plenty of absolutely terrible reporting on rugby from the usual big mouths, the Hooks and Francises of the world, but the professional journalists who actually report regularly on the game in this country are very good at it, even if I don't always love their opinions.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm not going to trawl through the archives to find the offending articles because I can't be arsed. I do believe Cummiskey's actions this week have proved my theory correct.

What, one tweet that you disagree with? You obviously didn't take much convincing.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:13AM

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand what Joe Schmidt owes the media in terms of press conference performance, they are not stakeholders in his employment contract, he's not an elected public official, he's under no obligation to give them any insight and even less obliged to partake in his own Inquisition by self appointed critics. He is within his rights to completely control the relationship in terms of the control of information.

Be careful not to think people are making an argument that they are not. A lot of people keep saying "Joe Schmidt is under no obligation to discuss tactics" as if anyone has ever said that he is.

prawnsambo · 24-02-2018 10:25AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What else is BS supposed to mean? I also said that people in general have accused them of lying.

BS is a catch-all word expressing anything from irrelevant nonsense all the way through to downright lies. And you specifically directed your post at yeah_right and quoted him. So I just pointed out that he didn't actually accuse them of lies.

Which nobody could prove anyway. You might find an article that's factually wrong, but unless you know, definitely, that the author knew it to be wrong, the worst that could be said of it is that it was an 'unfortunate error'.

24-02-2018 10:38AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What else is BS supposed to mean? I also said that people in general have accused them of lying.

The media do and have lied. Paul Kimmage declaring that Heaslip was faking it last six nations being a good recent example.

24-02-2018 10:40AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Be careful not to think people are making an argument that they are not. A lot of people keep saying "Joe Schmidt is under no obligation to discuss tactics" as if anyone has ever said that he is.

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.

FYI

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:40AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The media do and have lied. Paul Kimmage declaring that Heaslip was faking it last six nations being a good recent example.

There are some terrible people working in the media. Piers Morgan still demands a pretty impressive paycheck. But just because some people in the media lie does not mean everyone does. Just as not every athlete is Lance Armstrong and not every coach is Dean Richards.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:41AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

BS is a catch-all word expressing anything from irrelevant nonsense

right...

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

FYI

You've quoted a perfect example of someone saying explicitly that Schmidt does not need to discuss his tactics?

joseywhales · 24-02-2018 10:43AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand what Joe Schmidt owes the media in terms of press conference performance, they are not stakeholders in his employment contract, he's not an elected public official, he's under no obligation to give them any insight and even less obliged to partake in his own Inquisition by self appointed critics. He is within his rights to completely control the relationship in terms of the control of information.

Be careful not to think people are making an argument that they are not. A lot of people keep saying "Joe Schmidt is under no obligation to discuss tactics" as if anyone has ever said that he is.

I was just completely confused at why cummiskey was seemingly frustrated by Joe's communication in his tweet. I don't know what he expects. I mean he can simply supply no information forever if he wants.

24-02-2018 10:44AM

Schmidt did engage with the question. He gave quite a long answer that addressed the question.

24-02-2018 10:45AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You've quoted a perfect example of someone saying explicitly that Schmidt does not need to discuss his tactics?

And this is a perfect example of you seeing only what you want to see. FF was decrying the lack of detail provided by Joe in relation to Ireland tactics.

Exactly what you suggested no one was saying.

And by the way, this was in relation to a 20 minute press conference where Joe discussed tactics and selection. In detail.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:50AM

joseywhales wrote: »

I was just completely confused at why cummiskey was seemingly frustrated by Joe's communication in his tweet. I don't know what he expects. I mean he can simply supply no information forever if he wants.

There were two elements to the tweet, highlighting the fact that Irish coaching staff are continuously using the phrase 'fine margins' this week, likely not a coincidence and a pretty good insight into where their heads are at and where their focus is.

The other element was him pointing out that Schmidt said it's the medias job to work out what Ireland are going to do rather than be explicitly told, which Cummiskey agreed with, possibly (likely) is a sideways glance at the fact their access to the team and coaches is being continuously reduced.

joseywhales · 24-02-2018 10:52AM

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Schmidt did engage with the question. He gave quite a long answer that addressed the question.

True he did talk somewhat about the team being multi faceted. I just wanted to make the point that whether he does give information or not is at his discretion, theres no obligation.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:53AM

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Schmidt did engage with the question. He gave quite a long answer that addressed the question.

No. He didn't give a long answer that addressed the question. He dismissed the question about whether he thought changes were needed and then gave a long answer on the subject of the variety of Ireland's tactics and how the medias job is to work out where that variety is.

Not making a judgement on that myself, just pointing out that his long answer did not address the question.

irishbucsfan · 24-02-2018 10:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And this is a perfect example of you seeing only what you want to see. FF was decrying the lack of detail provided by Joe in relation to Ireland tactics.

Exactly what you suggested no one was saying.

And by the way, this was in relation to a 20 minute press conference where Joe discussed tactics and selection. In detail.

I think you should give FF the time to actually read what he said

Jack Kanoff · 24-02-2018 10:58AM

This thread hurts my eyes...and yet I can't unfollow it!

Former Former · 24-02-2018 11:47AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And this is a perfect example of you seeing only what you want to see. FF was decrying the lack of detail provided by Joe in relation to Ireland tactics.

Exactly what you suggested no one was saying.

And by the way, this was in relation to a 20 minute press conference where Joe discussed tactics and selection. In detail.

My point was more that if Joe decided to keep his cards close to his chest, that's absolutely his prerogative - but that I can understand how it must be frustrating for the journalists.

After 16 years of Eddie's mgmt-spk, Deccie's incoherent mumbling and Joe's white lies, I've long since given up expecting anything of substance from the coach's press conferences.

The wider issues are what bother me.

26-02-2018 04:28PM

Throwing this in here instead of starting another thread and it's somewhat related.

Did anyone else see a post deleted by Kimmage where he listed Heaslip's achievements and finished it with reference to the test relating to his naturally high testosterone? Is this what he tweeted as I can't verify?

irishbucsfan · 26-02-2018 04:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Throwing this in here instead of starting another thread and it's somewhat related.

Did anyone else see a post deleted by Kimmage where he listed Heaslip's achievements and finished it with reference to the test relating to his naturally high testosterone? Is this what he tweeted as I can't verify?

Paul Kimmage is not related to this topic, just so we're all completely clear.

But I was trying to track down a screenshot of it myself. Someone I trust said he saw it. The man is an absolute dope.

CatFromHue · 26-02-2018 04:33PM

I saw another person, not a named person account, tweet that.

I didn't see Kimmage tweet it.

it's at the bottom of the comments on this tweet

https://twitter.com/oharaa/status/968064416368480256

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Comments