Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

1…148149151153154…336

Comments

  • #4502
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    awec wrote: »
    Even other incidents with players that are not so closely related.

    The IRFU are more than happy to bury bad PR when they can be relatively certain nobody is going to find out it. I am fairly sure there are multiple players at multiple provinces who have benefited from the IRFUs seemingly fantastic ability at killing stories or keeping them under wraps.

    This was not an exercise in values, it was an exercise in optics. I am absolutely certain both players would still be playing for Ireland and Ulster if this case had been tried in the ROI.

    Agreed. If it was an exercise in values the IRFU (and those posters that support the ‘sacking’) would be now wanting a full investigation into the private life of every player with a professional contract to ensure no one else has ever crossed this new moral line (whatever it is). Would likely end up with a shell of a team, but they’d have the ultimate moral victory every week.


  • #4503
    launish116
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭launish116


    awec wrote: »
    I'd say they're scrambling to find something alright.

    You'd think we couldn't get any lower... or will they wait and see if Glasgow beat us. If there ever was a time to perform a cull and strengthen squad for a fresh start.
    Munster have just done a serious cull of Academy, time we did with the seniors.


  • #4504
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Agreed. If it was an exercise in values the IRFU (and those posters that support the ‘sacking’) would be now wanting a full investigation into the private life of every player with a professional contract to ensure no one else has ever crossed this new moral line (whatever it is). Would likely end up with a shell of a team, but they’d have the ultimate moral victory every week.
    I'm not sure what world you live in, but the one I inhabit finds retroactive punishment to be abhorrent.


  • #4505
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    This whole thing is irrelevant. I had assumed the membership was much stronger given the amount of discussion and media coverage this got.

    Well, they're the closest thing to a representative body of Ulster fans, but when you compare 390 respondents to the 15,000 who'll go to Ravenhill on a Friday night, or the 50,000 or so who regularly attend one of the provinces, or the 100,000+ who'll go to a rugby match at some point over the season, then it becomes less and less weighty.


  • #4506
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    awec wrote: »
    They are infinitely more relevant than the views of anyone on this forum.

    They get media coverage because of their relevance.

    The attempts to diminish their relevancy is bordering on the bizarre.

    The people who responded count for less than 3% of the number of people who were at the last game against the Ospreys. The view of such a tiny proportion of actual Ulster fans is pretty irrelevant, purely on a numbers basis.


  • Advertisement
  • #4507
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Agreed. If it was an exercise in values the IRFU (and those posters that support the ‘sacking’) would be now wanting a full investigation into the private life of every player with a professional contract to ensure no one else has ever crossed this new moral line (whatever it is). Would likely end up with a shell of a team, but they’d have the ultimate moral victory every week.

    You clearly only read the parts of what people post that you want to be outraged by. So, no.


  • #4508
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The people who responded count for less than 3% of the number of people who were at the last game against the Ospreys. The view of such a tiny proportion of actual Ulster fans is pretty irrelevant, purely on a numbers basis.
    You could say that, but most polls are based on a similar sample size. So it's not everyone's opinion, but it could be indicative.

    I say 'could be', because it's not a random sample of Ulster supporters. And it may not be a true cross-section.


  • #4509
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    You could say that, but most polls are based on a similar sample size. So it's not everyone's opinion, but it could be indicative.

    I say 'could be', because it's not a random sample of Ulster supporters. And it may not be a true cross-section.

    Exactly, those polls tend to have a certain element of science and maths behind them. This doesn't. It's an absolutely tiny % of Ulster fans overall, nothing more really.


  • #4510
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,733 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Exactly, those polls tend to have a certain element of science and maths behind them. This doesn't. It's an absolutely tiny % of Ulster fans overall, nothing more really.
    It is the only representative sample of any Ulster fans.

    What is an "Ulster fan" overall? Season ticket holders? Anyone from Ulster? Anyone who has ever watched a game on TV? Anyone who has ever gone to a match? It's such a vague and immeasurable term.

    What other polls are you referring to?


  • #4511
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    I'm not sure what world you live in, but the one I inhabit finds retroactive punishment to be abhorrent.

    Don’t worry, I agree with you on that too. I similarly find singling out individuals and harshly sanctioning them while ignoring comparable actions by others is abhorrent.


  • Advertisement
  • #4512
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    molloyjh wrote: »
    You clearly only read the parts of what people post that you want to be outraged by. So, no.

    I am reading it all, unfortunately. It simply looks like caring about optics or virtue signaling when posters claim to want the two lads ‘sacked’, while sticking their head in the sand related to other documented instances of questionable morality by players. If you think the IRFU’s decision is about values then you have your head in the sand.


  • #4513
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    I am reading it all, unfortunately. It simply looks like caring about optics or virtue signaling when posters claim to want the two lads ‘sacked’, while sticking their head in the sand related to other documented instances of questionable morality by players. If you think the IRFU’s decision is about values then you have your head in the sand.

    It's partly about values, but there are commercial factors that played a huge role as well. Those commercial factors ultimately come back to values though too. Those of the general public. If the general public didn't care, the sponsors wouldn't care and so the commercial factors wouldn't exist.

    And nobody has ever sought for players lives to be under the microscope. I'm not sure how many times I said that once something comes into the public domain there must be action. That quite clearly is nothing like saying that players public lives should be under scrutiny at all times, just that when organisations become aware of things they have to act. I'm pretty sure I've said almost exactly that a few times now.

    Of course if you were interested in actual discussion on the topic you wouldn't be posting what you are posting so I suggest we leave it there.


  • #4514
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,733 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    molloyjh wrote: »
    It's partly about values, but there are commercial factors that played a huge role as well. Those commercial factors ultimately come back to values though too. Those of the general public. If the general public didn't care, the sponsors wouldn't care and so the commercial factors wouldn't exist.

    And nobody has ever sought for players lives to be under the microscope. I'm not sure how many times I said that once something comes into the public domain there must be action. That quite clearly is nothing like saying that players public lives should be under scrutiny at all times, just that when organisations become aware of things they have to act. I'm pretty sure I've said almost exactly that a few times now.

    Of course if you were interested in actual discussion on the topic you wouldn't be posting what you are posting so I suggest we leave it there.
    I think this is the point, they don't. They come back to information becoming public.

    You said it yourself. "Once something comes into the public domain". This is the problem, we cannot talk about values if we're happy to let things slide when we know nobody will ever find out.


  • #4515
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    molloyjh wrote: »
    It's partly about values, but there are commercial factors that played a huge role as well. Those commercial factors ultimately come back to values though too. Those of the general public. If the general public didn't care, the sponsors wouldn't care and so the commercial factors wouldn't exist.

    And nobody has ever sought for players lives to be under the microscope. I'm not sure how many times I said that once something comes into the public domain there must be action. That quite clearly is nothing like saying that players public lives should be under scrutiny at all times, just that when organisations become aware of things they have to act. I'm pretty sure I've said almost exactly that a few times now.

    Of course if you were interested in actual discussion on the topic you wouldn't be posting what you are posting so I suggest we leave it there.

    Caring about certain ‘values’ only when someone else is looking is nearly the definition of optics.

    No matter how many times you’ve said it, plenty of other player’s ‘antics’ have actually come into the public domain and no public action was taken against them by the IRFU, forget about discussion of a justified ‘sacking’. They may have not led the news, but that shouldn’t matter if they were being judged on the values of what they did when organization becoming aware of it.

    I am fully interested in an actual discussion on the topic, but this is difficult when many posters are still clinging that at the actions the IRFU took were based on values rather than for optics and the hope to quell the mob.


  • #4516
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    awec wrote: »
    I think this is the point, they don't. They come back to information becoming public.

    You said it yourself. "Once something comes into the public domain". This is the problem, we cannot talk about values if we're happy to let things slide when we know nobody will ever find out.

    Do you have to twist everything?

    Let's make this simple shall we. If the IRFU find out about particular behaviour they should be acting on it. If they don't find out they should not. End of story. It doesn't matter how they find out or who else knows.

    The point I'm trying to make is that players should not be monitored. But if behaviour comes to light it should be acted on.


  • #4517
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    No matter how many times you’ve said it, plenty of other player’s ‘antics’ have actually come into the public domain and no public action was taken against them by the IRFU.

    Examples?


  • #4518
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Don’t worry, I agree with you on that too. I similarly find singling out individuals and harshly sanctioning them while ignoring comparable actions by others is abhorrent.
    You don't know that it was ignored. You're guessing purely on the basis that no action was made public. And it's also not known if the people involved were in breach of their then contracts. So there's no knowledge as to whether any action could have been taken at the time.

    This is whataboutery. And it's assuming current standards apply to past actions which is retroaction.


  • #4519
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,733 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Do you have to twist everything?

    Let's make this simple shall we. If the IRFU find out about particular behaviour they should be acting on it. If they don't find out they should not. End of story. It doesn't matter how they find out or who else knows.

    The point I'm trying to make is that players should not be monitored. But if behaviour comes to light it should be acted on.
    I didn't twist anything. I quoted your post word for word.

    The IRFU have not been doing this in the past. We have no idea if they'll do it in the future, because I suspect bad PR will continue to be buried.

    As I said, if this had happened in the ROI (which would have prevented details going public) I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever both players would still be playing for Ulster.


  • #4520
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    awec wrote: »
    I didn't twist anything. I quoted your post word for word.

    The IRFU have not been doing this in the past. We have no idea if they'll do it in the future, because I suspect bad PR will continue to be buried.

    As I said, if this had happened in the ROI (which would have prevented details going public) I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever both players would still be playing for Ulster.
    Are you suggesting that private internal disciplinary matters should be made public?


  • #4521
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that private internal disciplinary matters should be made public?

    You mean like that time Craig Gilroy was disciplined and the IRFU made a statement about it?


  • Advertisement
  • #4522
    Bridge93
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    If this had been in the Republic I do wonder how it would've played out. Obviously, from a legal point of view, they would never have been named. But how would the year absence have been explained?


  • #4523
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Examples?

    We have the Munster lads hitting a lot of the complaints people have regarding ‘values’ in this case, such as the group aspect, the younger drunken girl being picked up at the end of the night, girl left to make her own way home, discussions/bragging of the event to a wider group and the added bonus of a video being taken of the event and then distributed. Add on Gilroy getting a slap on the wrist for messages, which were much worse than Jackson, and numerous and ongoing examples of extreme drunkenness among players, one player going back to a random house and using large parts of it as a bathroom comes to mind.

    The IRFU can publicly pretend they weren’t aware because they weren’t leading the news, or a twitter mob wasn’t hounding their sponsors. However, given how widely they were distributed you’d be naïve to think they weren’t aware and they would struggle to make that claim during unfair dismissal case.


  • #4524
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    If this had been in the Republic I do wonder how it would've played out. Obviously, from a legal point of view, they would never have been named. But how would the year absence have been explained?

    People would have known there was a trial, but the testimony wouldn't have been reported and people wouldn't have been allowed into the court. They would have been stood down when formally charged but not before.

    Much like the year that the players continued to play under the allegation, I suspect they would have continued to play after the allegation failed to get by a jury.

    There wouldn't be the details of the text messages and the information from the night. There wouldn't be the testimony to latch onto and get outraged over. The jury would ultimately decide the outcome and that would be that.

    There certainly wouldn't have been protests in Dublin and Cork and after an internal review the players would have sat out the remainder of the season and started back playing for Ulster in September.


  • #4525
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You mean like that time Craig Gilroy was disciplined and the IRFU made a statement about it?
    Unfortunately for Craig, his comments were made public. As Eddie O'Sullivan says, you can't unring the bell.


  • #4526
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    Is it only rape cases that aren't reported on in ROI? I'm sure I've seen pictures in the papers of people accused of sexual assault


  • #4527
    Neil3030
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    If this had been in the Republic I do wonder how it would've played out. Obviously, from a legal point of view, they would never have been named. But how would the year absence have been explained?

    They couldn't hide their identities for long, but I wonder what the public response would have been if their faces and names weren't headline news in every paper for months.


  • #4528
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    If this had been in the Republic I do wonder how it would've played out. Obviously, from a legal point of view, they would never have been named. But how would the year absence have been explained?

    Wondered that myself. Is there not a public gallery at rape trials in the Republic?


  • #4529
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    bilston wrote: »
    Wondered that myself. Is there not a public gallery at rape trials in the Republic?

    Coverage would be restricted. It'd have been known and it would have dampened the reaction, almost certainly.


  • #4530
    errlloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    bilston wrote: »
    Wondered that myself. Is there not a public gallery at rape trials in the Republic?

    No, they are closed to the public.


  • Advertisement
  • #4531
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    errlloyd wrote: »
    No, they are closed to the public.

    How much publicity do you think it would have gotten in ROI? And at what point?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement