General Rugby Discussion II

Squidgy Black · 16-02-2020 10:31pm

Great documentary by Rugbypass about concussion and CTE in rugby, Lynne Cantwell and Kevin McLaughlin spoke about their experiences too

https://youtu.be/fmmTYERMCgE

The Lost Sheep · 17-02-2020 1:27pm

Anyone listen to this refs discussion yet from off the ball Saturday?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=b7dKax4akSM
Any good?

Dog Botherer · 17-02-2020 4:36pm

somehow only just now realizing that DTH Van Der Merwe and Duhan Van Der Merwe are two different players who play for two different Scottish clubs.

Burkie1203 · 18-02-2020 10:31am

The championship could be fairly tasty next season ðŸ™„

https://twitter.com/griffiths_bill5/status/1229664463516770305?s=19

molloyjh · 18-02-2020 11:33am

The article is from April 2019. Theres been no updates on it AFAIK.

cmac2009 · 18-02-2020 5:52pm

Anyone read the Ronan O'Gara interview today in the the indo? If so, was it any good. Frustrating that they now have a subscription model in place, it's basically a glorified redtop nowadays so won't be forking out, but occasionally there can be some decent interviews.

19-02-2020 10:20pm

Very interesting opening 10 minutes on media reporting, celebrities and online abuse. Haskell seems very angry about the Caroline Flack death, Sean O'Brien gets a question and he uses it to acknowledge some of his recent behavior.

19-02-2020 11:18pm

Jebus. That's worth a watch. Sean O'Brien very honest about a lot of stuff. Huge implication about the last Lions tour - suggestion that Sexton and Farrell took over the running of the team for the final test?

Clegg · 19-02-2020 11:30pm

SOB was critical of Gatland and co in the aftermath of that Lions tour iirc. Thought they did too much analysis and gym work before the first test and overloaded the players.

First time I've heard a suggestion of the players wresting control from the coaches though.

Squidgy Black · 19-02-2020 11:39pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jebus. That's worth a watch. Sean O'Brien very honest about a lot of stuff. Huge implication about the last Lions tour - suggestion that Sexton and Farrell took over the running of the team for the final test?

Nothing implicated about it, it was part of his original comments back after the tour when he blamed Gatland and Howley on the Auckland loss. He had said Farrell and Sexton "ran the attacking shape" for the game and that "the coaches had a lot to answer for" in their duties.

Winters · 20-02-2020 1:01pm

If you recall BeIn's input to rugby especially Pro14 its interesting to read that Nasser Al-Khelaifi (chairman of BeIN and Paris Saint-Germain president) has been indicted by Switzerland’s attorney general over the award of FIFA World Cup rights.

DelBoy Trotter · 20-02-2020 1:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is worth the watch/listen. I found it enjoyable

arsebiscuits1 · 20-02-2020 1:34pm

Don't watch much of the UK HoR but this was a brilliant ep.

SOB very well spoken here and offered a lot of insights.

Him and Haskell clearly vibe off each other quite well too ha.

Haskell making brilliants points on Social Media and bullying too.

Brilliant piece

20-02-2020 1:46pm

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Don't watch much of the UK HoR but this was a brilliant ep.

SOB very well spoken here and offered a lot of insights.

Him and Haskell clearly vibe off each other quite well too ha.

Haskell making brilliants points on Social Media and bullying too.

Brilliant piece

I thought it was incredibly raw at times - from both Haskell and SOB. I legit thought SOB was going to get upset once or twice.

Captain_Crash · 20-02-2020 3:14pm

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Haskell making brilliants points on Social Media and bullying too.

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed but I like him a lot and more often than not speaks sense. But one thing he said grates me, a lot!

He was taking about CF and the reasons behind her death. Domestic violence was mentioned and he follows it up with "but that's not the point". I just feel had she been a male the narrative would be totally different and a lot more would be made about the charges being faced. If anything, the reaction by public figures to this is doing suicide/mental health/the fight against domestic violence a disservice.

He was very naive and a lot of what he said just isn't accurate. I'm not suggesting he gave deliberate mistruths, he just doesn't know enough about the topic to speak about it in such a manner.

Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest, now back to rugby.

Paul Smeenus · 20-02-2020 3:55pm

Captain_Crash wrote: »

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed but I like him a lot and more often than not speaks sense. But one thing he said grates me, a lot!

He was taking about CF and the reasons behind her death. Domestic violence was mentioned and he follows it up with "but that's not the point". I just feel had she been a male the narrative would be totally different and a lot more would be made about the charges being faced. If anything, the reaction by public figures to this is doing suicide/mental health/the fight against domestic violence a disservice.

He was very naive and a lot of what he said just isn't accurate. I'm not suggesting he gave deliberate mistruths, he just doesn't know about about the topic to speak about it in such a manner.

Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest, now back to rugby.

I'll leave it at one short post, but I agree, and I think if it had been a man who had done to a female partner what Flack allegedly did to her partner, people would be talking about a guilty conscience playing a part in his suicide.

20-02-2020 4:04pm

Captain_Crash wrote: »

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed but I like him a lot and more often than not speaks sense. But one thing he said grates me, a lot!

He was taking about CF and the reasons behind her death. Domestic violence was mentioned and he follows it up with "but that's not the point". I just feel had she been a male the narrative would be totally different and a lot more would be made about the charges being faced. If anything, the reaction by public figures to this is doing suicide/mental health/the fight against domestic violence a disservice.

He was very naive and a lot of what he said just isn't accurate. I'm not suggesting he gave deliberate mistruths, he just doesn't know about about the topic to speak about it in such a manner.

Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest, now back to rugby.

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

I'll leave it at one short post, but I agree, and I think if it had been a man who had done to a female partner what Flack allegedly did to her partner, people would be talking about a guilty conscience playing a part in his suicide.

I don't disagree with either of you and I appreciate that the genders are viewed differently when it comes to domestic abuse. No doubt there is a reason for that, not a fair reason - but perceptions are hard to shift.

That said, whilst Caroline Flack had a case to answer for and probably a serious one - the law decides her guilt and hears her case. Trial by media (as we saw with the Belfast case) does nothing but worsen the entire situation for absolutely everyone involved.

Also - and this is my personal opinion, the media (in particular in the UK) has come to represent really the worst of our prejudices. The ugliness and manipulation is eroding decency and discourse and the fact that absolutely NO contrition was shown over her death by those in the media with blood on their hands tells me that this is all going in one direction.

Domestic assault is bad, but it's not a death penalty offence and yet she was in many ways driven to her death.

We are in much more serious territory than I think people realise.

arsebiscuits1 · 20-02-2020 4:05pm

Captain_Crash wrote: »

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed but I like him a lot and more often than not speaks sense. But one thing he said grates me, a lot!

He was taking about CF and the reasons behind her death. Domestic violence was mentioned and he follows it up with "but that's not the point". I just feel had she been a male the narrative would be totally different and a lot more would be made about the charges being faced. If anything, the reaction by public figures to this is doing suicide/mental health/the fight against domestic violence a disservice.

He was very naive and a lot of what he said just isn't accurate. I'm not suggesting he gave deliberate mistruths, he just doesn't know enough about the topic to speak about it in such a manner.

Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest, now back to rugby.

While Haskell meandered a bit, I thought what he had to say was good.

I do agree on the double standard between men and women in this case.

But a point that he made that was bang on is why are people allowed to be named in upcoming criminal precedings in the UK? It is bizarre.

A basic human right is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. With how far removed people are from others now with Social Media this is rarely adhered to. Anonymity is the most effective way to circumvent this.

To me the media had no right to name her in this (morally, not legally) until the trial was done. And if she was found innocent, her name should never have been published

arsebiscuits1 · 20-02-2020 4:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with either of you and I appreciate that the genders are viewed differently when it comes to domestic abuse. No doubt there is a reason for that, not a fair reason - but perceptions are hard to shift.

That said, whilst Caroline Flack had a case to answer for and probably a serious one - the law decides her guilt and hears her case. Trial by media (as we saw with the Belfast case) does nothing but worsen the entire situation for absolutely everyone involved.

Also - and this is my personal opinion, the media (in particular in the UK) has come to represent really the worst of our prejudices. The ugliness and manipulation is eroding decency and discourse and the fact that absolutely NO contrition was shown over her death by those in the media with blood on their hands tells me that this is all going in one direction.

Domestic assault is bad, but it's not a death penalty offence and yet she was in many ways driven to her death.

We are in much more serious territory than I think people realise.

Social media has conditioned us to react. As a result I think people really struggle to weigh up how bad an act is before casting their judgement forever.

I am in no way excusing domestic violence. I never have and never will. It is flat out wrong.

But I am in favour of giving people second chances. There are crimes which should never be forgiven. But there are crimes which should be. People can learn. They can rehabilitate. They can come out the other side of their crime a new and better person.

But how will we ever grant them that opportunity when there are people out there saying you should be shot/ killed/ worse for what you've done?

Paul Smeenus · 20-02-2020 4:33pm

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

While Haskell meandered a bit, I thought what he had to say was good.

I do agree on the double standard between men and women in this case.

But a point that he made that was bang on is why are people allowed to be named in upcoming criminal precedings in the UK? It is bizarre.

A basic human right is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. With how far removed people are from others now with Social Media this is rarely adhered to. Anonymity is the most effective way to circumvent this.

To me the media had no right to name her in this (morally, not legally) until the trial was done. And if she was found innocent, her name should never have been published

After the trial of Jackson and Olding, there was a full inquiry carried out by a retired judge, John Gillen, about whether this was justifiable, or whether the law should be changed. He made over two hundred recommendations, but anonymity for the accused was not one.

It was weighed up and in they end they decided that it was less important than giving other potential victims the opportunity to come forward. Obviously that's to do with the difficulty of coming forward in these kinds of crimes. So in this instance (if it was applied), the logic would have been that if Flack had assaulted previous partners, they would have been encouraged to come forward as well. Put it this way - anonymity would have prevented Harvey Weinstein being prosecuted the way he is.

errlloyd · 20-02-2020 5:02pm

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Put it this way - anonymity would have prevented Harvey Weinstein being prosecuted the way he is.

Is this because naming Harvey Weinstein after his first accuser came forward encouraged more accusers to come forward (same as that famous gymnastics team doctor and a few others).

Ireland's law is sort of weird tbh. It's interesting to compare the cases of Al Porter, Paddy Jackson and the unamed Irish global sports star who isn't a footballer or golfer.

Al Porter's career was destroyed by a rumour that never even got to the point of a criminal charge or investigation. Virtually no one was calling for him to get a fair trial, cancelled culture ended him straight away. They have confirmed now there will be no charges, but his career will probably never recover.

PJ and SO actually had a relatively easy time of it initially. They played rugby for a full year after the investigation was opened. During their time suspended from club and country, thousands of people were calling for them to play up and until the point they were found guilty. That said if they were from the Republic I suspect they might still be playing in the Republic. I am sure there would be rumours about them, but the mania would never have reached the point where it made them unemployable.

The unamed Irish global sports start who isn't a footballer or golfer remains a huge brand outside Ireland probably. I'd say his professional sporting career is continuing at a pace and provided he has careful control over his endorsements I'd say there are probably still alcohol products etc carrying his brand and his name. I mean, he's probably at a point where silly snapchat videos showing his infidelity are more damaging to his career than the very serious crime he is susected of committing here. I wouldn't speculate on his indentiy of course.

I guess the problem is that sexual crime trials suck. They suck even more when the accused does not deny sexual activity took place. Evidence has been the enemy of prosecutors in various ways, but never more so than rape cases today. Long before forensic science, DNA, digital tracking etc we managed to convinct people beyond a reasonable doubt. But their existence has created a kind of "escalation" where juries have an unreasonable expectation of the level of proof that can be provided.

This is radical. But in the Republic of Ireland I'd like to see rape trials going to the Special Criminal Court. Juries are vastly overrated, and while people think a trial by peers is a good thing, I struggle to understand why.

arsebiscuits1 · 20-02-2020 5:32pm

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

After the trial of Jackson and Olding, there was a full inquiry carried out by a retired judge, John Gillen, about whether this was justifiable, or whether the law should be changed. He made over two hundred recommendations, but anonymity for the accused was not one.

It was weighed up and in they end they decided that it was less important than giving other potential victims the opportunity to come forward. Obviously that's to do with the difficulty of coming forward in these kinds of crimes. So in this instance (if it was applied), the logic would have been that if Flack had assaulted previous partners, they would have been encouraged to come forward as well. Put it this way - anonymity would have prevented Harvey Weinstein being prosecuted the way he is.

Does this not circumvent ones right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

errlloyd · 20-02-2020 5:39pm

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Does this not circumvent ones right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Like many rights the presumption of innocence only really protects you from the state. But even at that the presumption of innocence is suspended in certain cases during an investigation. An example is someone who is on "remand awaiting trial". I mean, we actually full on lock up some people.

Anyone who enjoys not enjoying life very much could read Jon Kraukers book "Missoula, Rape in the College Town". It focussed on data rape in one town in Montana. He emphasizes that the town is not particularly statistically unusual, just had heightened attention for a period before he wrote the book.

** I should say that on the other end, Malcolm Gladwell (who would be quite liberal) spent a good bit of time in his book "talking to strangers" dealing with campus rape and alcohol and did a good job of outlining just how differently two drunk people can perceive the same situation. Given the subtleties of how sexual consent is given (and revoked) he was somewhat sympathetic to some people accused of rape.

Paul Smeenus · 20-02-2020 6:09pm

errlloyd wrote: »

Is this because naming Harvey Weinstein after his first accuser came forward encouraged more accusers to come forward (same as that famous gymnastics team doctor and a few others).

Ireland's law is sort of weird tbh. It's interesting to compare the cases of Al Porter, Paddy Jackson and the unamed Irish global sports star who isn't a footballer or golfer.

Al Porter's career was destroyed by a rumour that never even got to the point of a criminal charge or investigation. Virtually no one was calling for him to get a fair trial, cancelled culture ended him straight away. They have confirmed now there will be no charges, but his career will probably never recover.

PJ and SO actually had a relatively easy time of it initially. They played rugby for a full year after the investigation was opened. During their time suspended from club and country, thousands of people were calling for them to play up and until the point they were found guilty. That said if they were from the Republic I suspect they might still be playing in the Republic. I am sure there would be rumours about them, but the mania would never have reached the point where it made them unemployable.

The unamed Irish global sports start who isn't a footballer or golfer remains a huge brand outside Ireland probably. I'd say his professional sporting career is continuing at a pace and provided he has careful control over his endorsements I'd say there are probably still alcohol products etc carrying his brand and his name. I mean, he's probably at a point where silly snapchat videos showing his infidelity are more damaging to his career than the very serious crime he is susected of committing here. I wouldn't speculate on his indentiy of course.

I guess the problem is that sexual crime trials suck. They suck even more when the accused does not deny sexual activity took place. Evidence has been the enemy of prosecutors in various ways, but never more so than rape cases today. Long before forensic science, DNA, digital tracking etc we managed to convinct people beyond a reasonable doubt. But their existence has created a kind of "escalation" where juries have an unreasonable expectation of the level of proof that can be provided.

This is radical. But in the Republic of Ireland I'd like to see rape trials going to the Special Criminal Court. Juries are vastly overrated, and while people think a trial by peers is a good thing, I struggle to understand why.

Erm... u wot mate?

mfceiling · 20-02-2020 6:42pm

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Social media has conditioned us to react. As a result I think people really struggle to weigh up how bad an act is before casting their judgement forever.

I am in no way excusing domestic violence. I never have and never will. It is flat out wrong.

But I am in favour of giving people second chances. There are crimes which should never be forgiven. But there are crimes which should be. People can learn. They can rehabilitate. They can come out the other side of their crime a new and better person.

But how will we ever grant them that opportunity when there are people out there saying you should be shot/ killed/ worse for what you've done?

There is no second chance anymore. Any slip up, be it that you say the wrong thing or be seen to have done something wrong then you are done for.

Once that twitter mob start there is barely time to apologise and 99% of the time your name is mud.

Jon Ronson covers it well in his book "so you've been publicly shamed".

errlloyd · 20-02-2020 8:27pm

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Erm... u wot mate?

It reads sort of clunkily, I admit that.

I meant that many people thought they should play for Ireland and Ulster until the point a trial found them guilty. In reality they did not play again after they were charged.

They were charged in June 2017 and didn't go to trial till the following February. In the meantime Ulster and Ireland stood them down (they had to train away from the team etc). During that period many people (though not a majority by any stretch of the imagination) felt they should be playing.

prawnsambo · 20-02-2020 8:59pm

errlloyd wrote: »

It reads sort of clunkily, I admit that.

I meant that many people thought they should play for Ireland and Ulster until the point a trial found them guilty. In reality they did not play again after they were charged.

They were charged in June 2017 and didn't go to trial till the following February. In the meantime Ulster and Ireland stood them down (they had to train away from the team etc). During that period many people (though not a majority by any stretch of the imagination) felt they should be playing.

You keep missing the point.

sydthebeat · 20-02-2020 9:03pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

You keep missing the point.

I think I know what he means.

He's saying that the Irish fan was happy for them to play up until the point at which they may have been found guilty... And then that would have been reason enough for them to stop.

I'm not an English expert, so I'm not sure what tense that even is

prawnsambo · 20-02-2020 9:06pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think I know what he means.

He's saying that the Irish fan was happy for them to play up until the point at which they may have been found guilty... And then that was reason enough for them to stop.

Maybe. But he's posted that phrase in two different ways that both seem to indicate that they were found guilty.

Former Former · 20-02-2020 9:07pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

Maybe. But he's posted that phrase in two different ways that both seem to indicate that they were found guilty.

Ah come on, of course he doesn't think that.

General Rugby Discussion II

Comments