IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

prawnsambo

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.

Just me?

For the sake of everyone else's sanity, I'll accept that it's not a denial. It's not actually that important in the greater scheme of things. And yes, it could depend on what they were asked.

I'm mostly scratching my head as to how those two contradictory messages can be reconciled given that there are so few people involved.

phog

I recently saw a tweet from a journalist stating that he never calls the stadium in Lansdowne Road by it's official name in his paper, his reasoning is that if the stadium sponsor want's their name to appear in his paper then they should take out adverstising.

I know that journalist doesn't represent the whole print media before anyone jumps down my throat but I think it's an odd position to have.

Hurrache

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?

phog

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?

It's a regional paper so he probably covers more than one sport but I didn't interrogate him on his stance.

Good for him, it'll always be Lansdowne to me anyway.

Hurrache

Yeah, I didn't expect you to, I meant more if he can be seen applying the same logic to his other reports. If he tweeted it it's there for the public record, who was it?

prawnsambo

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Good for him, it'll always be Lansdowne to me anyway.

I admire a man of his word. Kudos.

Searching for aviva in the forum Rugby in posts by Rowan Squeaking Baton
0 Results (0.0002 seconds)

No results found for: "aviva"

Zzippy

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.

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...

aloooof

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...

It's not bad, but it's no "saucepans hanging out his arse". :pac:

prawnsambo

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...

Definitely this one. The feathered kind, if you need to be sure.

I think it's a Meath expression, I first heard it from someone from there.

irishbucsfan

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

prawnsambo

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

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.

irishbucsfan

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.

That was last year

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.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That was last year

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

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.

Well the idea this is a conflict between print/online media has been fairly dispelled this week. Pat McCarry at joe.ie was saying on THY that sometimes the online guys already go into the same huddle if they're willing to hold their reporting until Monday.

But no clarity about what the article was. That'll never come out if it hasn't by now, noone saw it in time to grab it clearly. 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

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.

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

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?

No

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No

Pithy :rolleyes:

prawnsambo

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?

Trojan

Jaysus. Don't mind us, folks.

irishbucsfan

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?

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).

prawnsambo

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).

This is what balls.ie said:

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.

That's what I referred to in my original post. All that's said there is that they quoted the coach. Nothing about blowing it up and making a major story of it. And do you seriously expect me to believe that journalists don't show bad faith at times? We have a (still) current spat between Luke FitzGerald and Paul Kimmage for exactly that from something Kimmage did a few years back.

Now maybe you can spin this into a narrative that the IRFU acted capriciously and unilaterally in this instance. But the fact that the huddle went ahead and as Balls.ie reported: "The exclusion of the journalist, and the decision to carry on with the huddle created tension among rugby writers."

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

prawnsambo wrote: »

Nothing about blowing it up and making a major story of it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

No it didn't say that. And yes you did. But this is a year down the road and if (as you say) it was reported at the time, why isn't that referenced in the article?

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.

I didn't make up anything. I suggested a hypothesis and clearly stated it as that. I did not (as you seem to be implying) make up a story and present it as fact.

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.

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. And then ignoring it when another journalist made an error. Yeah. I'm convinced.

irishbucsfan

I called it a "potential" story. Have a read.

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.

This is exactly what did happen and is exactly what is reported by balls.ie

prawnsambo wrote: »

And then ignoring it when another journalist made an error. Yeah. I'm convinced.

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:

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.

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

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.

I'm still talking about the episode in 2017. Apart from the snippet in bold above about the current exclusion. I'm assuming the two journalists in each situation are different. Hence the use of the word 'another'.

Edit: I think I've found the offending article.

rebel girl 15

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.

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.

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.

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.

prawnsambo

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.

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.

irishbucsfan

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.

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

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.

Firstly, that's the kind of coverage we need and rely on. And Cummiskey is to be lauded for it. But if, as has been suggested, the IRFU can act in a capricious and vindictive manner, their continued lack of any kind of direct response to Cummiskey is notable. It's not as though he's stopped reporting on rugby since then.

typhoony

There's a few unsavoury actions by the IRFU, the media is right to get on their case, just read the tagdh McElroy interview and he was very harshly dealt with by the IRFU, whatever ever about their rules for senior pro's here was a young lad wanting to play for his country in the u20's told almost when he was about to board the plane that he couldn't go, it was very nasty action by the IRFU

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Firstly, that's the kind of coverage we need and rely on. And Cummiskey is to be lauded for it. But if, as has been suggested, the IRFU can act in a capricious and vindictive manner, their continued lack of any kind of direct response to Cummiskey is notable. It's not as though he's stopped reporting on rugby since then.

“He’s not a wife beater your honour, sure he came home drunk last Sunday and there’s no evidence he laid a finger on her that time, so how could he ever have done it on any other occasion?”

Cummiskey cones across as extremely sensitive to this issue. I’d imagine he has good reason.

rebel girl 15

typhoony wrote: »

There's a few unsavoury actions by the IRFU, the media is right to get on their case, just read the tagdh McElroy interview and he was very harshly dealt with by the IRFU, whatever ever about their rules for senior pro's here was a young lad wanting to play for his country in the u20's told almost when he was about to board the plane that he couldn't go, it was very nasty action by the IRFU

I read that article as well, disgusting treatment of a young player - delighted he is doing so well with Saracans. How dare a person tell a young man like that who was about to fulfill a lifelong dream that he couldn't

Gotta say, the thoughts going through my head reading these kinds of pieces are "I really hope Schmidt and Gavin don't just say fcuk it and take a less hassle jobs".

I don't know if that's fair or justified but I'm much more invested in Dublin and Ireland than I am in the relationship between their coaches and the media.

I'm glad this article really added some value to the conversation though. Seriously.

irishbucsfan

Dunphy is a nobody on this issue. In fact his own checkered history with print journalists, albeit not greatly known, is a great example of why groups like RWI and the NUJ are important to encouraging standards of decency amongst the press.

Heard rumours that Gerry Thornley was seen serving tea and coffee to IRFU press officers at a sit-down yesterday (genuinely not a joke!), so I'd hope that means they're on the right path now to sorting it out, and not that Thornley is looking at alternative career paths.

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

Gotta say, the thoughts going through my head reading these kinds of pieces are "I really hope Schmidt and Gavin don't just say fcuk it and take a less hassle jobs".

I don't know if that's fair or justified but I'm much more invested in Dublin and Ireland than I am in the relationship between their coaches and the media.

I'm glad this article really added some value to the conversation though. Seriously.

There should be a health warning with this post advising posters that the link is to the Indo

Former Former

Joe won't quit over something Eamon Dunphy said on 2fm. I think we're safe enough there.

And Jim Gavin is being a total dick on this issue. He deserves every bit of stick he gets.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Heard rumours that Gerry Thornley was seen serving tea and coffee to IRFU press officers at a sit-down yesterday (genuinely not a joke!), so I'd hope that means they're on the right path now to sorting it out, and not that Thornley is looking at alternative career paths.

Ethel the tea lady is unmasked at last.

Zzippy

Former Former wrote: »

Joe won't quit over something Eamon Dunphy said on 2fm. I think we're safe enough there.

And Jim Gavin is being a total dick on this issue. He deserves every bit of stick he gets.

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.

Former Former

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.

People want the media (and Cummiskey in particular) to be in the wrong because they don't give a f**k about them, and in some cases, have active axes on the grinding stone. Remember the abuse Cummiskey got on boards.ie for reporting that Munster were interested in TOH?? Not that TOH wanted to move, not that TOH should move, all he said was that Munster were interested - and the Connacht fans lost their sh*t for reporting a story, not because it was bad journalism or that he "pushing an agenda", but because you didn't like what you were hearing. So now, people don't even bother reading what he says, it's just dismissed as 'typical Wummiskey'.

If people want to believe IRFU are in the right, Joe is being hounded by a click-hungry media desperately trying to stay relevant and Jim Gavin is not a bit of an arse, fine, but at least take a minute to consider why you think that.

Zzippy

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.

Agree with all of this. As well as that though, media bans have been a thing in GAA since time immemorial. Just nobody really cares if it's Westmeath or Antrim.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

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.

People want the media (and Cummiskey in particular) to be in the wrong because they don't give a f**k about them, and in some cases, have active axes on the grinding stone. Remember the abuse Cummiskey got on boards.ie for reporting that Munster were interested in TOH?? Not that TOH wanted to move, not that TOH should move, all he said was that Munster were interested - and the Connacht fans lost their sh*t for reporting a story, not because it was bad journalism or that he "pushing an agenda", but because you didn't like what you were hearing. So now, people don't even bother reading what he says, it's just dismissed as 'typical Wummiskey'.

If people want to believe IRFU are in the right, Joe is being hounded by a click-hungry media desperately trying to stay relevant and Jim Gavin is not a bit of an arse, fine, but at least take a minute to consider why you think that.

I think Cummisky is being a dick. Not because i love the IRFU or Schmidt or whoever, but because he is being a dick.

I have no problem telling the difference between journalism and agenda driven dickishness.

I've also no problem calling out players and coaches and have done so, just like most of the 90% you are referring to.

Maybe the 90% have a different idea about journalistic integrity.

Zzippy

Former Former wrote: »

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.

I think the RTE dvd thing is ridiculous and reflects badly on the Dublin management team. I don't agree on the Connolly incident. The players are amateurs too. There is a disciplinary process within the GAA to deal with transgressions. Certain pundits and media outlets have dragged certain players reputations through the mud after certain incidents, while ignoring others. Trial by media for amateur players who have to go to work the next day and listen to themselves being talked about in that way is disgraceful. It's TV clickbait - the pundits are paid to generate as much controversy and publicity as possible = more viewers = more revenue. While said players they are condemning are not paid a penny.

Also, the whole Kimmage sniping at Gavin for his attitude to the press - he can FRO. Gavin has no obligation to act how Kimmage thinks he should act. Just because he doesn't jump around on the sideline, give loads of juicy quotes in press conferences, and condemn his players for cynical play, Kimmage thinks he's an arse. Ewan McKenna usually jumps in to support Kimmage, with his delusions of grandeur about being a socialist crusader.

Journalists are paid to write about the sport. We expect them to have a bit of rugby knowledge, be able to analyse tactics and teams and give us reasoned analysis. If they get the hump because they're not spoon fed that by coaches, maybe they're in the wrong job.

Yeah_Right

Former Former wrote: »

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.

People want the media (and Cummiskey in particular) to be in the wrong because they don't give a f**k about them, and in some cases, have active axes on the grinding stone. Remember the abuse Cummiskey got on boards.ie for reporting that Munster were interested in TOH?? Not that TOH wanted to move, not that TOH should move, all he said was that Munster were interested - and the Connacht fans lost their sh*t for reporting a story, not because it was bad journalism or that he "pushing an agenda", but because you didn't like what you were hearing. So now, people don't even bother reading what he says, it's just dismissed as 'typical Wummiskey'.

If people want to believe IRFU are in the right, Joe is being hounded by a click-hungry media desperately trying to stay relevant and Jim Gavin is not a bit of an arse, fine, but at least take a minute to consider why you think that.

Firstly, I don't know much about GAA or really follow it until it gets to the QF stage of the All-Ireland so I can't really comment on Gavin and whats happening there but what is wrong with getting DVDs of your opponents' matches?

What is your opinion on what Cummiskey tweeted about JS? Fair? Balanced? Accurate?

As for Connacht fans losing their ****. No one cares about what they think

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

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Cummisky is being a dick. Not because i love the IRFU or Schmidt or whoever, but because he is being a dick.

I have no problem telling the difference between journalism and agenda driven dickishness.

I've also no problem calling out players and coaches and have done so, just like most of the 90% you are referring to.

Maybe the 90% have a different idea about journalistic integrity.

A journalist being a dick and Joe Schmidt being a dick are not mutually exclusive. Both were true yesterday.

But if Cummiskey has an agenda (I'm not sure what), then what about the IRFU? They are the ones who want to be seen only in a positive light and they are the ones who are so keen to shut down any negative questions or coverage, even in the face of some pretty embarassing and downright outrageous missteps in recent months.

I would much rather have the media asking awkward questions than just be relying on what the IRFU deigns to allow us to hear.

Yeah_Right

How was JS being a dick yesterday? I don't see that at all.

Former Former

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Firstly, I don't know much about GAA or really follow it until it gets to the QF stage of the All-Ireland so I can't really comment on Gavin and whats happening there but what is wrong with getting DVDs of your opponents' matches?

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.

Gavin was just looking for a reason to pull his co-operation. He doesn't actually care about the DVDs.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What is your opinion on what Cummiskey tweeted about JS? Fair? Balanced? Accurate?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106226123&postcount=8954

Yeah_Right wrote: »

As for Connacht fans losing their ****. No one cares about what they think

I care. Deeply. :pac:

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106226123&postcount=8954

Joe didn't even get a little bit tetchy. Did you hear the audio?

Former Former

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Joe didn't even get a little bit tetchy. Did you hear the audio?

Yep, watched the video live. My reaction was "did he really just say that?"