Ireland Team Talk X: The Long Hard Road to a Semi. MOD WARNING POSTS #1, #1474, #5707

Bazzo

I just hope it's not settled and that if it goes to judgement we get something sensible. I think a marker really needs to be laid down in Ireland for frivolous claiming very soon.

schmoo2k

Just watched the NZ v SA game a second time -

I would be resting Devin T. and POM after the first game and then targeting the SA lineout, kicks to the corner ROG style, all day long...

Exclamation Marc

sydthebeat wrote: »

But what bugs me so much is the complete lack of personal responsibility appropriated by judges in some cases. Now I know these cases haven't been judged yet, but how can someone who pays to go WATCH a rugby game, and then doesn't WATCH said rugby game and gets hit with a very obvious large flying object.. claim to be in some way free from responsibility for any injuries caused.

These people are clearly taking their Instagram selfies, give them a break. The perfect picture doesn't take itself and they shouldn't have to take into consideration the match itself, it's all about the instas, the game is irrelevant.

If they didn't get the insta pic, we all know the game factually didn't happen.

Eod100

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Don’t really care

Play centre are closed down, social events are closed down, parks closing....kids have less and less do to and now this scu*bags are going after sports events

They should be named and shamed

If it gets to court they would be named. I'd be surprised if they get that far. Surely being hit by a ball is an inherent risk of going to a game. And lack of netting etc like in hurling or football say means you should be aware of the risk.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

If it gets to court they would be named. I'd be surprised if they get that far. Surely being hit by a ball is an inherent risk of going to a game. And lack of netting etc like in hurling or football say means you should be aware of the risk.

You're talking as if common sense may prevail.

Eod100

Kailyn Jolly Mascot wrote: »

You're talking as if common sense may prevail.

If IRFU settle it would surely only encourage others. Not ideal but they have the cash to fight it. I'd take incurring legal costs over paying claims like these but maybe they will have to weigh it up.

Squidgy Black

Eod100 wrote: »

If IRFU settle it would surely only encourage others. Not ideal but they have the cash to fight it. I'd take incurring legal costs over paying claims like these but maybe they will have to weigh it up.

It'll go through the IRFU/Aviva's insurance. IRFU won't be paying out directly for anything involved.

salmocab

Eod100 wrote: »

If IRFU settle it would surely only encourage others. Not ideal but they have the cash to fight it. I'd take incurring legal costs over paying claims like these but maybe they will have to weigh it up.

Instead of hoping to catch the ball from s kick we will be sticking our faces in the way and closing our eyes.

Former Former

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It'll go through the IRFU/Aviva's insurance. IRFU won't be paying out directly for anything involved.

... Until their insurance renewal notice hits the mat

stephen_n

Bazzo wrote: »

I just hope it's not settled and that if it goes to judgement we get something sensible. I think a marker really needs to be laid down in Ireland for frivolous claiming very soon.

If you get 40k for being stuck in a lift for 40 minutes, I think a smack in the face with a ball must be worth at least 50k.

swiwi_

Not only will they have to prove the ball actually hit them but also that it caused injury. No doubt their claim will include “headache, unable to concentrate, feeling down” etc all the sort of wishy washy symptoms you can’t easily disprove.

Eod100

Fair few of the Irish lads knocking about that comedy yoke in Dublin tonight. Looking in fine fettle

Shefwedfan

Eod100 wrote: »

Fair few of the Irish lads knocking about that comedy yoke in Dublin tonight. Looking in fine fettle

Tel; them to get home to bed and quit the messing......


If they want to stay out when no dwarf throwing :P

Eod100

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Tel; them to get home to bed and quit the messing......


If they want to stay out when no dwarf throwing :P

Ha presume it's a sponsorship thing cos it's sponsored by Vodafone. Didn't see any of them with a pint either tbf :P

Burkie1203

swiwi_ wrote: »

Not only will they have to prove the ball actually hit them but also that it caused injury. No doubt their claim will include “headache, unable to concentrate, feeling down” etc all the sort of wishy washy symptoms you can’t easily disprove.

I was holding a pint in one hand, and was using my phone to update my instagram with the other while chatting to my friends. There was some game taking place in the field nearby

errlloyd

I almost always hate personal injury claims. But I also don't love it when people have a pop at them without knowing details. It's not hard to come up with a hypothetical situation where a personal injury claim arising from this situation is reasonable. A fan entering could easily get hit by a ball during in a warm up in a way that was not expected and given it was a warm up the fan didn't see. If that caused them to fall and get injured and as a result have financial difficulty I don't see why we can't all accept that it is the sort of event stadium liaibility insurance is designed for.

My problem is courts, lawyers and insurers having misaligned interests which cause poor investigations of the facts of these cases to still get awards. I also think Ireland needs to introduce legislation on soft tissue injuries to stop people profiting from taking these cases. In Ireland the average whiplash payout is like 20,000, in the UK it's 4,000 and in Bulgaria Whiplash isn't recognised as a condition. Smh.

Exclamation Marc

errlloyd wrote: »

A fan entering could easily get hit by a ball during in a warm up in a way that was not expected and given it was a warm up the fan didn't see. If that caused them to fall and get injured and as a result have financial difficulty I don't see why we can't all accept that it is the sort of event stadium liaibility insurance is designed for.

I disagree on this as I believe stray balls should be expected once you enter the pitch area and its a risk attendees should and must agree to but the key point I want to make is more so that any (successful) claims due to stray balls could start stadiums and/or insurance companies requiring stadiums to 'protect' the crowd from future incidents (nets, guards, distance etc.) which could be hugely detrimental to the live game.

More so it sets a dangerous precedent and once one sues and is successful, more will come irrespective of validity, hoping they'll get settled leading to a money drain.

errlloyd

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I disagree on this as I believe stray balls should be expected once you enter the pitch area?

What is your limit on this? The highest tier of the West Stand also need to expect it? Does someone at a corporate event in the Aviva midweek 4 days before the match need to expect something?

Occasionally unlikely events happen that have really ****ty consequences. That is literally the reason liability insurance exists. If they're very infrequent freak occurences we should have no problem absorbing the costs. If baseball cricket golf etc can still proceed without too many nets I think Rugby will be alright.

Exclamation Marc

errlloyd wrote: »

What is your limit on this? The highest tier of the West Stand also need to expect it? Does someone at a corporate event in the Aviva midweek 4 days before the match need to expect something?

Common sense obviously. If you walk into the seating area during warm up or the game, you could get hit by a ball.

Second comment is a bit stupid and obvious so ill ignore that one.

errlloyd wrote: »

Occasionally unlikely events happen that have really ****ty consequences. That is literally the reason liability insurance exists. If they're very infrequent freak occurences we should have no problem absorbing the costs. If baseball cricket golf etc can still proceed without too many nets I think Rugby will be alright.

I get the need for insurance for freak occurrences. I genuinely do. If say a stand falls through, a gate collapses or you get injured by genuine avoidable recklessness in the stadium by the owners, that's fine and a freak incident.

A ball hitting you at a stadium is not a freak occurrence.

You pay out one of these claims, and the floodgates open. Suddenly some people hit by balls may have a think that pursuing a claim is worth it because there's a legal precedent.

swiwi_

errlloyd wrote: »

I almost always hate personal injury claims. But I also don't love it when people have a pop at them without knowing details. It's not hard to come up with a hypothetical situation where a personal injury claim arising from this situation is reasonable. A fan entering could easily get hit by a ball during in a warm up in a way that was not expected and given it was a warm up the fan didn't see. If that caused them to fall and get injured and as a result have financial difficulty I don't see why we can't all accept that it is the sort of event stadium liaibility insurance is designed for.

My problem is courts, lawyers and insurers having misaligned interests which cause poor investigations of the facts of these cases to still get awards. I also think Ireland needs to introduce legislation on soft tissue injuries to stop people profiting from taking these cases. In Ireland the average whiplash payout is like 20,000, in the UK it's 4,000 and in Bulgaria Whiplash isn't recognised as a condition. Smh.

Yeah just nah. The very idea that the IRFU should be legally responsible and that there is even a case is risible. Unless you genuinely believe the IRFU is negligent for not having put up nets round the stadium. Maybe the IRFU could even countersue the player concerned.

(I see it’s even made the news in NZ.)

irishbucsfan

errlloyd is completely right though. Without knowledge of the cases its just pointless getting all riled up. The fact there's never been a single claim like this won in Ireland but suddenly there are two cases being reported on in British media at a time when the insurance industry are trying very hard to paint a very specific picture may not be a coincidence at all

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

errlloyd is completely right though. Without knowledge of the cases its just pointless getting all riled up. The fact there's never been a single claim like this won in Ireland but suddenly there are two cases being reported on in British media at a time when the insurance industry are trying very hard to paint a very specific picture may not be a coincidence at all

I don’t think anyone needs to paint any specific picture, claims here are ridiculous. The payouts have no relationship to the nature of the injury. The insurance industry is far from blame free, but the legal sector is the real issue with these claims.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

I don’t think anyone needs to paint any specific picture, claims here are ridiculous. The payouts have no relationship to the nature of the injury. The insurance industry is far from blame free, but the legal sector is the real issue with these claims.

I put the blame squarely on insurers. A significant % of legitimate claims are never taken and the reason a venue has to pay an astronomical amount of insurance isn't down to the relative risk of the insurer having to pay out, it's down to the fact that the insurer can make more profit by instead covering 50 x 35 year old women.

Insurers have a pool of capital that they insure from at a ratio set by the regulator. They prioritise policies with the best risk profile and if a venue wants to get access to a policy, the price they pay for cover is calculated by the derivative value set by most profitable policies, not be the inherent risk.

This is primarily where the silly numbers are coming from.

Former Former

Claims like this that are settled don't make the news, so there might have been loads of such claims for all we know.

If these people genuinely suffered injury, then that's fine. That's what personal injury claims are supposed to be about.

My guess is that whoever leaked this story would only do so if it benefitted them them to have it out in the public domain. It wouldn't benefit the IRFU or Aviva Stadium to have a story about a spectator getting seriously injured at a match, so I would imagine the injuries are somewhat less than major.

twinytwo

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

That game today was also the most inaccurate game I’ve seen NZ play. Some of the errors were forced but the majority weren’t.

I think NZ will win fairly comfortably come the WC.

I really expect us to look like a completely different team to that in the 6 nations. I don’t think we showed a single thing bar the odd old set piece move the whole tournament. I strongly believe we were cycling to be in peak condition for Japan. I just cannot foresee how you can go from the performance level against NZ to that against Wales. They were poles apart in even the basic things like intensity and work rate.

I said it after the lions and I will say it again..BB will cost nz the wc.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Claims like this that are settled don't make the news, so there might have been loads of such claims for all we know.

Or there could be hardly any.

My guess is that whoever leaked this story would only do so if it benefitted them them to have it out in the public domain. It wouldn't benefit the IRFU or Aviva Stadium to have a story about a spectator getting seriously injured at a match, so I would imagine the injuries are somewhat less than major.

I think you’re missing another party who it greatly benefits to have stories about exaggerated or fraudulent claims in the media. Could easily be the same place the other recent infamous story about a ridiculous claim originated.

D14Rugby

errlloyd wrote: »

What is your limit on this? The highest tier of the West Stand also need to expect it? Does someone at a corporate event in the Aviva midweek 4 days before the match need to expect something?

Occasionally unlikely events happen that have really ****ty consequences. That is literally the reason liability insurance exists. If they're very infrequent freak occurences we should have no problem absorbing the costs. If baseball cricket golf etc can still proceed without too many nets I think Rugby will be alright.

There shouldn't be a cost. You're at a stadium literally to watch the ball, if it hits you in the face be it in the middle of the game or the warm up its nobody's fault but your own for not paying attention.

Mr Tickle

D14Rugby wrote: »

There shouldn't be a cost. You're at a stadium literally to watch the ball, if it hits you in the face be it in the middle of the game or the warm up its nobody's fault but your own for not paying attention.

In all likelihood this is going to turn out to be the kind of nonsense claim that we all expect it to be. There is a small chance it is the one in a million case that would be acceptable.
For instance, I was in Tomond Park a few years ago in the terraces behind the posts. during the warm-up the kickers were practicing. the crowd hadn't filled up yet so the balls were landing on the steps or hitting the metal bars and bouncing back towards the pitch quite fast. We actually joked at the time that it was pretty dodgy. There was a reasonable chance that someone could get a slap in the back of the head and fall down the steps. Maybe a smaller person or someone caught off balance.
If that resulted in a broken bone or a wound that needed stitches, and given the attitudes in the stands that year, I have no trouble in imagining someone trying to sue Ian Keatley

D14Rugby

Mr Tickle wrote: »

In all likelihood this is going to turn out to be the kind of nonsense claim that we all expect it to be. There is a small chance it is the one in a million case that would be acceptable.
For instance, I was in Tomond Park a few years ago in the terraces behind the posts. during the warm-up the kickers were practicing. the crowd hadn't filled up yet so the balls were landing on the steps or hitting the metal bars and bouncing back towards the pitch quite fast. We actually joked at the time that it was pretty dodgy. There was a reasonable chance that someone could get a slap in the back of the head and fall down the steps. Maybe a smaller person or someone caught off balance.
If that resulted in a broken bone or a wound that needed stitches, and given the attitudes in the stands that year, I have no trouble in imagining someone trying to sue Ian Keatley

Yeah but even in cases like that in my experience 9/10 times, if not more, if the player that did it is aware of what happened or is made aware, the "victim" will have them calling round to their house with some tickets or a jersey or something and for me that's plenty. When you go to watch an event of any type you have to take a certain amount of risk upon yourself and these days all that means is occasionally a ball coming your way really and if that's too much for you then the solution is simple, don't go. If you're willing to sue for something like that you're not a fan anyway and in my opinion you're not welcome at games.

Exclamation Marc

D14Rugby wrote: »

Yeah but even in cases like that in my experience 9/10 times, if not more, if the player that did it is aware of what happened or is made aware, the "victim" will have them calling round to their house with some tickets or a jersey or something and for me that's plenty. When you go to watch an event of any type you have to take a certain amount of risk upon yourself and these days all that means is occasionally a ball coming your way really and if that's too much for you then the solution is simple, don't go. If you're willing to sue for something like that you're not a fan anyway and in my opinion you're not welcome at games.

Exactly. If you allow one successful claim then every single ball that goes into the crowd becomes a potential claim because people will know that they may be successful. Suddenly you've dozens of potential claims per game because the floodgates were opened.

I'd have no issue deep down if someone who became seriously injured due to no fault of their own was recompensed but there are too many opportunists and scumbags in society who'll see the dollar signs every time a ball heads their way if a claim is successful and suddenly ticket prices will rise because of premiums rising if more claims come in.

D14Rugby

Just for reference Sligo Rovers said this not too long ago.

"Our public insurance premiumhas gone up from €15,000 in 2016 to €60,000 in 2018.
Our first quote for 2019 was €86,000 (despite being claims free for four years) and only after much work, diligent persuasion and risk containment steps, did we get that premium down to €58,000. Although this feels like a result, it is simply not sustainable."

Now their ground is only about 5k capacity, in great condition and if their costs are rising that much with no claims imagine what the situation is at Lansdowne Road and imagine what it'd be like if every ball into the crowd was a potential claim, insurance costs would sky rocket.

ionadnapokot

Demented Moles Squad
https://dementedmole.com/2019/07/29/selecting-irelands-rwc-squad/

Headlines- Kleyn over Beirne, McGrath over Killer, Ruddock over Nordi, Cooney and 2 OH with Addison and Conway as utilities.

My only changes would be Beirne and Chris Farrell over Addison.

Former Former

That is a ridiculously long read to arrive at a pretty mundane conclusion.

Kleyn over Beirne would generate a LOT of media commentary; Beirne is a big favourite and parachuting a Saffer in ahead of him would really be kicking the hornet's nest. That said, the big question mark over Beirne has always been his ability to mix it with powerful packs; if it came to a question of who was lining out against the Boks or NZ in a quarter final, I'd go with Kleyn.

I think he's right that we'll only bring two OHs.

aloooof

Former Former wrote: »

That is a ridiculously long read to arrive at a pretty mundane conclusion.

Kleyn over Beirne would generate a LOT of media commentary; Beirne is a big favourite and parachuting a Saffer in ahead of him would really be kicking the hornet's nest. That said, the big question mark over Beirne has always been his ability to mix it with powerful packs; if it came to a question of who was lining out against the Boks or NZ in a quarter final, I'd go with Kleyn.

I think he's right that we'll only bring two OHs.

Haven't read the article, but is Roux injured? Surely he has more credit in the bank if you want that type of player rather than bringing Kleyn?

thomond2006

Beirne's versatility could sneak him in. I imagine he'll see time at 6 during the warmups.

sydthebeat

thomond2006 wrote: »

Beirne's versatility could sneak him in. I imagine he'll see time at 6 during the warmups.

we would already have a lock who could play 6 with Henderson in there

Joe has always shown a preference for a powerful tight side lock with his constant selection of Roux... and Kleyn is a step up on Roux IMO

i find with Beirne and POM on the pitch at the same time they tend to cancel each other out, as they have very similar impacts on games.

the warm up matches will be the big decider i think, and the one who his their targets will be the one selected.

thomond2006

Fair point syd. Joe has selected Roux in the past when it wasn't expected.

Eod100

Is Kleyn eligible for the warm up games then?

aloooof

Eod100 wrote: »

Is Kleyn eligible for the warm up games then?

Yep, just qualified in time for them.

Having Klyne in the mix gives us a badly needed bearded option in the second row. I know Henderson tried but I've never seen a more obvious glue on beard since the stoning scene in the Life of Brian.

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

Having Klyne in the mix gives us a badly needed bearded option in the second row. I know Henderson tried but I've never seen a more obvious glue on beard since the stoning scene in the Life of Brian.

Good point. The second row just simply doesn't have enough hair. Look at the ABs, the Boks, Wales and England; the 2nd rows have manes and/or facial hair.
Even AWJ knows that despite the fact he's losing the battle with male pattern baldness, he can't shave his head unless he grows a full beard. Toner really lets the side down there. He needs to follow Fardy's lead. Henderson should emulate Rettalick and go with the lip-slug. Not sure if James Ryan can grow facial hair.

Former Former

aloooof wrote: »

Haven't read the article, but is Roux injured? Surely he has more credit in the bank if you want that type of player rather than bringing Kleyn?

Roux was omitted from the training squad, possibly because of injury, and I don't think he's been subsequently added, so unless there are a couple of injuries he would seem to be out of contention.

salmocab

Former Former wrote: »

Roux was omitted from the training squad, possibly because of injury, and I don't think he's been subsequently added, so unless there are a couple of injuries he would seem to be out of contention.

Which would certainly point to joe being keen on Kleyn. Roux has been a solid performer for Ireland do certainly hasn’t played his way out.

aloooof

salmocab wrote: »

Which would certainly point to joe being keen on Kleyn. Roux has been a solid performer for Ireland do certainly hasn’t played his way out.

Add to that, when Ryan and Beirne started together against Wales, the lineout misfired badly. I don't they much great experience of calling the lineout. One of Dev or Henderson will likely always be on the field in any case, but it may reduce Beirne's chances further.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

Add to that, when Ryan and Beirne started together against Wales, the lineout misfired badly. I don't they much great experience of calling the lineout. One of Dev or Henderson will likely always be on the field in any case, but it may reduce Beirne's chances further.

Beirne is probably 5th choice at this stage. Dev, Ryan, Henderson, Dillane would all be ahead of him. Roux too, if he's fit.

Former Former

salmocab wrote: »

Which would certainly point to joe being keen on Kleyn. Roux has been a solid performer for Ireland do certainly hasn’t played his way out.

I'm not sure he played his way IN either though. Being solid might not be enough when there are four guys competing for one spot.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Beirne is probably 5th choice at this stage. Dev, Ryan, Henderson, Dillane would all be ahead of him. Roux too, if he's fit.

thats not reflected in the bookies

beirne 1/5
dillane 13/10
roux 23/10

kleyn (not listed)

edit: got a price of 5/2 for Kleyn..... the furthest out odds wise, but definitely closer on paper

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats not reflected in the bookies

beirne 1/5
dillane 13/10
roux 23/10

kleyn (not listed)

Reflected by selection tho, and an objective assessment of the team. He's not a better lock than those players imo, and not a better 6 than the options there.

aloooof

Just got an email from MRSC about tickets to the away warm-up games. Tickets for Twickenham seem horrendously expensive.

As Ireland continue preparations for the upcoming Rugby World Cup, Munster Rugby is pleased to announce that tickets are available to purchase from your account for the games below.The number of tickets available is limited and will be sold on a first come first served basis.

England – Twickenham – Saturday 24th August (K.O. 3pm) .Prices €91.00 each or €103.00 each

Wales – Principality Stadium – Saturday 31st August (K.O. 2.30pm) Pricing €69.00 each or €46.00 each

PTH2009

Who have the TV rights for the warm up games?