A whiff of Cordite

[CiaranIrl]

Interesting conversation on the topic on Monday's Off the Ball. About half way through on the link below. Ruaidhri O'Connor seemed a bit contrite to me. Talked about an error where 'the wrong name was put in an article'. Not sure what that's all about. He was barred from attending the press conference in Paris.

http://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/Off_ ... over_Italy

[LeRouxIsPHat]

So if you “have no issue with journalists asking important questions...” but you want to control how and when those questions are asked- is that it? That doesn’t wash. I’ve done plenty of raging at the actions of some hacks, but the personality or knowledge of journalists has very little to do with this.

There were legitimate questions to be asked of Best attending the trial. Not to ask those questions- and press for a real answer- would have been a abrogation of responsibility by the press. There was absolutely no legal issue with answering the question. The proof of that was Best doing just that and killing the story after the match. If he’d been let do that in the first instance we’d have had the same effect. No Joe decided he didn’t like the question- but he doesn’t get to control everything- and the reputation of Irish rugby is not his property.

And I’ve absolutely no sympathy for Browne- poor didums, having to answer some hard questions on Grobler. To be clear- I’ve no problem with the defence of the South African and his signing by Munster. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t once again a legitimate public interest. So if the IRFU think they’ve a right to control all comment and the channels for that, it’s well in its way to IOC levels of hubris.

Dave and Molloyjh have already answered this very well but it's nonsense.

No, I don't want the IRFU to control when these questions are asked, I want the journalists to have the cop on and respect to ask them through the appropriate channels. Joe is not an appropriate channel, he's a rugby coach who was announcing a team to journalists who had already been told not to ask about the trial. They could have rung or emailed the IRFU, they could have stayed in reception until they were answered...but no...someone put Joe on the spot with no respect for the sensitivities of the case and 5 days later the judge has to mention Best in court.

It would be helpful if you read posts properly. I'm not suggesting Browne shouldn't have been asked about Grobler, I'm suggesting that hijacking a sponsorship event was not the appropriate time to do it. Aviva pay a lot of money to help fund Irish Rugby, but the headlines the next day were all about Grobler.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Interesting conversation on the topic on Monday's Off the Ball. About half way through on the link below. Ruaidhri O'Connor seemed a bit contrite to me. Talked about an error where 'the wrong name was put in an article'. Not sure what that's all about. He was barred from attending the press conference in Paris.

http://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/Off_ ... over_Italy

That reminds me that the Indo had the story about the French players being interviewed by Police up yesterday afternoon and it was still up last night despite it being confirmed that no crime had taken place several hours earlier. It's a rag and anything to take them down a peg or two is fine in my book.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Started listening to that and had to turn it off because of Ger Gilroy talking to Furlong.

"When that happens 3 or 4 minutes into the game are you like 'oh balls'?"

[CiaranIrl]

Started listening to that and had to turn it off because of Ger Gilroy talking to Furlong.

"When that happens 3 or 4 minutes into the game are you like 'oh balls'?"

Yeah, it's pretty awful. Eddie O'Sullivan is usually pretty good though, so I skip through the cr@p.

Indo is appalling though.

[riocard911]

As podcasts go, I find joe.ie's The Hard Yards with Andy McGeady and Patsy McGarry very good. Here they are yesterday analysing the Italy match with James Downey and interviewing Donncha Ryan in Paris:

https://soundcloud.com/thehardyardsspor ... elebration

[Lar]

Interesting conversation on the topic on Monday's Off the Ball. About half way through on the link below. Ruaidhri O'Connor seemed a bit contrite to me. Talked about an error where 'the wrong name was put in an article'. Not sure what that's all about. He was barred from attending the press conference in Paris.

http://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/Off_ ... over_Italy

Interesting that Gilroy accepts that ROC didn't want to discuss the issue and that was 'his prerogative' but the suggestion is that the IRFU can't (or shouldn't) manage the way it (and its coaches) deal with the media.

[TheBear]

Do we even know if it was Joe or IRFU that cancelled the briefing, either decided it or announced it?

Print media were at same post match briefing as anyone else yet Indo acting like they were barred

In this article in the Irish Times, Cummiskey implies that it's Schmidt's decision, and that this is an informal gathering, separate from the press briefing.

The Schmidt way, flaws instantly followed by encouragement as the message gets condensed and controlled like never before.

The Ireland coach refused to be surrounded by the usual “print huddle” after this emphatic 56-19 victory over Italy. The new rules of engagement, now firmly on his terms, worked well after beating nations ranked 10th and 14th in the world (sixth and seventh up next). Until Saturday, daily papers were granted an off-camera forum where repetitive messaging could be interrupted – as reporters are trained to do when direct questions go unanswered – but this never sat well with the former deputy-principal.

[Dexter]

So now the media have pushed a story about the "cooling relationship between the media and the IRFU"... what self-perpetuating story is next?

[cormac]

On the Second Captains podcast yesterday Thornley stated that there was an "incident" before the informal post-match press huddle (the one that now won't be happening anymore) and it nearly didn't go ahead after the France game. He said he wouldn't expand on it for legal reasons.

[Grumpy Old Man]

On the Second Captains podcast yesterday Thornley stated that there was an "incident" before the informal post-match press huddle (the one that now won't be happening anymore) and it nearly didn't go ahead after the France game. He said he wouldn't expand on it for legal reasons.

I think GT is the current president of the Irish Rugby Writers Association (or whatever they call themselves).

[cormac]

On the Second Captains podcast yesterday Thornley stated that there was an "incident" before the informal post-match press huddle (the one that now won't be happening anymore) and it nearly didn't go ahead after the France game. He said he wouldn't expand on it for legal reasons.

I think GT is the current president of the Irish Rugby Writers Association (or whatever they call themselves).

Correct.

[simonokeeffe]

Do we even know if it was Joe or IRFU that cancelled the briefing, either decided it or announced it?

Print media were at same post match briefing as anyone else yet Indo acting like they were barred

In this article in the Irish Times, Cummiskey implies that it's Schmidt's decision, and that this is an informal gathering, separate from the press briefing.

The Schmidt way, flaws instantly followed by encouragement as the message gets condensed and controlled like never before.

The Ireland coach refused to be surrounded by the usual “print huddle” after this emphatic 56-19 victory over Italy. The new rules of engagement, now firmly on his terms, worked well after beating nations ranked 10th and 14th in the world (sixth and seventh up next). Until Saturday, daily papers were granted an off-camera forum where repetitive messaging could be interrupted – as reporters are trained to do when direct questions go unanswered – but this never sat well with the former deputy-principal.

Cheers

Only Cummiskey could write that badly and assinine. And imply that tv and radio reporters arent trained journalists

[Hippo]

Regardless, rugby is part of the entertainment industry and it's inexplicable why the IRFU would take this stance. Totally unnecessary.

[artaneboy]

So if you “have no issue with journalists asking important questions...” but you want to control how and when those questions are asked- is that it?

It is completely normal for organisations to request a certain level of "time and place" from the media. I don't get why the questions needed to be asked at a team announcement, other than to serve the journos own purpose given that the thing was being live streamed. There is a section after the live stream where it could have been asked. There are other press briefings and the huddle where stuff like this could have been asked too. It was a cheap shot doing it when they did. Especially when they knew that they wouldn't get an answer. Exactly what was the point of the thing so?

This isn't about the IRFU demanding some form of media black-out or insisting that they control what is published. It's a simple case of requesting that a team announcement not be the forum for it. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that.

There were legitimate questions to be asked of Best attending the trial.

Was there though? What exactly were they? What level of privacy are these guys allowed? What level of respect should they be afforded that we aren't all rushing to judgement? I know it's the Internet Age of Outrage but what is it that people find so hard about withholding judgement or giving people the benefit of the doubt? Did anyone really believe that Best was going in there to pat the 2 boys on the back and say "well done lads"? Hell, even the guys themselves are innocent until proven guilty. Yet somehow there are questions to be answered? A lot of people could do with winding their necks in on this a bit.

If he’d been let do that in the first instance we’d have had the same effect.

You could argue that had the journos held off on asking the question like they'd been asked to then none of this would have happened at all. Best could have been asked at the appropriate time and everyone saved the fuss.

No Joe decided he didn’t like the question- but he doesn’t get to control everything- and the reputation of Irish rugby is not his property.

Keeping players focused on the job at hand is Joes job. Having a section of the prep for the match being dedicated to a distraction would clearly impact that. He's there to protect his players and he tried to do that from what I can tell. If the media are incapable of respecting and maintaining their relationship with the IRFU then that's on them, not the IRFU. This wasn't a pressing issue that demanded immediate response. It could have been dealt with far better by all involved.

Despite all of the above though, does anyone actually know if the court case was the problem? Nobody has actually come out to say what happened really so all of this might be utterly irrelevant.

Look, I’m not going to redo my position again- as with respect I think I have answered explicitly or implicitly all of your points in my initial post. Either you accept that position, or you don’t.

I’ll just leave it with this point, we have a very high profile rape trial taking place where two Ireland players are the accused. The Captain of the team attends it- and there’s no expectation that there will be reasonable concerns and queries emerging from the media?!?! Are we living in the real world here?

C’mon. Privacy doesn’t come into it. This is not two lads messing with a compliant third party. It’s a court case, where Best shows up a d places himself in the news. If Joe Schmidt thinks he and the team are entitled to have that go with serious questioning, he’s not as bright or as aware as we all believe. But then to apparently- we don’t know for sure, of course, use it as the basis of instigating a print media ban is not defensible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LeRouxIsPHat]

There isn't a print media ban, it's just this one huddle that was done away with. Huge difference.

[riocard911]

Best attended the trial in Belfast on order of the court as a character witness. The IRFU said before the national team press conference, that there would be no comment forthcoming on said trial due to the legalities and asked the journalists not to enquire about it. Some eejit from the Spindo wouldn't play ball and insisted on putting Best and Schmidt on the spot in front of the world media two days before Ireland's first match of the 6 Nations in Paris!!! If I were Joe I too would be absolutely hoppin mad. The reaction is understandable, IMO (and I'm a journalist).

[Leinster Lout]

Best attended the trial in Belfast on order of the court as a character witness. The IRFU said before the national team press conference, that there would be no comment forthcoming on said trial due to the legalities and asked the journalists not to enquire about it. Some eejit from the Spindo wouldn't play ball and insisted on putting Best and Schmidt on the spot in front of the world media two days before Ireland's first match of the 6 Nations in Paris!!! If I were Joe I too would be absolutely hoppin mad. The reaction is understandable, IMO (and I'm a journalist).

He was not attending "on order of the court". He was advised by lawyers to do so in connection with his voluntary character witness statement. There was not a legal requirement that he attend.

[lotmc]

Best attended the trial in Belfast on order of the court as a character witness. The IRFU said before the national team press conference, that there would be no comment forthcoming on said trial due to the legalities and asked the journalists not to enquire about it. Some eejit from the Spindo wouldn't play ball and insisted on putting Best and Schmidt on the spot in front of the world media two days before Ireland's first match of the 6 Nations in Paris!!! If I were Joe I too would be absolutely hoppin mad. The reaction is understandable, IMO (and I'm a journalist).

That was a very stupid thing to do by whatever journalist did it. But I thought that the issue resulted from an incorrect online article that caused a lot of offence to someone?

Either way, I can understand the frustration that Joe / IRFU must feel when they are being inappropriately used as bait for sensationalism.

[riocard911]

Best attended the trial in Belfast on order of the court as a character witness. The IRFU said before the national team press conference, that there would be no comment forthcoming on said trial due to the legalities and asked the journalists not to enquire about it. Some eejit from the Spindo wouldn't play ball and insisted on putting Best and Schmidt on the spot in front of the world media two days before Ireland's first match of the 6 Nations in Paris!!! If I were Joe I too would be absolutely hoppin mad. The reaction is understandable, IMO (and I'm a journalist).

He was not attending "on order of the court". He was advised by lawyers to do so in connection with his voluntary character witness statement. There was not a legal requirement that he attend.

I missed that distinction, obviously. Thanks for the correction.