Jackson & Olding: were UR/IRFU right or wrong to terminate?

[Peg Leg]

Am I right in saying that we don't actually know why they were sacked? So we can't really say whether the IRFU were right or wrong and that's the get out of jail free card that the IRFU can use if anything happens in future.

Pretty sure the IRFU were unequivocal in their reasoning for Jackson, although not sure about Olding.

[rooster]

Am I right in saying that we don't actually know why they were sacked? So we can't really say whether the IRFU were right or wrong and that's the get out of jail free card that the IRFU can use if anything happens in future.

Pretty sure the IRFU were unequivocal in their reasoning for Jackson, although not sure about Olding.

Jackson said very little in the messages compared to others though. The talk of the messages being the reason for sacking did not add up at all.

[artaneboy]

Am I right in saying that we don't actually know why they were sacked? So we can't really say whether the IRFU were right or wrong and that's the get out of jail free card that the IRFU can use if anything happens in future.

Pretty sure the IRFU were unequivocal in their reasoning for Jackson, although not sure about Olding.

What- 'conduct unbecoming/ bringing the game into disrepute' or something more specific? Because if it's the former, that will only wash in legal terms (as it admittedly is in this case) if the dismissed parties can be bought off- or promised pardons.

[artaneboy]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.3444294

That's public embarrassment of themselves and the IRFU.

How it came about is a moot point, and whether it was right or wrong is debatable.

But the IRFU had no choice based upon the texts.

The IRFU had plenty of choice; they made one that they deemed best for them- and possibly the game. But there there was absolutely nothing obvious or logical about it.

The full implications of their choice have yet to be played out. Just wait for the next incident. Now that the standard is not only your public pronouncements- but private communications, that will have unforeseen results.

But I don’t notice that the furore was just a factor of the referendum or other then current circumstances. The issue of what constitutes sexual assault or disrespect is a cultural one across the western world; the Jackson/ Olding case was a fairly typical example of what is making it to court.

What was a surprise was the release of the WhatsApp messages. Hard to see what that was about except coercion to “cooperate” or to smear their reputations. It added absolutely nothing to the nub of the issue of consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You cannot be an international rugby player and have conversations about women like that in the public domain. Whether it was right or fair to let the messages be released publicly is another, separate question.

Can't you? I'm sure there are plenty of international rugby players who've said much worse in private- as the two men did. There's a real argument on what Jackson and Olding actually contributed to those messages- Gilroy possibly more distasteful in his comments on the WhatsApp thread. But the real point is, are we to be judged on our private words when we could not reasonably expect them to become public? There's little doubt that the release of the messages was to damage reputations- Call me naive, but I'm still shocked by the prosecution doing it- and the judge allowing it. On the other hand I'm not at all surprised that young men in communicating with each other are coarse and juvenile.