Ulster 2016/2017

by **Notch** Tue 24 May 2016, 6:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

The build up to Ulsters gloriously successful 2016/2017 campaign starts here!

Allow summer optimism to get the better of you or discuss why we are in crisis right here on this thread- before weary resignation over the quality of forwards we have sinks in once again.

by Guest Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:23 am

It's not good at all for Jackson and Olding. I don't believe either committed the alleged crimes, but it's going to burden them heavily until they are cleared.

In the meantime I don't know what this means for Ulster Rugby..

by clivemcl Tue 01 Nov 2016, 7:47 am

Oh dear me, this does not sound good. Without presuming any guilt, it's a sad day to see this kind of news story linked with Ulster rugby club in any way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37830983

by Pete330v2 Tue 01 Nov 2016, 9:13 am

Paddy has acted immediately to release a statement denying any wrongdoing. I do hope this comes to nothing.

by marty2086 Tue 01 Nov 2016, 9:17 am

KRW Law wrote:We act on behalf of Patrick Jackson. He rejects completely any allegations made against him Patrick has co-operated fully with police in their inquiries and we have been liaising with police on his behalf. We are both disappointed and indeed concerned that this information has been leaked to the press before the investigation has concluded and well in advance of any final decision. This has the potential to be prejudicial to our client’s interests.

We will not hesitate to take all necessary steps to protect his legal position as he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. We urge the media to restrain from any damaging speculation.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:10 am

Obviously we have no idea what has happened, but unfortunately numerous incidents recently have given me extreme cynicism surrounding these sorts of claims. Sex allegations are always a tricky one and I despise the fact that the presumption of innocence is never upheld and names are immediately smeared before evidence has been properly examined.

Mils Muliaina had his career tarnished by a false allegation. I hope this doesn't happen to Jackson and Olding if they are indeed innocent. If not, well, they shall face the penalty due for their crimes.

by clivemcl Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:21 am

Not speculation in any way - just an obvious description of what most will be wondering...
This could be an incident where there was wrong doing (and if so I call for the courts to deal harshly), it could also then be a complete fabrication, and then theres the grey area - the one that causes most difficulty in trial. The possibility that something sexual was going on and that the question comes down to consent.

Unfortunately the latter leaves a very bad taste even if it's proven there was consent. If it emerges that there was some tom foolery and it involves multiple persons, then that will change how I think of these guys regardless.

But maybe I'm just old fashioned...

Just to re-iterate - I feel I'm covering all possible realities of this incident, and in no way claim to hint or give credence to any particular one.

I almost said 'I hope the trial shows them to be innocent', but in fact I'll say I hope they ARE innocent, and that the investigation gets to the truth.

In the mean time... I'm not sure how I'll feel watching these guys if they continue to play whilst awaiting an outcome.

by eirebilly Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:28 am

I despise how these things are leaked prior to full investigations being conducted. I am with Rory in being worried about potential name smearing before the truth is known.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:37 am

eirebilly wrote:I despise how these things are leaked prior to full investigations being conducted. I am with Rory in being worried about potential name smearing before the truth is known.

It should terrify anyone, really. It terrifies me. A woman that I don't even know could make a comment about something that I did, without my knowledge, and I could be arrested for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/19/former-all-black-mils-muliaina-cleared-sexual-assault

He didn't even know who the girl was. He was arrested on the pitch, his career tarnished and the accuser remained anonymous.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:41 am

Like I said, I've become extremely cynical about how these events are handled and often feel they make a mockery of the genuinely heinous crime of r***, one of the worst acts you could commit on a fellow human being.

On the other hand, if Jackson and Olding are truly innocent, I hope they have learnt a lesson about how they spend their time off the pitch and not to put themselves in positions where this sort of thing could easily occur.

by Guest Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:44 am

Their names are already smeared. These sort of allegations stick regardless of whether they are innocent or not. Cliff Richard is innocent, but he will now be forever associated with the allegation.

It's a disgrace that names can be dragged through the mud while still presumed innocent of any wrongdoing. Those that are found to make false accusations should themselves face charges.

by toml Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:44 am

Regardless of guilt or innocence, it is an absolute joke that stuff like this is leaked to the press before any charging.
Unfortunately society has let it become so that people in the public eye are guilty until proven innocent.

Look at how tarnished the allegations made Cliff Richard. Maybe anyone employed by the law caught leaking info like this should get a custodial sentence, because the harm that can be caused by leaking false allegations can be irreversible

by marty2086 Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:46 am

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
eirebilly wrote:I despise how these things are leaked prior to full investigations being conducted. I am with Rory in being worried about potential name smearing before the truth is known.

It should terrify anyone, really. It terrifies me. A woman that I don't even know could make a comment about something that I did, without my knowledge, and I could be arrested for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/19/former-all-black-mils-muliaina-cleared-sexual-assault

He didn't even know who the girl was. He was arrested on the pitch, his career tarnished and the accuser remained anonymous.

The Muliana case is a scary one, how many times have we all brushed up against someone in a crowded bar or club that could be misconstrued as groping?

In this case though the PSNI are saying

A fourth man aged 24, will be reported to the PPS in relation to this incident for perverting the course of justice.

Does not look good when someone involved is also accused of that

by **RDW** Tue 01 Nov 2016, 11:05 am

Any Ulster fan fancy doing a match thread for the Edinburgh game?

Time you lot socialised with the rest of us instead of just talking to each other here! Very Happy

by SecretFly Tue 01 Nov 2016, 11:13 am

A lot of issues could be covered by this latest 'episode' in Irish Rugby. And each issue could have a thread all to itself.
I never even questioned the fact that Paddy Jackson would not be travelling to America for 'personal reasons'. I naturally assumed it must be a family illness or bereavement and thus none of my business.
The law must take its course on this one but the reason the celebrity gets named, and the accuser's right to anonymity is preserved, is because society has a fever for knowing what famous people get up to in the privacy of their own lives and journalistic investigations will always get to the detail.
They might be stalled for a while from naming but eventually that information gets out through many gossipy side channels. It's almost impossible to keep a celebrity's name away from the public when these allegations arise. Just look at the recent 'injunction' nonsense in England where the English courts were debating keeping the name of a celebrity secret in a specific case, but at the same time this person's name was freely available on Internet sites outside the UK. Once the info is out, it's out; and there is no containment possible.

by neilthom7 Tue 01 Nov 2016, 1:31 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:Any Ulster fan fancy doing a match thread for the Edinburgh game?

Time you lot socialised with the rest of us instead of just talking to each other here!

As you wish RDW, gosh do we have to talk to other people lol

https://www.606v2.com/t64386-edinburgh-rugby-v-ulster-rugby#3458625

by Guest Tue 01 Nov 2016, 1:48 pm

SecretFly wrote:A lot of issues could be covered by this latest 'episode' in Irish Rugby. And each issue could have a thread all to itself.
I never even questioned the fact that Paddy Jackson would not be travelling to America for 'personal reasons'. I naturally assumed it must be a family illness or bereavement and thus none of my business.
The law must take its course on this one but the reason the celebrity gets named, and the accuser's right to anonymity is preserved, is because society has a fever for knowing what famous people get up to in the privacy of their own lives and journalistic investigations will always get to the detail.
They might be stalled for a while from naming but eventually that information gets out through many gossipy side channels. It's almost impossible to keep a celebrity's name away from the public when these allegations arise. Just look at the recent 'injunction' nonsense in England where the English courts were debating keeping the name of a celebrity secret in a specific case, but at the same time this person's name was freely available on Internet sites outside the UK. Once the info is out, it's out; and there is no containment possible.

Anyway, enough from me. Going on about it is what the lowlife media hacks want, so will wait until there is something concrete. Hopefully the next news will be that the charges are dropped.

by **Notch** Tue 01 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm

Well it's very disappointing to hear this news, and I truly hope there is nothing in it.

What I would say is that false claims are a thing, but sex crimes in general are under-reported and the conviction rate is very low, much lower than it should be. I would caution against jumping to conclusions about this case either way. It could be a false allegation, it could be a serious crime has been committed it could be anything in between. Innocent until presumed guilty applies but Ulster should have a contingency plan in case charges are brought and ultimately proven. The Ched Evans case in football shows sports teams can send a positive message by not tolerating this in employees.

Thats all jumping way ahead into a hypothetical future that may never come to pass. It may be the opposite. People are right to cite Mils Muliaina being dogged by a bit of a nothing case, and a similarly false claim was made against Isaac Boss. I hope that this case is the same and Ulster aren't left with a decision to make after the due process runs it course. Until then, they should publicly support their employee.

by **Notch** Tue 01 Nov 2016, 2:33 pm

Munchkin wrote:Very true, and a disgrace that the big mouths in the PSNI couldn't keep their traps shut.

No doubt about it. Remember the show trial affair of arresting Mils Muliaina after a match. Something about celebrity makes Police get all dramatic.

by marty2086 Tue 01 Nov 2016, 2:39 pm

Notch wrote: The Ched Evans case in football shows sports teams can send a positive message by not tolerating this in employees.

Im afraid that case has no positives to it Notch and unfortunately there will be those who, even if Jackson and Olding are cleared will assume guilt, as I know Jonny Evans still gets abuse from the odd idiot from an accusation made against him years ago.

by **Notch** Tue 01 Nov 2016, 2:48 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Notch wrote: The Ched Evans case in football shows sports teams can send a positive message by not tolerating this in employees.

Im afraid that case has no positives to it Notch and unfortunately there will be those who, even if Jackson and Olding are cleared will assume guilt, as I know Jonny Evans still gets abuse from the odd idiot from an accusation made against him years ago.

It has one massive positive that the club took a stand and disassociated themselves from the player when he was convicted. If you're someone who is recovering from a sexual assault seeing such a prominent institution not just shrug their shoulders and move on is better than the historic responses of victim-blaming and buck-passing. Little comfort maybe, but I've know male and female r*** victims and I can tell you, the scars it leaves are serious and enduring. There is NO suggestion that this is that serious and that is not at all what I am suggesting. All I'm saying is the worst case scenario, which I hope has not and does not come to pass, would need to be taken very seriously.

by marty2086 Tue 01 Nov 2016, 2:55 pm

Notch wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Notch wrote: The Ched Evans case in football shows sports teams can send a positive message by not tolerating this in employees.

Im afraid that case has no positives to it Notch and unfortunately there will be those who, even if Jackson and Olding are cleared will assume guilt, as I know Jonny Evans still gets abuse from the odd idiot from an accusation made against him years ago.

It has one massive positive that the club took a stand and disassociated themselves from the player when he was convicted. If you're someone who is recovering from a sexual assault seeing such a prominent institution not just shrug their shoulders and move on is better than the historic responses of victim-blaming and buck-passing. Little comfort maybe, but I've know male and female r*** victims and I can tell you, the scars it leaves are serious and enduring. There is NO suggestion that this is that serious and that is not at all what I am suggesting. All I'm saying is the worst case scenario, which I hope has not and does not come to pass, would need to be taken very seriously.

I say there were no positives because its been shown that they were on the wrong side of history

by toml Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:04 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Notch wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Notch wrote: The Ched Evans case in football shows sports teams can send a positive message by not tolerating this in employees.

Im afraid that case has no positives to it Notch and unfortunately there will be those who, even if Jackson and Olding are cleared will assume guilt, as I know Jonny Evans still gets abuse from the odd idiot from an accusation made against him years ago.

It has one massive positive that the club took a stand and disassociated themselves from the player when he was convicted. If you're someone who is recovering from a sexual assault seeing such a prominent institution not just shrug their shoulders and move on is better than the historic responses of victim-blaming and buck-passing. Little comfort maybe, but I've know male and female r*** victims and I can tell you, the scars it leaves are serious and enduring. There is NO suggestion that this is that serious and that is not at all what I am suggesting. All I'm saying is the worst case scenario, which I hope has not and does not come to pass, would need to be taken very seriously.

I say there were no positives because its been shown that they were on the wrong side of history

Everyone ended up a victim of some sort

by **BigGee** Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:17 pm

Ched Evans was eventually found innocent of a criminal act in a long drawn out process. His behaviour in the case though was pretty reprehensible from just about any other moral standpoint.

The problem for these young men, who are living their lives in the public eye is that they will get judged twice, in the criminal court and the court of morality and certainly in the latter category, will get judged much harsher than other members of society.

Unfortunately other professional sportsmen (usually footballers) have done the groundwork for them in this regard and public sympathy often turns against them very quickly, whatever has happened.

Lets hope there is nothing in this and it gets resolved quickly. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.

by clivemcl Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:45 pm

Yea like I said - best case scenario is that nothing happened at all, because even if it's found there was no worng doing, but it emerges there was sexual activity involving multiple parties etc... well unfortunately that doesn't fit with my set of morals - and many others like me.
Its entirely different to sexually assault somebody, than to just be sexually promiscuous - but the reality is, many will never see these young lads the same way again.
I'd have hoped all these guys who are blessed with great ability and opportunity could find enough satisfaction in life and sport and just meet some girl and treat them well in a committed relationship. Like I said before - some may call that old fashioned, but many many Ulster fans will find the idea of casual sexual activity alone quite uncomfortable nevermind the much more heinous possibility of sexual assault.

It's a really bad PR day for Ulster Rugby - one that they can only survive from if it turns out to be a TOTAL fabrication.

by munkian Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:56 pm

clivemcl wrote:Yea like I said - best case scenario is that nothing happened at all, because even if it's found there was no worng doing, but it emerges there was sexual activity involving multiple parties etc... well unfortunately that doesn't fit with my set of morals - and many others like me.
Its entirely different to sexually assault somebody, than to just be sexually promiscuous - but the reality is, many will never see these young lads the same way again.
I'd have hoped all these guys who are blessed with great ability and opportunity could find enough satisfaction in life and sport and just meet some girl and treat them well in a committed relationship. Like I said before - some may call that old fashioned, but many many Ulster fans will find the idea of casual sexual activity alone quite uncomfortable nevermind the much more heinous possibility of sexual assault.

It's a really bad PR day for Ulster Rugby - one that they can only survive from if it turns out to be a TOTAL fabrication.

I must know some particularly pervy Ulster fans then...

by **Notch** Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:59 pm

Well to each their own, but... I do think people are naive if they think that young men who are local celebrities, have a bit of cash and aren't attached aren't sleeping around. Not that its smart but thats life.

Like say an Ulster player was to come out or be outed as being gay or bi, there are still a lot of homophobes in Northern Ireland as we've seen recently. But at the end of the day thats no-ones business but the player involved.

The only thing I believe about sex is that it should always be safe, sane and consensual. And the last one is the biggest one by far. So... not a good day for Ulster Rugby. But senseless now to comment until more facts emerge.

by munkian Tue 01 Nov 2016, 4:01 pm

Agreed Notch

by clivemcl Tue 01 Nov 2016, 4:13 pm

Notch wrote:Well to each their own, but... I do think people are naive if they think that young men who are local celebrities, have a bit of cash and aren't attached aren't sleeping around. Not that its smart but thats life.

I guess it wouldn't surprise me to hear of course, but surely you know what I'm getting at - there were multiple guys arrested - you can see the implications. It's a bit different to a regular hook up.
(Unless maybe there's three allegations from three ~~women~~ victims at the same property)

by The Great Aukster Thu 03 Nov 2016, 10:58 am

Law and Morality?

The legal position:
"We will not hesitate to take all necessary steps to protect his legal position as he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. We urge the media to restrain from any damaging speculation."

clivemcl wrote:Yea like I said - best case scenario is that nothing happened at all, because even if it's found there was no worng doing, but it emerges there was sexual activity involving multiple parties etc... well unfortunately that doesn't fit with my set of morals - and many others like me.
Its entirely different to sexually assault somebody, than to just be sexually promiscuous - but the reality is, many will never see these young lads the same way again.

So there is undoubtedly also a morality issue as voiced by Clive and he suspects many more like him, so the legal presumption of innocence isn't enough to assuage doubts over the 'authenticity' of the players being cheered for. The implication is that until media speculation has been quashed then the players in the midst of it should not be selected to represent their country, province, or the individuals cheering in the stands. So who is going to address this thorny issue?
Les Kiss:
"Paddy will be available for the November series next week," he said. "Game-management was already in the way anyway. He'd played his maximum number of games."
Why on earth would Les mention game management being already in the way anyway? If Paddy is unavailable for Ireland due to personal reasons, then surely he is also unavailable for Ulster for the same reasons? It would seem the intended implication is that Ulster would have played Paddy against Edinburgh if they were allowed to, but he will be available for the November series. So the decision on whether to select Jackson and deal with the thorny morality issue will be now down to the IRFU - very convenient.

by marty2086 Thu 03 Nov 2016, 11:53 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Why on earth would Les mention game management being already in the way anyway? If Paddy is unavailable for Ireland due to personal reasons, then surely he is also unavailable for Ulster for the same reasons? It would seem the intended implication is that Ulster would have played Paddy against Edinburgh if they were allowed to, but he will be available for the November series. So the decision on whether to select Jackson and deal with the thorny morality issue will be now down to the IRFU - very convenient.

Its not convenient, he may not be allowed to travel to the US either by police or because of the allegations he was unable to get a Visa.

The allegations date from June when he was also arrested so he has been playing all along, from the PSNI statement it seems that he and Olding were questioned and not arrested or charged. The buck is not being passed, it was probably known in advance he couldn't go to Chicago so rather than rest him like many who have gone were, he was played knowing he would sit out the Edinburgh game.

by SecretFly Thu 03 Nov 2016, 12:12 pm

Notch wrote:

Like say an Ulster player was to come out or be outed as being gay or bi, there are still a lot of homophobes in Northern Ireland as we've seen recently. But at the end of the day thats no-ones business but the player involved.

Correct. But then, that's why I always roll my eyes when yet another player feels obliged to publically declare his sexuality - and that it's lazily always spun as something 'positive' by the media - thus enticing the next player to feel the need to declare a certain sexuality for 'positive' knock-on 'social' effects. cowpat. It's a cult of 'specialness'. "I'm unique", "I'm a little different", "I'm a special case". No you ain't. You like men and I like women. Wink

by The Great Aukster Thu 03 Nov 2016, 5:57 pm

marty2086 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Why on earth would Les mention game management being already in the way anyway? If Paddy is unavailable for Ireland due to personal reasons, then surely he is also unavailable for Ulster for the same reasons? It would seem the intended implication is that Ulster would have played Paddy against Edinburgh if they were allowed to, but he will be available for the November series. So the decision on whether to select Jackson and deal with the thorny morality issue will be now down to the IRFU - very convenient.

Its not convenient, he may not be allowed to travel to the US either by police or because of the allegations he was unable to get a Visa.

The allegations date from June when he was also arrested so he has been playing all along, from the PSNI statement it seems that he and Olding were questioned and not arrested or charged. The buck is not being passed, it was probably known in advance he couldn't go to Chicago so rather than rest him like many who have gone were, he was played knowing he would sit out the Edinburgh game.

If either the PSNI or the US authorities have stopped Jackson from playing a game of rugby away, is it acceptable that the IRFU or UR select him to play at home?

Let's assume you are correct and that Jackson was being played against Munster because he already knew he wasn't going to Chicago. Therefore both the IRFU and UR knew of Paddy's personal circumstances at least a couple of weeks ago and the player management was a consequence of those rather than a coincidence as Les Kiss was implying - so in your scenario why would Kiss mention it?

by toml Thu 03 Nov 2016, 9:17 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/behind-the-lines/2016/nov/03/ruan-pienaar-ulster-ireland-rugby-leave-contract-foreigner?CMP=share_btn_tw

Hopefully he comes back in a few years and brings his pal Gysbert Johann Muller in tow!

by marty2086 Thu 03 Nov 2016, 9:32 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:

If either the PSNI or the US authorities have stopped Jackson from playing a game of rugby away, is it acceptable that the IRFU or UR select him to play at home?

Let's assume you are correct and that Jackson was being played against Munster because he already knew he wasn't going to Chicago. Therefore both the IRFU and UR knew of Paddy's personal circumstances at least a couple of weeks ago and the player management was a consequence of those rather than a coincidence as Les Kiss was implying - so in your scenario why would Kiss mention it?

They aren't stopping him from playing a game of rugby, its either the PSNI aren't letting him out of the country which I doubt since he went to France or the more likely scenario that he wasn't granted a Visa by the US because of the seriousness of the allegations. Id also put money on Ulster and IRFU knowing what was happening with the case from not long after the two were questioned by the police.

Also the player management meant he had to miss a game in October or miss the Edinburgh game, given the importance and opposition, Ulster more than likely targeted Edinburgh as the game he would miss because they knew he would be available. Its all guess work but given that hes rested this week Id have money on him starting against Canada

by neilthom7 Thu 03 Nov 2016, 9:58 pm

US is simple if you have any pending investigations you cannot get a visa no matter whether you are innocent or not.
Also off course it is acceptable for him to play when he has not been proven guilty yet or even that he may have been guilty, innocent until proven guilty. For all we know it could be rubish, it could also be extremely serious but fact is we don't know that yet, clearly even the police don't know that yet since they have been at this since June.
Ulster rugby should continue to play him and Olding until any thing is proven then if it is proven they should act accordingly but until then we cannot try these guys in the court of public opinion and find them guilty when as of this moment they are not

by clivemcl Thu 03 Nov 2016, 11:46 pm

Firstly, I don't agree with the phrase 'innocent until proving guilty'. I agree with what the phrase tries to say, but I believe it doesn't adequately cover it. A guilty person is guilty whether tried for it or not. What the phrase tries to say is 'you can't say he's guilty because we just don't know'. But the reality is he's either innocent or guilty, and that is true now, June past, next week, even if it never goes to trial. He could still be guilty even if there's not enough evidence. The key is, it's unacceptable to treat anyone as guilty without being sure of it. And so it should be business as usual for his employers.

That said, you do have to ponder if there may be psychological issues that come into play for these young guys now knowing that this very public question mark hangs around their necks. That is unfair. But I wouldn't be surprised to see if it affects them in their performances.

by The Great Aukster Fri 04 Nov 2016, 10:04 am

marty2086 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:

If either the PSNI or the US authorities have stopped Jackson from playing a game of rugby away, is it acceptable that the IRFU or UR select him to play at home?

Let's assume you are correct and that Jackson was being played against Munster because he already knew he wasn't going to Chicago. Therefore both the IRFU and UR knew of Paddy's personal circumstances at least a couple of weeks ago and the player management was a consequence of those rather than a coincidence as Les Kiss was implying - so in your scenario why would Kiss mention it?

They aren't stopping him from playing a game of rugby, its either the PSNI aren't letting him out of the country which I doubt since he went to France or the more likely scenario that he wasn't granted a Visa by the US because of the seriousness of the allegations. Id also put money on Ulster and IRFU knowing what was happening with the case from not long after the two were questioned by the police.

Also the player management meant he had to miss a game in October or miss the Edinburgh game, given the importance and opposition, Ulster more than likely targeted Edinburgh as the game he would miss because they knew he would be available. Its all guess work but given that hes rested this week Id have money on him starting against Canada

It's hard to tog out for a game if you can't get there, so IF there are travel restrictions then they're stopping him play. However I agree that UR and the IRFU knew he would be rested this weekend so back to the original point, it is convenient that the leaks coincidentally happened with no game coming up.

If Carberry passes himself this weekend, there's every chance he will start against Canada, with Sexton on the bench (just in case). Jackson might not even be in the squad unless there's an injury.

by The Great Aukster Fri 04 Nov 2016, 10:39 am

neilthom7 wrote:US is simple if you have any pending investigations you cannot get a visa no matter whether you are innocent or not.
Also off course it is acceptable for him to play when he has not been proven guilty yet or even that he may have been guilty, innocent until proven guilty. For all we know it could be rubish, it could also be extremely serious but fact is we don't know that yet, clearly even the police don't know that yet since they have been at this since June.
Ulster rugby should continue to play him and Olding until any thing is proven then if it is proven they should act accordingly but until then we cannot try these guys in the court of public opinion and find them guilty when as of this moment they are not

I agree, but I'm not sure Ulster Rugby see it that way. Resting players who are potentially facing serious charges isn't accusing them of guilt, in the way that a suspension or dismissal would indicate. Obviously UR know the exact details of the allegations, so if they play Jackson who is later convicted of something it will look really bad for them.
UR have already been playing Paddy without the trial by media, but the crucial difference is that now the cat is out of the bag who ever plays him next is taking a PR risk should it all go pear-shaped for Jackson.

Ulster don't have to take that risk yet because the November series hands the dilemma over to the IRFU. If he plays for Ireland against Canada then Ulster can coattail that precedent, but if he doesn't then they will have the dilemma handed back to them for the Zebre game.

by marty2086 Fri 04 Nov 2016, 11:07 am

Jacksons still in the squad, maybe he won't make the 23 but I don't think they would play Sexton and risk him getting injured, they will want him fresh for ABs Part 2

From Les Kiss' comments I don't think they will have hesitation to play him and given he hasn't even been charged it seems a low risk approach at the minute, they could also be prejudicing a potential criminal case by suspending him

by neilthom7 Fri 04 Nov 2016, 1:00 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
neilthom7 wrote:US is simple if you have any pending investigations you cannot get a visa no matter whether you are innocent or not.
Also off course it is acceptable for him to play when he has not been proven guilty yet or even that he may have been guilty, innocent until proven guilty. For all we know it could be rubish, it could also be extremely serious but fact is we don't know that yet, clearly even the police don't know that yet since they have been at this since June.
Ulster rugby should continue to play him and Olding until any thing is proven then if it is proven they should act accordingly but until then we cannot try these guys in the court of public opinion and find them guilty when as of this moment they are not

I agree, but I'm not sure Ulster Rugby see it that way. Resting players who are potentially facing serious charges isn't accusing them of guilt, in the way that a suspension or dismissal would indicate. Obviously UR know the exact details of the allegations, so if they play Jackson who is later convicted of something it will look really bad for them.
UR have already been playing Paddy without the trial by media, but the crucial difference is that now the cat is out of the bag who ever plays him next is taking a PR risk should it all go pear-shaped for Jackson.

Ulster don't have to take that risk yet because the November series hands the dilemma over to the IRFU. If he plays for Ireland against Canada then Ulster can coattail that precedent, but if he doesn't then they will have the dilemma handed back to them for the Zebre game.

I disagree to an extent. Ulster will know what the allegations made were, I agree on that. However whether Paddy or Stuart gets convicted down the line is not going to look bad on Ulster for playing him now. Simple reason is because they know the allegations but they don't know if any of it's true, I guess they most likely talked with the lads and asked them. Now if the guys categorically denied it then there is nothing Ulster can do because standing them down would in itself most likely be against the law. Ulster do not know if it's true or not, the bigger question will come after a trial or anything because if they are convicted then they did it and you imagine they would be fired as well but lets say theya ren't convicted but it comes out that they did some pretty morally wrong things or that there wasn't enough evidence to convict but it's also not really clearing them either, then the question starts to arise for Ulster. Until then Ulster have no other choice but the believe the guys and continue playing them. I can't imagine either Ulster or Ireland will drop Jackson unless he is affected by it coming out and starts to play bad.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm

Hi Ulstermen, can I assume that Ruan Pienaar will be taking kicks at goal against Edinburgh? I'm asking for a friend (who has a fantasy Pro12 side).

by marty2086 Fri 04 Nov 2016, 2:44 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Hi Ulstermen, can I assume that Ruan Pienaar will be taking kicks at goal against Edinburgh? I'm asking for a friend (who has a fantasy Pro12 side).

He would be the obvious choice but was awful last time he was the kicker so good luck figuring out what to do there thumbsup

by Guest Fri 04 Nov 2016, 3:17 pm

Yep, it will most likely be Pienaar kicking from the tee, but Lyttle has proven himself the most accurate this season. I would like to see the kicking duties given to Lyttle for this game. Pienaar will be away at the end of season, and it would benefit Ulster that Lyttle gets as much experience as possible, even if he's not a half back.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 04 Nov 2016, 3:24 pm

My friend might have to stick with his outside half!

by neilthom7 Fri 04 Nov 2016, 4:17 pm

I agree Munchkin that we should try him out, at least if things go horribly wrong for him we would have Pienaar there to take over which will not be the case if he is suddenly thrust into taking kicks next year at any stage

by The Great Aukster Fri 04 Nov 2016, 6:21 pm

marty2086 wrote:Jacksons still in the squad, maybe he won't make the 23 but I don't think they would play Sexton and risk him getting injured, they will want him fresh for ABs Part 2

From Les Kiss' comments I don't think they will have hesitation to play him and given he hasn't even been charged it seems a low risk approach at the minute, they could also be prejudicing a potential criminal case by suspending him

UR don't have to suspend him, just not select him. The risk is whether a significant section of fans will be morally outraged and vote with their feet should they consider UR's handling of the matter inappropriate.

by neilthom7 Fri 04 Nov 2016, 6:28 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Jacksons still in the squad, maybe he won't make the 23 but I don't think they would play Sexton and risk him getting injured, they will want him fresh for ABs Part 2

From Les Kiss' comments I don't think they will have hesitation to play him and given he hasn't even been charged it seems a low risk approach at the minute, they could also be prejudicing a potential criminal case by suspending him

UR don't have to suspend him, just not select him. The risk is whether a significant section of fans will be morally outraged and vote with their feet should they consider UR's handling of the matter inappropriate.

You could be right but those fans shouldn't be morally outraged until anything is proven or at least we know more off course there will be people morally outraged by anything whether proven or not. Although you could say the same the other way, UR could not pick him, make it clear he isn't being picked because of it and fans think it is unjust since he hasn't been proven guilty that UR are being harsh and vote with their feet anyway. It's a tough call, off ocurse if Ireland select him next week then Ulster can just follow the lead and that's decision made

by The Great Aukster Fri 04 Nov 2016, 6:37 pm

neilthom7 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Jacksons still in the squad, maybe he won't make the 23 but I don't think they would play Sexton and risk him getting injured, they will want him fresh for ABs Part 2

From Les Kiss' comments I don't think they will have hesitation to play him and given he hasn't even been charged it seems a low risk approach at the minute, they could also be prejudicing a potential criminal case by suspending him

UR don't have to suspend him, just not select him. The risk is whether a significant section of fans will be morally outraged and vote with their feet should they consider UR's handling of the matter inappropriate.

You could be right but those fans shouldn't be morally outraged until anything is proven or at least we know more off course there will be people morally outraged by anything whether proven or not. Although you could say the same the other way, UR could not pick him, make it clear he isn't being picked because of it and fans think it is unjust since he hasn't been proven guilty that UR are being harsh and vote with their feet anyway. It's a tough call, off ocurse if Ireland select him next week then Ulster can just follow the lead and that's decision made

Hang on Neil this is Norn Irn, where (to avoid damage) the moral outrage meters have to be re-calibrated by a factor of ten.

by neilthom7 Fri 04 Nov 2016, 6:41 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
neilthom7 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Jacksons still in the squad, maybe he won't make the 23 but I don't think they would play Sexton and risk him getting injured, they will want him fresh for ABs Part 2

From Les Kiss' comments I don't think they will have hesitation to play him and given he hasn't even been charged it seems a low risk approach at the minute, they could also be prejudicing a potential criminal case by suspending him

UR don't have to suspend him, just not select him. The risk is whether a significant section of fans will be morally outraged and vote with their feet should they consider UR's handling of the matter inappropriate.

You could be right but those fans shouldn't be morally outraged until anything is proven or at least we know more off course there will be people morally outraged by anything whether proven or not. Although you could say the same the other way, UR could not pick him, make it clear he isn't being picked because of it and fans think it is unjust since he hasn't been proven guilty that UR are being harsh and vote with their feet anyway. It's a tough call, off ocurse if Ireland select him next week then Ulster can just follow the lead and that's decision made

Hang on Neil this is Norn Irn, where (to avoid damage) the moral outrage meters have to be re-calibrated by a factor of ten.

Oh yeah, I forgot, my bad. It seems so normal some times I forgot where we were. That's a fair point though. I'd always to hoped Ulster fans were sort of a sensible, level headed folk though, I mean we even allow our team to play on Sunday's that's the kind of heathens we are Whistle

by Don Alfonso Sun 06 Nov 2016, 11:33 am

Heard a bit about what's alleged to have happened, and more about the wider private lives of some young Ulster players. I'd already heard a number of things earlier in the year.

I am a very liberal atheist, but I do wonder how God-fearing Christian players such as Pienaar, Trimble, Marshall, Piutau, Coetzee, Ludik, Herbst etcetera view the way these guys live their lives, and what they believe happened.

And before anyone lectures me on Christians not judging anyone, when you are in a team with a mate and think they're messing up and making repeated mistakes in their personal lives, would you not talk to them about it? I'm sure everyone is horrified by these accusations, but there are some people who are unsurprised that this sort of thing (the accusations) has eventually happened.

Long story short, I would be unsurprised to see us disintegrate this year.

by Sponsored content