Lancaster men’s rugby union firsts saw their dreams of a Roses victory shattered by a determined York side this evening.
In a fantastic atmosphere complete with pyrotechnics and a daredevil streaker, Lancaster’s defence crumbled in the second half in the face of a strong attacking performance from York. The first half proved fairly equal with both teams putting up a convincing defensive display.
Points arrived slowly, coming from the boot of Anthony Coulson and the York fly half. It was not until the 30th minute that Lancaster broke the deadlock, a kick to the wing by Harry Roe being gathered and touched down by Edouard Whyte after a lightning quick sprint down the left flank.
It didn’t take long for York to respond and turn their obvious advantage in attack into points. A penalty near the five metre line gave York the opportunity for the quick take which they capitalised on by beating through the Lancaster defence, touching down in the corner. The first half ended all square at 8-8.
York began to shows signs of dominance in the second half, scoring in the 45th minute from a fantastic solo effort by their Scrum Half. They could have scored again, until a seemingly unstoppable break by York was hampered by an alleged forward pass.
Poor tackling and a flimsy defence cost Lancaster dearly when York’s flanker crossed over in the corner on the 63rd minute. By this time, Lancaster’s defence began to completely disintegrate and York’s attack took full advantage of this to touch down in the 80th minute clinching a deserved 30-8 victory.
This is a comment in reaction to the recent roses article you published on the men?s 1st XV rugby game. First of all the title: ?Determined York side destroy Lancaster in Rugby Union? from a paper that published in the previous week an article in which, Marc Handley (all knowing rugby god) said that the Lancaster 1st XV would be certain to dominate. This kind of contradiction reflects appallingly on a rugby team that was throughout the fixture obvious underdogs to a side that have been consistently strong title contenders in the league above Lancaster. It makes it appear that as a team we had gone into the match expecting an easy win which was not the case at all and reflects the total lack of communication between the student media at Lancaster and the rugby team.
Turning to the content of the article it was nothing short of appalling sports writing. To devote no more than two hundred and seventy eight words to the opening and showpiece event of the Roses tournament reflects Scan sports complete disregard for a team that has had one of the most successful seasons of any team in the university. Furthermore of those few words that were written many were inaccurate. The first try was in fact the result of a kick by Harry Roe not Luke Flanagan, the penalty kick was taken by ?Anthony? not ?antony? and a Lancaster penalty means a penalty for Lancaster not one against them!
Contrast this to York who held two recorded interviews, two different articles, a multitude of photographs and a full recorded DVD of the game is it any wonder that the rugby team were ?destroyed? by a university that devotes a great deal more pride and time in their own rugby team. I recognise that this may appear a bitter rant and accept that it was hard to lose to York in front of incredibly partisan crowd, however there is more to this comment than merely bitterness. Scan has, since I have been at this university, shown a complete disregard to the efforts of what is one of the biggest clubs in the university and one that could bring a great deal of prestige to the university given the opportunity. Whilst the team can accept responsibility for what goes on the pitch and accept the defeat, I don?t think it is simple coincidence that the winning team on Friday night was the one that had a great deal more support from its student media.
If the rugby team is around next year I implore you either to abandon your involvement altogether or make serious changes to your sports reporting.
Hi Conor
Just a few points. In future, any factual inaccuracies in reports should be sent to either scan@lancaster.ac.uk, scan.assistanteditor@lusu.co.uk and the section the inaccuracies appear in, in this case scan.sports@lusu.co.uk.
In response to your other comments, I would like to make it clear SCAN writers cannot, and will not, take responsibility for the loss of a side. SCAN can only cover sports in an impartial and an accurate way. SCAN, again, cannot be responsible for what is written in an opinion piece by the Vice President (Sports) – perhaps you need to take up the issue of what went wrong with him. I don’t really see how you can compare an opinion piece to a factual report, so I shall disregard that comment.
As for the short reports and inaccuracies – surely everyone is allowed to make a mistake, and these will be cleared up once you send an email listing them to the above addresses. The length of the article is roughly the same as every other report for all the sports at York, and full articles will appear in the next issue of SCAN, which is out on Friday.
As for York’s media coverage, surely you can see that the home side will obviously have better coverage, due to them not having to stretch their budgets to transport their student media anywhere. Needless to say, SCAN doesn’t do video coverage, the lack of that is down to Lancaster’s other student media who are actually working with YSTV and URY, so their coverage is shared.
Whilst I appreciate your reply, I take issue with some of what you have said. Firstly with regard to your disregarding my first comment. How you can call scan sports reports impartial is beyond me. For a start the rugby piece referred to ‘poor and flimsy tackling’ is this factual and impartial? I do not believe so.
Secondly the short reports, whilst I can understand have to be produced in a limited amount of time surely do not reflect the difference in popularity of individual sports can you really justify devoting the same amount of column space to the more minor sports compared to a team game with as many players and supporters as the rugby. In reference to the inconsistencies I can understand SOME mistakes but I would have thought a Lancaster reporter would have got facts about the Lancaster team correct.
Additionally I don’t know how clearly you read my comment but I clearly stated the team DO take responsibility for their own results. However it feels a little disingenuous for Scan to largely ignore the performances of the rugby team all year and then to, at roses, write a damning and inaccurate report of our game.
Finally the reference to the women’s success in contrast to their male counterparts was both unnecessary and does a disservice to women’s team whose achievement were in and of themselves noteworthy irrelevant of anything that happened with the men’s team.
If a comment is negative, that doesn’t stop it being impartial.
As for the ‘short’ reports, it was decided far in advance that all sports would be treated equally, with reports of around 250-300 words after a match, with a view to a larger piece in the printed paper. It is not for us (or you) to decide which sports are more important than others. In our view, they are all equally important.
I don’t think there’s much point dedicating any more time to this ridiculous argument. The only thing that will be changed about this article in its current form are the mistakes, once they have been sent through the proper channels.
I’m sorry you’re not happy with the article, but you are so far the only person to make a complaint in this way and we don’t have a policy at SCAN to change articles because of someone’s opinion.
Thank you for what is an unsurprisingly disappointing response. It amazes me that Scan is so willing to publish and support such poor journalism and I think in time you will realise that your inept report is something that has aggravated a lot of people. Good luck with future reports and I hope to see an improvement in the future.
Everyone should learn to take criticisms with an open mind.
I do think sports commentary such as this one is just that, a commentary. Much of it is the writer’s opinion, unlike news reporting.
We have to accept that the report is not very objective or balanced (which is not uncommon for commentaries). However, I think Conor do have a point and I don’t think it is a very fair report if you make negative comment without saying anything constructive or in perspective. The fact that it is too brief may be a factor. For a 250-word piece, is the report edgy or tacky?
Personally, I think SCAN should take criticisms more openly. Just because only one person’s complaining doesn’t make it invalid. Having some humility wouldn’t hurt, especially when we have the upper hand.
Its almost a repeat of roses 2010. The scan report at that time was also very inaccurate and represented York as the ‘dominant’ team throughout the game. This was not the case at all, it was one of the tightest and closely fought games of last year with the score finishing 17-19, myself and Anthony Coulson were also reported as playing for both teams. Just seems like Scan has done it again with this years report. At least it is consistent with its poor reporting of our games!
I’d just like to say I thought this report was unbelievably poor from start to finish. The headline ” determined York side destroy Lancaster in rugby ” would suggest that York dominated in every area of the game which was simply not true. Lancaster dominated the scrums and held their own in the lineouts, but unfortunately Scan failed to report this. This report was obviously compiled by someone without even a basic grasp of the game. The amount of effort that went into the preparation of this game by the team was unbelievable and I find it insulting that the report Scan produced is full of errors and inaccuracies.
The quality of rugby match reports from Scan over the last few years has been infrequent and of a poor quality. The fact that there was no report when we won the league this year was outrageous and we are still in a state of disbelief that there was no report in what was the biggest success of any University sports team this year.
Personally I think the University should withdraw all funding from Scan and spend the money on things that would benefit students more than the poor quality of reporting they are receiving at the moment.
Good Day !!!
In other news the latest on the Ed Harrison scandal, latest quote from Ed Harrison- ‘it wasn’t me, that is all’
As with a lot of the articles I have read over the past 2 years of reading Scan, this report is dire. For one, mistakes with names is unacceptable, especially when you are following a team which is as important for the University as the Men’s Rugby Team. How hard is it to get a list of names and numbers prior to the game?
Also, how can you sum up one of the most important and well followed sports in the Roses in 250-300 words. Surely there shouldn’t be a word limit on a web report. You may treat all sports equally at Scan, but lets be honest, rugby is one of the biggest and most followed sports on campus.
For the people who didn’t go to York, myself included, I haven’t gained anything from reading this article except the scoreline. Surely the paper should focus on getting the facts right, and make it an exciting read for those of us who were unfortunate enough to be stuck here in the rain revising.
I agree with Conor’s points entirely, and I just hope that the printed article in the paper does the lads justice, who’ve worked hard all year to win their league and do the Uni proud.
As the points Andrew Joy has made above it is once again no shock that Scan have published another inaccurate and poor article. It is almost to be expected. The amount of times names have been published incorrectly is ridiculous and almost embarrassing.
The (i use this term very liberally) “journalist” who wrote this article had little to no rugby knowledge. The only thing he can report on is the clearest aspect of the game – the scoreline. The fact that Lancaster were stealing balls in the line outs and winning scrums against the head (note to journalist – that means winning an oppositions scrum) was all but looked over. All you had to report on in arguably the biggest game at roses was a poor 250 word report which once again would depict to an outsider that York dominated throughout the game.
I dont want to seem like we are making excuses for our performance. Yes, we lost but i feel you tarnished us with an in-accurate brush that made us look like we were beaten in every aspect of the game from start to finish.
I just hope you can take these comments on board for future articles and maybe get the odd name right to allow the correct people to gain the recognition that they so rightly deserve.
Although….i remain very un-hopeful for that to happen.
I would yet again like to voice my disapproval of the the SCAN coverage of the Men’s Rugby 1st XV game. To say that a team had been “destroyed” when at half-time the score was 8-8 is a bit ridiculous. It wasn’t until literally the last second of the game when York scored their try which brought them back level with us.
Secondly, I agree with the point that everybody is allowed to make a mistake (in regards to getting people’s name wrong) but personally I have had about six different names during my time at Lancaster… “Anthony”, “Tony”, “Antony”… Surely it can’t be too difficult to get a team-sheet.. I know for a fact our captain writes one for every away game we play… They even announced it on the loud speaker before the game… If York’s media has it then surely our university’s must have it as well? You also mention that “surely you can see that the home side will obviously have better coverage, due to them not having to stretch their budgets to transport their student media anywhere.” At Roses 2010 (in Lancaster) two of our players, including myself, played for both Lancaster and York at the same time.. I even scored about 6 points for York apparently which I doubt went down well in the report.
It is also a personal grievance of mine that there has been a total disregard for the success that the club has had this year. The 1st XV went on a 14-match unbeaten run this season, including 40 point victories away at Liverpool and MMU, which in my opinion would deserve some recognition. Despite this, and reaching the semi-final of the BUCS cup, our last game of the season against UCLAN had the most unbelievable ending to the game which saw us get promoted as champions and stopped them getting promoted… SCAN should know what happened at the end because i remember one of your writers commenting on a facebook group.. “How am i going to write that ending in SCAN?” Well… he didn’t. It never made it into SCAN. Whilst i appreciate that over teams also had success, it would have been nice to receive a bit of praise.
Finally, to dismiss a comment that one the boys has passionately wrote because, and i quote,
“you are so far the only person to make a complaint in this way” seems absolutely ridiculous. I don’t see the point in having a comments box at the end of your reports if when somebody does comment on it, it is met by that reaction? It doesn’t seem fair to me. I’m sure that if it was a positive comment it wouldn’t be dismissed like that comment was?
Sorry to witter on but it just seems like there is a total disregard for any effort that the boys put in throughout the season and especially at Roses. I doubt there were many clubs coming back a week early from their easter holidays and training every single morning.
Firstly, I’d like to agree with everything that my fellow club mates have said. The article posted is simply poor. As a spectator of the 1st XV game the reporting isn’t representative of the massive effort shown by the 1st’s and the weeks of training prior to the game. As for impartiality of the article for a Lancaster publication this article focuses far to much on the York performance. It’s true they do deserve recognition for their performance, but to neglect any of the many positive pieces of play shown by Lancaster is unacceptable. No credit was given to excellent tackling and defence outside the few breaks made by good York play not poor Lancaster defending. And the dominant forward play, as well as unbelievable commitment shown by the entire team is not represented at all. I suggested in the next article you consider which university you represent.
I’d like to echo the comments made above by my club mates. The inconsistency of reporting in Scan is frankly horrendous, especially in regard to the sport section of the paper. Having read both of York’s reports on the game I can confirm that both, whilst still leaving a lot to be desired, surpass this article. Whilst I can also accept that mistakes do happen in regard to minor inaccuracies there is a huge difference between a grammatical error or a misspelling and the use of an entirely different name. Harry Roe’s kick, which was a pivotal moment and allowed Ed to score, for example. No sports journalist can get away with using the wrong name.
Above all however I was confused, as the game I was watching on Friday night was certainly not the one I read about in Scan. The first half for example, which was brushed over somewhat, was incredibly closely matched, in fact I would say that Lancaster played the better rugby, especially in regard to the set piece. The headline is in every way ridiculous, how Lancaster were ‘destroyed’ is beyond me and is quite offensive, they played some great rugby and were ultimately beaten by a better side who have done very well in the league above this season. So, 22 points isn’t anything to be ashamed of, certainly not if you were watching, which I assume your reporter was.
The comments made in response to Conor were completely unprofessional and almost as ill informed as the article itself; ‘I would like to make it clear SCAN writers cannot, and will not, take responsibility for the loss of a side’, thanks for clearing that up because the entire squad were blaming Scan after the defeat. And as for the remark about it being the first negative comment, words fail me, why would that matter in the slightest?
Finally, in my naivety I honestly thought Scan didn’t report on the rugby because of some agreement not to with the team, the fact it is actually Scans choice is shocking. As one of the foremost and most successful teams in the university it amazes me that I have read only one report on the 1st team this season, if nothing else Scan are missing a trick here, considering the previously mentioned 14 game winning streak, perhaps positive reporting is frowned upon. After reading the sport section it becomes even more ridiculous when it is made clear how many column inches are devoted to pointless and poorly written articles about minor international sporting incidents. I once read a spoof article on Suarez becoming a goalie following his hand ball in the world cup, I can read that but I cannot read about the promotion deciding local derby?
It will be clear to all that I am not the only one who is bitterly disappointed by what can only be described as sub-standard journalism provided by SCAN. It was clear within the first few sentences that the author of the article had no real interest or grasp of the enormity of the game. It seemed rushed (which can only explain some of the utterly inexcusable mistakes).
I also wonder whether the author actually watched the match. The statement ?poor tackling and a flimsy defence? just proves how little the author observed during the match. You only have to look at the photos taken from the match to show how wrong that statement is.
York?s team were matched at the rucks, lineouts and scrums, but those factors were missed out. The only outstanding part of the York team was the Number 9 and 10, whose blistering pace was, admittedly too much for Lancaster to handle.
Further to this, where on earth was the write up about the fantastic league decider against UCLan? It was the most exciting game of the season and possibly of recent times and yet you failed to provide an article. It was such an exciting game, it featured on the most popular rugby website, Rugbydump. To receive that level of recognition for an outstanding game, just shows how off the mark SCAN is.
What I find particularly worrying is that SCAN seems to not recognise that Men’s Rugby Union is probably the most popular sport followed by the university. Don’t take my word for it; ask the hundreds of people who turned up for the League decider against UCLan and for the Roses match.
SCAN, you should be utterly ashamed with yourselves.
I’d like to lend my support to the Men’s Rugby Team. The unfortunate truth of this article is that it lacks and real knowledge or enthusiasm on rugby, the competition or journalism itself. The article reads like it was written by the partisan York crown at the stadium, there is no denying that. There is little to suggest that the team is arguably the most successful Lancaster has had for some time and one that is highly talented and committed to Roses. The team trained all year throughout the season and, as argued earlier, came back to Lancaster during the Easter break to make sure they were well prepared for the tournament. I wonder how many other University teams show the same dedication to the competition year in, year out?
Furthermore, I would like to mention that the article itself shows little knowledge of the game. No mention of the set pieces that Lancaster constantly challenged and held their own and nothing on how many times Lancaster were unlucky to be denied points so close to the York line. The size of the article is fair compared to the others, but there has been almost zero coverage of this game in previous issues of SCAN. Wasn’t this game the official opening of the weekend? drawing a crowd of over 3500? It seems that SCAN do not think that this game was much more than a one sided exhibition. However they were very ready to comment on the loss again when reporting on the Women’s victories where a full 250-300 words on congratulating the Women’s team on their efforts would have been better I feel.
I would hope SCAN consider which University they represent or perhaps that they would refrain on reporting on the Rugby team altogether. After all “No news is good news” right?.
A 250-300 word report is appropriate style for web journalism. A longer report for many of the matches will appear in SCAN, which is out on Friday this week.
My comment that “you are so far the only person to make a complaint in this way” refers solely to the fact that SCAN has apparently been blamed for the loss of this match. I don’t think any SCAN reporters are on the rugby team, and to suggest that a lack of support from the media is what caused the loss of this match is utterly ridiculous. I don’t think any of you can convincingly argue that point.
And to clarify, once more, if you email me the corrections to scan.assistanteditor@lusu.co.uk, I will change them in the article. Those are the only changes that will be made to this report.
Personaly, I think that the reaction of the rugby team towards the article is simple a kneejerk reaction to their dissapointing performances at the weekend.
It cannot be argued by anybody other than members of the rugby teams themselves on how hard they worked towards these matches. However, their behaviour over the weekend would lead me, if I were on the team, to keep quiet about what went on.
The behaviour of the teams included; general drunkedness, roumors of drinking the night before their games and abuse towards both York fans and players. In short the behaviour of the Mens Rugby Team let Lancaster down.
If just a fraction of the rumours are true then the team did not deserve to attend nor be affiliated with Lancaster, never mind win.
A report of such poor quality really puts our university in jeopardy. I am concerned, as I struggle to believe that a report quite as bad as this could be an anomaly in an otherwise well-researched and informative student newspaper. To think that certain individuals feel that they may represent the best journalism Lancaster University has to offer is somewhat upsetting, and I vow personally to avoid the newspaper in future. I can only express my sorrow that my final ever rugby game for Lancaster University was reported in such a lacklustre, confused and damn-right insulting manner.
Having read the article, and been present at the match I?m completely baffled at how the performance of the rugby team has been reported. There several areas of play in which Lancaster more than matched York especially in the first half such as the set pieces, which would have been highlighted by a journalist with a knowledge of the game.
To suggest that the rugby team are looking for somebody to blame for a poor performance is beyond ridiculous. As mentioned earlier the score at half time was level after a period where Lancaster was leading, hardly a poor performance. The team would acknowledge that on the night they were beaten by a better team, and a strong York team at that. However the article does not reflect this and simply suggests that Lancaster were poor throughout, hardly fair considering their efforts.
Given the poor standard of media coverage given to the rugby team over this year, capitulated by the lack of any kind of report for the league decider at home against UCLAN it would be foolish to argue this is simply a ?kneejerk reaction?. There have been constant inaccuracies included in SCAN reports when covering rugby matches, such unprofessionalism and lack of attention to detail should not be tolerated.
Personally, I have to feel that these ‘comments’ read rather more like a tantrum from the rugby club than of any rational arguments or opinions. At the end of the day, you guys lost and from the rumours of heavy drinking, and late night partying that are doing the rounds its honestly no suprise. There are many other clubs at Lancaster who compete regularly without comments or features from SCAN, and you don’t see them complaining that this lack of support is affecting their ability to perform. Why? Because they are mature and appreciate that it is impossible to do so. And if, as you guy have said the level of reporting of rugby events has been so poor for several years now why haven’t any of you guys joined SCAN and done a better job? Its very easy to criticise someone for a job that you aren’t capable of doing yourself. If you are so bothered about ensuring that rugby is given better publicity then put down the beer, get off your arse and quit complaining, because right now you just sound like a bunch of bitter little boys…..
I agree with Kate. Did I miss the part where the men’s rugby team was automatically entitled to coverage in SCAN to the exclusion of all other university sports teams?
And breathe. More Suarez antics and satirical tomfoolery this way >>> http://www.sportdistort.com/
H+S….
I lack to see the point you are trying to make here.
But in response to your comment :-
1) This whole discussion has been about the rugby match which took place on Friday night and the poor journalistic capability of the person who wrote this article. I do not understand how you are trying to link a scan editor writing another poor inaccurate article with our ‘behavior’ at the weekend. They are completely unrelated but yet you have tried to (as the whole university does on a regular basis) blame the rugby club for being out of order and using our supposed behavior as a scape-goat. I will admit, we were no angels but once again we have been in-accurately documented.
2) “Rumours of drinking the night before a game” – You have answered your own question there. RUMOURS are not hard evidence. Why would you make a statement that bold without evidence? (Reading this over it does not surprise me actually with the amount of in-accuarate stories and claims in Scan it may just be considered a norm for you. Speed up a slow news day or something along those lines) And for your information we have been on a strict ‘booze’ ban for the past two weeks. To drink the night before a game would defeat the object of us having to stay in for the 2 weeks before. Rethink those RUMOURS.
3) General Drunkenness – Roses is a time of high merriment. Alcohol is served all over campus and it is not like we were the only sports team who were partaking in ‘general’ drunkenness. I will not name names but i saw other sports clubs par-taking in ‘general’ drunkenness but i did not understand why Lancaster Mens Rugby Club should be persecuted for ‘general’ drunkenness. If ‘general’ drunkenness is such an issue maybe alcohol should be banned for all Lancaster players and spectators for the whole weekend?
4) Abuse to York players and spectators – Were you at the Mens Rugby 1st on the Friday? In fact was anyone from Lancaster there? Im pretty sure the journalist who wrote that article was not at the game and possibly not even in the country it is that in-accurate. Every time a Lancaster player picked up, kicked or threw a ball loud boo’s echoed across the stadium. Even the commentator on the p.a. was jeering at us. Every time we were near the York spectators we were met with abuse that i dont really feel is necessary to repeat on here. I was with the Lancaster mens rugby team throughout the whole weekend and hand on heart, the ‘abuse’ we gave was nothing but general banter. Absolutely nothing compared to what York spectators were saying to us. On that front I would go as far as saying we did Lancaster proud.
And finally you use the term rumours at the end of your article and say that we do not deserve to be affiliated with Lancaster. Unfortunately we are one of the most successful teams at Lancaster this season. That is a FACT not a RUMOUR whether you like it or not. I dont feel a team who have trained as hard as we have and performed throughout the season as well as we have should be treated to such a poor article throughout the whole year as well as this weekend.
@ Samantha Newsham
Where in this article have we asked for automatic entitlement? The whole concept of a University paper is to report accurately (now there is a joke), be it bad or good news. The fact that no good news was reported in relation to the success of Lancaster 1st’s this season is just outrageous. The Women’s team have been reported on with their great success this season. Why shouldn’t the Men’s team be entitled to such treatment. A hidden agenda perhaps?
@ Kathrine
Why should a member of the rugby club feel the need to join SCAN just to ensure articles are factual and fair? SCAN should be doing everything it can to ensure all sports are reported on correctly. I think ignoring your evaluation of our rugby teams mental capacity is the “mature” option.
A few responses to comments made.
Collette McColgan – “SCAN has apparently been blamed for the loss of this match”
No one has blamed SCAN for the loss of the match. Collette, you are the one who keeps banging on about that point and people have repeatedly stated that we DO NOT blame SCAN or any other party for the loss.
H & S ” I think that the reaction of the rugby team towards the article is simple a kneejerk reaction to their dissapointing performances at the weekend.”
This was no kneejerk reaction, these comments are a response to having to put up with years of shoddy reporting. We are not whining like babies, we are simply extremely annoyed that the biggest rugby match of our lives was reported in such a poor way.
H & S -” The behaviour of the teams included; general drunkedness”
There is nothing wrong with having a few drinks. We had been on a booze ban for 2 weeks and had been training extremely hard so I think we had earned a few Shandy’s.
H & S – “rumours of drinking the night before their games”
Dont be so rediculous, do you really think we would train our arses off for 3 weeks and then drink the night before???
Katherine Utton – “Personally, I have to feel that these ?comments? read rather more like a tantrum from the rugby club than of any rational arguments or opinions”
As i’ve said none of us are having a tantrum, this was just the final straw after having to put up with a poor standard / sloppy reporting for the last three years. Also if you actually read all the comments made, it is clear that there are many rational arguments and opinions.We are not directing a tirade of abuse towards Scan or using profanities. All we are doing is expressing our annoyance in a history of poor reports.
Katherine Utton – “At the end of the day, you guys lost and from the rumours of heavy drinking, and late night partying that are doing the rounds its honestly no suprise”
At the end of the day, these rumours are not true. Can you tell me where they are coming from because this is an outrageous accusation.
Samantha Newsham – ” Did I miss the part where the men?s rugby team was automatically entitled to coverage in SCAN to the exclusion of all other university sports teams?”
Can you please get your facts right. No one affiliated with the Lancaster Univerisity Rugby Union Football Club has claimed that we should have coverage in Scan to the exclusion of all the other Univeristy sports teams. Instead the point that has been made is that Rugby Union is the largest spectator sport at Roses and that therefore means that more people would be interested in reading about it. It is ridiculous for example for a sport who has for example 10 spectators to get the same amount of coverage as a sport – ie: rugby union that has over 2,500 spectators.
To be brutally honest the comments made against us sum up the general attitude of SCAN, it appears that the paper is more than willing, and in fact thrives on, jumping on innocent statements and distorting them ridiculously. There has not been one valid point made against the rugby team in this entire discussion. It is so frustrating when you read intelligent and well crafted arguments, none of which were intended to antagonize, being completely twisted by SCAN reporters. The fact a lot of the comments here clearly state that they are relying souly on rumours goes a long way to explaining why SCAN can publish such rubbish. Why on earth would any member of any rugby team drink before a game that they had been training for incredibly hard for three weeks, especially considering the fact that we had all managed to shy away from booze for the duration of that period. It appears that you are all clutching at straws.
I have been eagerly awaiting SCAN’s coverage of the Men’s University Rugby Teams game at Roses and I am positively disappointed by what I have read. Having heard from friends both from Lancaster and York Universities and then reading this it seems that the two accounts differ greatly. SCAN barely scratches the surface and what was a tough encounter for both teams. Having passed this report onto friends at York who watched the game they were startled by the amount of inaccuracy in the match report. Quite frankly they believed it was an injustice that such a report could be wrote about a team that have played remarkable all season and then put up a tremendous fight against a strong York side.
It is quite clear that many of the people commenting on this feel the same way and it bemuses me that the only action SCAN seems to be able to take is to correct the more blatant inaccuracies reported, such as the names of players. How a Lancaster Student Paper has managed to report the names of players inaccurately is beyond a joke. It is very embarrassing to read this article and it should be an embarrassment to SCAN and their ?editors? for allowing such rubbish to be published.
I can?t see Collette?s point about ?SCAN has apparently been blamed for the loss of this match? and ?to suggest that a lack of support from the media is what caused the loss of this match is utterly ridiculous?. This quite clearly isn?t the problem. The problem is SCAN?s obvious unprofessionalism in reporting of Lancaster sports. SCAN quite clearly has no idea of the achievements the club has made this year, one of the being the UCLan game that awarded the Men?s 1st XV promotion. I can?t seem to find a single report from SCAN regarding this match. How can anyone from SCAN try and argue there corner when the evidence is quite clearly stacked against them.
I for one will no longer be supporting SCAN until they can produce reports of Sports across Lancaster University that aren?t tarnished with mistakes and are indeed an accurate reflection of results.
Its nice to see numerous people from outside of the rugby club are supporting us here. I would like to thank those people as this shows that it is not just ” a kneejerk reaction” or a “tantrum from the rugby club”.
I find it concerning that as Lancaster creeps up the league tables to within the Top 10, new students will arrive at Lancaster expecting a lot more from the journalism than what they are likely to receive. For the future student I hope Scan re-think their position.
Whether Scan chose to accept it, such coverage of ?perceived? low quality sport is likely to have a defamatory affected on new sporting prospects at the university. Why would prospective students choose to come to a university that display such ?poor performances??
On one hand I feel you are entitled to your version of the events regarding the Roses match, whilst it is disappointing you choose to cover it in such a negative way, those that understand/watched the game will be aware that your reporting exhibits levels of incompetence, disloyalty and inaccuracy previously unprecedented by any other rival universities. Knowing a number of student newspaper editors throughout the Country (Leeds Student, UEA Concrete and Surrey Stag) I am not the only one who finds the coverage questionable at best. That is without noting the clear factual errors that were citied by all as unacceptable.
Having been a student of Lancaster for 4 years there are aspects of the paper that, in the past have made me smile, however sport remains to be one of those. In no other facets of life, academic, commercial or otherwise is there completely proportional representation. That is to say, that if there are thousands of people who show their support for one sport and only a handful for another, then why is the coverage equal. To draw a parallel, parliament is not made up of all parties equally ? instead it would be my thought to give the people what they want. However I reserve this thought to your better judgement.
Regarding the Assistant Editors most recent post;
“My comment that ‘you are so far the only person to make a complaint in this way’ refers solely to the fact that SCAN has apparently been blamed for the loss of this match. ”
I would like to take the opportunity, once again, to reiterate that at no point during this discussion has anyone ever suggested that Scan is to blame for the loss. This apparent lack of literacy and observational skill is alarming for someone in your position.
Finally, I would like to say thank you for making the decision not to read Scan easier and best of luck in your reporting moving forward.
In response to the vast number of you saying that it has not been suggested that SCAN is responsible for the loss, I would direct you to Conor Anand-Shaw’s comment: “I don?t think it is simple coincidence that the winning team on Friday night was the one that had a great deal more support from its student media”. I think that sums that point up nicely.
Moving on, the criticism you have received in this article is nothing in comparison to the frankly rude and inconsiderate remarks you have made about the writer. SCAN is a team, much like you are, and so of course there is going to be a defensive response.
All of the points you are making are in relation to the style of reporting. In a 250 word report certain points do have to be omitted for the sake of the core points. This is web writing style, and is adopted by any other newspaper – student or otherwise. A longer report will appear in the paper (not sure how many times I can say this, but you guys just keep raising the same points!) . I patiently await your criticism on that. Those taking exception to the headline – to be perfectly honest, with a 30-8 score, it does sound like you were destroyed.
In other news, and while I’m sure you’re having fun with your endless comments – and please keep them coming, our website hits are going through the roof! – I’m still awaiting an email with any corrections in. This thread is far too confusing for me to work out which names are incorrect now, so they will only be changed on receipt of an email. SCAN has a policy to correct any mistakes, but I can only do that if you tell me what they are.
I am going to try and look at this from both sides of the argument.
Firstly, whilst I agree that a match report should be the reporter?s opinion I think that it is important that an opinion is made based on the best facts that are available. If any research had been done prior to writing this you would have found out quite easily that Lancaster went into Roses as underdogs ? you only have to look at the BUCS league table to make this judgement.
Secondly, I think it is completely ludicrous to say that all sports are equal and should therefore be reported equally. If this were the case then why chose rugby as the sport to sold in conjunction with opening ceremony? The simple fact is that it attracts the most number of spectators and has one of the largest followings at both universities. It doesn?t take a genius to work out that more people want to read about rugby than ultimate Frisbee (And no this is not just my personal opinion, it is the opinion of the millions of rugby supporters worldwide).
Finally, to say ?if you don?t like it then why don?t one of you guys join SCAN? is the easy way out. People are getting frustrated at this report not because the team lost, but because the way it was reported shows a complete disregard for the teams performance during the rest of the season and in no way mentions that they went into the game as underdogs. The lack of research is shown by the reporter?s inability to get the players names right! Something that I would have thought is covered in Reporting 101.
Also, I think something we are all forgetting here is that the reporter is a Lancaster student. Those arguing that this piece is too partial should perhaps realise that if that were the case, Lancaster would surely have come off better? Perhaps the problem here is that you were all expecting support from your home newspaper, and not honest criticism. It doesn’t make any sense that a Lancaster student would deliberately try and belittle his home side, does it?
Collette McColgan – “In response to the vast number of you saying that it has not been suggested that SCAN is responsible for the loss, I would direct you to Conor Anand-Shaw?s comment: ?I don?t think it is simple coincidence that the winning team on Friday night was the one that had a great deal more support from its student media?. I think that sums that point up nicely.”
Did you miss Conors reply which said
“Additionally I don?t know how clearly you read my comment but I clearly stated the team DO take responsibility for their own results. However it feels a little disingenuous for Scan to largely ignore the performances of the rugby team all year and then to, at roses, write a damning and inaccurate report of our game.”
I think that sums up that point nicely !
As writer of this article I would like to be given the opportunity to defend my myself. Firstly I would like to point out that a further article concerning rugby union will appear in the next issue of SCAN. This article will describe in further depth the events of the game giving credit to the team for what was indeed a fantastic defensive display in the first half. Given the word count of the article, I did not feel it would be appropriate to include information in the online match report about set pieces or the positive aspects of the second half. I simply wanted to report what happened and to give my own opinion. In respects to the second half, as a keen rugby fan myself it was my belief that some of the York attacking play was caused by ‘flimsy tackling.’ Im sorry if you dont agree with me but then again that is to be expected since its your team.
In regards to the length of the article, my colleages have already explained that we tried to give every sport the same amount of words because this is fair. I understand perfectly that as a popular sport you may not agree with this, but Roses is not just about rugby. There were plenty of other sports who were just as deserving as you.
In response to the inaccuracies that have been mentioned, I do take full responsibility. I apologise to Anthony Coulson for missing out the ‘h’ in his name. In my defence, i got the team line up over the announcer and so I was not to know how the name was spelt. I also apologise for getting the name wrong of the lad who kicked the ball that led to the try. This information I actually got off a member of the rugby union team who was watching.
These corrections have been made in my report that will appear in the next edition of SCAN. I also hope you find the report more enjoyable. I have given you credit where it was due.
I also hope that many of you will appreciate the massive effort the SCAN team put in to bring you coverage of Roses. We all worked non stop throughout the weekend to bring you the news and I find the way individuals from the rugby team have critisized us as incredibly degrading.
I hope the issue can be laid to rest and that we can strive to build a better relationship between SCAN and the Mens Rugby Union Club. In my view, only by closer communication between us can we improve the coverage of rugby union and of course the accuracy of our reports.
@Collette Firstly, in no way does ?I don?t think it is simple coincidence that the winning team on Friday night was the one that had a great deal more support from its student media? suggest that Scan are to blame for the teams loss, what it does suggest is that if your paper had offered the level of support that many others do to their teams then more people would have turned up to support Lancaster Cats, and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that support boosts team morale.
Secondly, 30 points to 8 in no way means York destroyed Lancaster, as his been stressed so many times the half time score was 8-8 and on top of this Lancaster went into the match as underdogs. Furthermore in most rugby matches such a score line is in no way seen to be a destruction.
Thirdly, honest criticism can only really work if the criticism is coming from someone who has any idea what they are talking about, and as we’ve established your writer doesn’t.
Lancaster knocked out by UCLAN – 16/3/11 – Will Taylor
http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2011/03/16/lancaster-knocked-out-by-uclan/
Defiant Lancaster earn hardfought victory – 14/2/11 – Rhys Elias
http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2011/02/14/defiant-lancaster-earn-hard-fought-victory/
Dominant Lancaster put Liverpool to rout – 22/11/10 – Matthew Todd
http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2010/11/22/dominant-lancaster-rout-liverpool/
Add the Roses article into the mix – who said we only covered you once this season?
As a Freshman at this university, the thing that i looked forward to most on arriving at university was the opportunity to represent Lancaster on a national scale at tournaments such as Roses, and now that we have been promoted, on a weekly basis against such strong and committed sporting universities as York, Newcastle and Sheffield.
Whilst i am aware that Lancaster is a purely academic University, it is ridiculous to think that a team who competes so well on a national scale, despite various challenges that do not affected other better funded universities, is treated so poorly with regards to how they are reported on by a newspaper who is supposed to have University loyalty and pride at their heart.
Though i agree that reporters at SCAN may, justifiably, have their own interests to protect in terms of further careers in journalism, where is this reporter’s sense of pride towards their university? Pride which the rugby team show week in and week out, and never receive credit for. In terms of pure numbers, rugby is second only to football, our national sport, in terms of male participation, and consequently it seems only right to afford the Rugby Team appropriate standing within your newspaper. Anybody who reads national newspapers on a regular basis, newspapers with reporters who also have their careers to think of like the reporters at SCAN, can see that football, the most popular sport in our nation, is always afforded priority in terms of volume and quality over other sports, almost like a hierachy of importance for the nation. Why should SCAN, a paper who claim to have professional interests, be any different?
I also implore Colette to reread this chain of comments, as it is clear she is reading what she wants to read and ignoring the facts that the original comment from Conor was based on. On behalf of next season’s exec, as well as the rugby club as a whole, i want to clarify this to SCAN; We are of course disappointed with our results at Roses, any team who had put the time and effort into preparing as we had would be. However, we know we have nobody but ourselves to blame.
In reference to the 1st team in particular, for a team a whole league below to dominate the York forwards in the manner we did shows exceptional skill and courage.
I implore SCAN to at least take heed of our pleas for improved reporting, as this is what these comment strands are intended for, and in future would ask that before a report goes out, they get in touch with the exec of the rugby club so we can help you produce the best report you can. It is in both parties best interests, and as a first year at Lancaster, it will improve my Lancaster experience and also the experience of my peers.
My name is spelled ‘Collette’. Again, there is nothing I can do about this report until someone sends me some corrections… anyone?
As a personal friend of Rhys’ I think it shocking that people should attack his journalism in such a manner, stating that he knowns nothing of Rugby Union. I know him as a big Union fan who knows the ins and outs of the game better than most. Secondly, he has done this not because he has to, but because it is something he enjoys. If every member of SCAN were to be accosted like this, there would be very few people left willing to give up their time for journalism and it would be unlikely that we had any coverage of Roses at all, never mind the speedy and wide range of coverage that we all received.
The second point i would like to make is that the largest society on campus is in fact the Ballroom Society, who were only aloud to take limited team members and no fans along – what was that about being fair?
While the article may be blunt in what it says, there was only a limited amount that could be written in such a short time.
The weekend is about sportsmanship and competition, not attacking people personally because you feel hard done to.
If you are going to be pedantic ‘Collette’ then fine, but you are again ignoring the crux of the argument put forward.
I would also like to thank and congratulate Rhys Elias for a very professional and fair response, as many of us have had to do in this strand with regards to aspects of our play on Friday. He is a credit to SCAN, and perhaps his professional example should be followed by more senior members of the SCAN team in future with regards to dealing with these comment pages.
that should read *as many of us have had to swallow our pride in this strand…
Sorry, Bruno, I didn’t mean to be such a pedant. This comment-fest did stem from a complaint about a spelling mistake though. It is terrible when that happens, and it’s always nice to have mistakes corrected, I feel.
Anyway, any corrections (such as names being spelled wrong, etc.) please email them to me and I’ll change them.
@Collette ? with regards to your quote from Conor?s comment, you conveniently neglected what preceded Conor?s statement; ‘Whilst the team can accept responsibility for what goes on the pitch and accept the defeat, I don?t think it is simple coincidence that the winning team on Friday night was the one that had a great deal more support from its student media’. The lack of support from SCAN for the rugby team throughout the season is the issue being raised here.
Further to this, @Jack Smith, of your links provided only one was actually published in SCAN, whilst the other two were only viewable online, compare this to the reports produced by both York University?s student paper and website the efforts of SCAN pale into insignificance whether they be online or in the newspaper. Please find links below:
http://www.yorkvision.co.uk/archives/sport-rugbyunion-mens/
http://www.nouse.co.uk/archives/rugby/
A report published on the website is as valid as one in the paper. Needless to say, SCAN can only cover matches which it has reporters for. It is a shame we don’t have more sports reporters, but that’s the way it is. Maybe some of you would be interested in writing for SCAN in future.
Still eagerly awaiting that corrections email.
This ‘comment-fest’ actually stemmed from a frustration with SCAN’s poor reporting across the whole year, one example of which was a spelling mistake. Whilst there have been inaccuracies mentioned with regards to Rhys as a reporter, which i apologise for as it seems he is a keen rugby fan, i would like to emphasise that the frustration of the rugby team is directed not towards Rhys, but towards SCAN as a whole.
Peter. We have a handful of sports writers who have got involved and can go out and cover matches.
York, on the other hand, have a journalism department and automatically have a greater pool of people getting involved with their student newspapers.
I emphasise newspapers as, as you rightly pointed out, there are more than one. Just proves how high the level of involvement is at York.
Unfortunately, the culture at Lancaster is to blame the student media rather than to get involved. Shame.
Oh, sorry. That wasn’t clear from the mass influx of comments on this single article. Our bad.
While we’re here though, would someone like to send me the correct spellings of the incorrect names? It does seem like all this has been in vain if the corrections aren’t made.
@ Collete McColgan
‘Those taking exception to the headline ? to be perfectly honest, with a 30-8 score, it does sound like you were destroyed.’
I see this comment as not only pedantic but also antagonistic. With all due respect I cannot believe that you have ever played or understood team sports with reference to your comment. We were not by any means ‘destroyed’ on Friday night. In team sports from time to time the score does not paint a true picture of actually events and the performance of a team.