Time running out to address rules anomalies

On Gaelic Games: There are times when GAA members can legitimately despair about prevailing attitudes to rules and their enforcement. Leinster and Connacht secretaries Michael Delaney and John Prenty are too long in the game to resort to hand-wringing, but both saw fit to deal with the issue of indiscipline in their just-released annual reports.

Their concerns are timely with the fallout from the Tyrone-Dublin NFL fixture current. In fact Delaney referred to this match in his report in order to point out that 2005 contained "far more cynical acts of violence" - not, it should be pointed out, as special pleading for what happened in Omagh, which he described as "disgraceful".

Prenty regretted the failure of last year's experimental disciplinary rules to get any sort of a reasoned hearing, which was something Delaney had expressed concern about in his report last year.

There's little doubt that the dithering over and eventual flight from those proposals got 2005 off to an ominous start for disciplinary matters, and at the moment prospects for this year hang in the balance.

Suspensions handed down by the Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) at the weekend were a reasonable first step, but the next two months will be crucial in determining the extent to which the CDC can continue in the same vein.

In proposing that the GAA's games development programmes include the input of behavioural specialists, Delaney commented, "Disciplinary committees can only do so much - they have to contend with ambiguous rules, vested interests, a 'saw nothing heard nothing' mentality and a raft of other minor obstacles. We have to adopt a prevention rather than cure approach to this problem."

The CDC have quite a job. From the moment the rancorous match in Omagh ended, the CDC have been under the spotlight, with great interest focused on how they would deal with the scenes of disorder and then complaints about how long their deliberations were taking.

For instance, in the middle of this process the committee were subjected to the following broadside from Tyrone chair Pat Darcy: "The intense media speculation and accusation is not discouraged by the length of time the Central Disciplinary Committee is taking in reaching conclusions on their video evidence. Contrast this disgraceful manner in dealing with our amateur players with the speedy resolution to the case of a professional rugby player cited for an incident in the Ireland v Italy game, but cleared three days later. I am very angry about this."

As a preliminary point, it should be noted that Denis Leamy's case had to be heard quickly because there was only a week between the Italy and France Six Nations fixtures.

Second, there is a world of difference between specific allegations of kicking players at rucks and a complete breakdown of order involving over 20 players.

But most significantly, the CDC had to take time because they now know they must walk on eggshells with regard to due process. Would Pat Darcy have waived his county players' right to appeal on technical grounds had some procedural error been made during an accelerated hearing? These matters are now processed with all the care of criminal proceedings.

As one member of the CDC privately put it, "We're aware that we have the DRA (Disputes Resolution Authority) on our shoulder all the time."

Referee Paddy Russell was even asked to confirm he hadn't noticed the incidents, which were being dealt with on the basis of video evidence, in order that the CDC couldn't be accused of revisiting refereeing decisions, something that ran foul of the DRA last year.

Obviously players are entitled to due process, but GAA president Seán Kelly made a significant point when saying to this newspaper last weekend that too few appeals rested on what might be regarded as miscarriages of justice.

"Many successful appeals have been based not on the facts of a case or on the harshness of a suspension, but on technicalities, and that has to change."

It's likely, for instance, that all of the players suspended at the weekend will appeal, despite what on the available evidence are open-and-shut cases. Is it any wonder the CDC have to spend so long dotting i's and crossing t's?

This should suffice to make the suspensions stick at the Central Appeals Committee, but since last year there is now the additional option of spinning the roulette wheel at the DRA.

It's not the fault of the disputes resolution body that this should be the case. As acknowledged by Delaney, it's the DRA's job to highlight flaws in the GAA's rule book, just as it's the association's job to address any such shortcomings.

Yet it wasn't part of the envisaged function of the DRA that it should be treated as just another rung on the appeals ladder, and the authority are entitled to decline - and have done so - to hear cases.

There have been moves to discourage vexatious applications by raising the price of access from €500 to €1,000.

But ultimately what will discourage knee-jerk recourse to the DRA is lack of success. Just as a more combative stance by the GAA in the courts might have inhibited the stream of applications for injunctions that took place in the past, the refusal of relief from the DRA will greatly reduce the number of cases that body have to hear.

For that to happen, rules have to be brought into line. The problem facing the GAA at present is that time is running out for this year's annual congress.

Should the DRA strike down the Dublin and Tyrone suspensions, there will be little time to formulate motions of amendment and list them on the clár for debate.

Disciplinary issues, such as the crucial right to review overly lenient refereeing decisions, have been referred to the rules task force for consideration, but to be translated into rules changes these need to appear as motions on the congress clár.

For motions to come from provincial councils, they have to be listed for discussion at convention. Half of the provincial conventions take place in the next few days and neither Connacht nor Leinster have been asked to table any such motions.

Central Council can submit a maximum of three motions, but they are meant to be with the director general six weeks before congress, on the 21st and 22nd April, a deadline that runs out in little over two weeks.

The fear has to be that necessary amendments to the Official Guide, to bring it into line with DRA decisions, will not be made and that the CDC will spend another championship season with one hand tied behind their back.