Unless the arbitration agreed to by Na Fianna and the Dublin County Board produces a binding result, the GAA will be playing an important match on unfamiliar territory some time before Christmas. This year has been a bit of a nightmare for the association with a number of court cases being taken against various units by clubs and individuals. The phenomenon isn't new and stretches back at least 10 years but the sheer quantity of litigation over the past 12 months has been worrying.

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that much of this litigation has been inspired by reluctance to accept that rules have to apply even when enforced against you. No one can underestimate the trauma of losing matches - either to late goals or technicalities - but there has to be an onus on members of any association to abide by its rules and accept the judgment of properly constituted authority.

The GAA makes a game attempt to prevent recourse to civil law in Rule 151 (f), which states, "in particular there shall be no appeal to any court of law or to any outside body on any matter".

Of course it's ultimately pointless because citizens always have the right of access to law if they feel their interests or rights are being threatened. But the point is worth making that members of the GAA are not meant to dispute in this manner decisions that go against them. It may be an unenforceable provision but it's there.

Taking legal action to vindicate rights should only be acceptable as a last resort - and in cases of obvious injustice. Applying these criteria it's not easy to be sympathetic to Na Fianna's cause, which is currently ensuring that Dublin will have no representatives in the Leinster club championship.

The facts are well known. The club introduced a sixth replacement in the quarter-final win over Raheny the weekend before last and so breached the rules that only 20 players could be used during the regulation period of a match. That it was the second time in 11 months the Glasnevin club had committed this error isn't strictly relevant but it certainly explains the decisiveness with which the Dublin County Board applied the prescribed sanction, forfeiture of the match.

Obtaining an interlocutory injunction last Friday was a pre-emptive strike, not in the obvious sense but because it overshadowed the fact that the Leinster Council upheld Dublin's decision that same night. The injunction forbade the UCD-Raheny semi-final going ahead so that Na Fianna's application for a full injunction wouldn't be complicated by the championship having moved a step further beyond them.

But from what can be learned of Na Fianna's case it is very weak and surely wouldn't detain a High Court judge for very long. Firstly the rules are quite specific. Rule 2.4 (i) of the Rules of Specification states: "A maximum of five substitutes shall be allowed". It is pointed out that the Blood Rule (1.5 in the Rules of Control) provides exceptions to this. And so it does.

The three exceptions are: in the case of a blood injury to a goalkeeper, a 21st player may be introduced; in the case of temporary replacement being sent off, the juggling necessary to get the original player back on to the field will not count as one of the five substitutions; if all five substitutions have been made and someone gets a blood injury requiring permanent replacement one of the substituted players may be brought back on without that counting as a sixth substitution.

The point here is that in the case of the third exception, which Na Fianna appear to be relying on, there is no provision to bring on a 21st player but simply permission to re-use one of the original 20.

As provided for at 1.5 (Blood Rule) in the Rules of Control: "While he is receiving medical and/or other attention the injured player may be temporarily replaced subject to his team using a maximum of twenty players . . ." In other words when Na Fianna decided they needed a blood substitute at the end of the Raheny match, they should have introduced one of the five players earlier withdrawn. They didn't and in using 21 players became subject to Rule 109 of the Official Guide, which states at (b) (i): "A team exceeding the number of substitutions permitted under Rules 2.4 (i) and (ii) of the Rules of Specification, Playing Rules" (as quoted above) shall be subject to a penalty of "forfeiture of game to opposing team".

So the rules are clear. But last July in the Munster football final replay Cork used a 21st player during their win over Tipperary. They should have forfeited the match. Instead the county concocted a defence based on there being no penalty prescribed for invalid fielding of blood substitutes - despite the above evidence to the contrary.

There was, however, little clamour for Cork to forfeit the title and Tipperary certainly didn't want it after what had been a drubbing and the Munster Council were happy to accept a way out of the crisis. At the GAA's Central Council meeting in August president Seán McCague took the opportunity to emphasise that Rule 109 should apply in such cases and Central Council concurred.

Na Fianna seem to be relying on the Munster precedent and an argument that Central Council's position in August was in some way ultra vires. Given that the meeting simply restated what the rule was rather than making a new ruling this is a rickety plank for their platform.

As for the Munster precedent, it is only the decision of a provincial council - and a patently wrong one at that. At national level, the GAA's Games Administration Committee had already ruled differently on the same facts in last spring's Kildare-Sligo League fixture when Kildare introduced a 21st player and were stripped of the point they had earned from a draw. Last August GAC was at pains to stand over its decision in the aftermath of the Cork-Tipperary fiasco.

So at the moment Na Fianna are relying on one dodgy decision from a provincial council. Against them are the findings of every higher authority to which they are subject. The Dublin County Board put them out of the championship. That decision was endorsed by the Leinster Council, which was upholding the precedent of the national GAC and Central Council, which according to Rule 83 (a) is "the supreme governing body of the association between congresses".

Given how clear-cut the case is, you'd wonder about the need for arbitration.