Seán Moran On Gaelic GamesThe island is full of noises. All of the fuss over the upholding of the Omagh appeals has fizzed and crackled through the week without any real focus, unsurprisingly given that there still has been no public revelation of the reasons behind the Central Appeal Committee's decision.

But, as our American cousins so deftly put it, let's not go there. Instead let's try and address some of the misapprehensions that have been floating aimlessly around the place since the Omagh Seven walked free - and by the weekend in all cases onto to their county teams.

1) The DRA. Nearly a year after its inception, the Disputes Resolution Authority gets blamed for a great many things and it's sometimes forgotten that it has actually fulfilled its original purpose more than satisfactorily. There have been no embarrassing cases in the High Court, no languidly dispensed interlocutory injunctions.

The problem has been the side effects. Over the past year the DRA has heard around 50 cases. If it had not existed, would there have been 50 applications to the High Court? Hardly. The DRA, through no fault of its own, has become merely another rung of the appeals process, which was not envisaged.

Whereas many would disagree with a couple of the authority's decisions, the vast majority have been well argued and non-contentious. Unfortunately the controversies have occurred in the highest-profile cases. This has unwittingly nurtured the hopes of miscreants, who, whatever their culpability, deem it well worthwhile to have what's seen as a throw of the dice with the DRA.

2) The Official Guide (OG). Despite understandable anxiety over the inability of the rules to stand over suspensions for misconduct plainly seen as it happened by over 100,000 television viewers, the rulebook has only recently run into trouble.

It's worth remembering that for all the High Court activity in recent years there was no forensic finding against any of the GAA's rules. Temporary injunctions were given and once the players had taken part in whatever big match they were after, there were no full hearings to determine the substantive case.

This relates to Part One of the OG because no one in their right mind could claim that Part Two (the playing rules) have stood the test of time. There is a major need for the recategorisation of fouls, which ideally should be part of an overview of the whole disciplinary process. Even allowing that the procedural sections in Part One of the OG aren't especially to blame for the current situation, it's now clear that the consensus to abide by disciplinary decisions no longer exists in the old sense.

Whereas in the past it was common for players not to appeal within the association against obvious suspensions, now there is only the guarantee that decisions will be vigorously resisted at every opportunity.

It's not clear that the current structures are built to take on these full-on challenges. Based on voluntary committees, they are naturally hard to mobilise in a hurry and when they do meet there are so many procedural considerations that red tape is strangling the process.

A new streamlined system based on a commissioner for discipline, with panels to hear cases and appeals - much as the DRA is organised - would both speed up hearings and eliminate the ambiguities currently generated.

3) Video evidence. There has been some inaccurate talk about the admissibility of video evidence. Yet the use of this both to exonerate players and to level charges has been a feature of the disciplinary landscape since the early 1990s.

Rule 149 (c) states: "The committee or council in charge shall have recourse to video evidence at its discretion but it shall not be used in relation to the result of a game." There is nothing to support the contention that video evidence has in some way become unsafe. Although no one knows for certain what their reasons last week were, there is no suggestion that the CAC conceived fundamental doubts as to the admissibility of video.

The Ryan McMenamin case before the DRA last summer didn't swing on video evidence. It concerned the right, granted by Central Council, of the CDC to review an overly lenient yellow card, regrade the offence as more appropriate to a red card and impose a suitable suspension.

At no point in its decision did the DRC (the DRA committee hearing the case) question the use of video evidence. In fact it upheld it, stating: "It is accepted that a committee may use video evidence to substantiate/complement/clarify what is contained in the referee's report. But it does not say that it may be used to vary or contradict what is contained in the referee's report. A committee may use video evidence to formulate and prefer charges in relation to alleged offences not contained in a referee's report."

Bizarrely, this matter having been highlighted by the DRA, there is no motion going to Congress to restore the right to review yellow cards.

4) Players' appeals. It's a technical point in itself but it's not entirely fair to dismiss successful appeals as being on the basis of technicalities. Appeals can only be taken on technical grounds. There has to have been some rule incorrectly applied. The CAC don't retry the whole case. It is, however, fair to wonder at the lengths players will go to in order to overturn suspensions.

The ready recourse to lawyers in order to put suspensions under a microscope adds to the pressure on disciplinary committees. This legal focus now informs the whole process. There is a worry that, if decisions fail to reach this standard, they may be struck down by the DRA.

But procedures to which all members of a voluntary association supposedly subscribe aren't intended to stand up to this sort of scrutiny. They can, however, be made to do so.

One way or another there's a lot of work to be done and it would help if everyone were agreed on the main items for reform.

smoran@irish-times.ie