Jack Anderson believes it time the Irish Sports Council considered the formation of a national Court of Arbitration for Sport to deal with ongoing disciplinary problems in Irish sports.

The dilatory and inconsistent nature in which the GAA's disciplinary mechanisms addressed incidents involving Cork defender Anthony Lynch, Wexford forward Matty Forde and Donegal's Paddy Campbell has recently exposed that system to severe criticism.

On July 14th, Lynch successfully appealed a four-week suspension imposed for an alleged elbowing of Kerry's Kieran Donaghy during the Munster football final. Two days later he played in the Munster final replay, which Cork won. In a cleverly presented argument, Cork contended that digital analysis of the match video revealed Lynch had not made physical contact with his opponent, therefore an "attempting to strike" charge was the more appropriate cause of action.

However, because the referee had reported Lynch for striking only, the GAA's Central Appeals Committee (CAC) held that on strict interpretation the suspension should be lifted.

On July 15th, the GAA's Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) imposed a 12-week ban on Forde, after he was shown stamping on an opponent during Wexford's Leinster semi-final defeat to Offaly three weeks previously.

Forde then missed that day's third-round qualifier against Fermanagh, which Wexford lost. Nevertheless, the GAA's protracted disciplinary process had permitted him to play a key role in his county's defeat of Monaghan in a second-round qualifier the previous week.

In Campbell's case, video evidence showed him striking Derry forward Enda Muldoon in the groin during the Ulster semi-final on June 18th. After a four-week delay, Campbell received a month's suspension from the CDC.

The deferral allowed the player to line out in the Ulster final defeat to Armagh on July 9th.

An appeal last night to the CAC was dismissed and Campbell will now miss this Saturday's fourth-round qualifier against Fermanagh and the All-Ireland quarter-final, should Donegal progress, against Cork seven days later on August 5th.

As currently drawn, it is clear that the GAA's disciplinary structures are incoherent to the point where the unpredictability of CDC in particular appears to have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of the GAA's major championships.

The retrospective nature of the Campbell and Forde suspensions disrupted the championship preparations not only of Donegal and Wexford but also those of counties such as Monaghan, while the success of the Lynch appeal was, quite simply, an opportunistic triumph of form over content.

This approach cannot be sustained. Under Irish law, disciplinary structures of voluntary organisations must abide by the doctrine of natural justice. They are duty bound to be fair and consistent in operation.

At present, the GAA is struggling to maintain that standard. Admittedly, it has sought to overhaul its internal mechanisms and, outwardly at least, those reforms appear impressive.

They are threefold in nature: at first instance, the creation of the CDC, thereafter, the appellate authority of the CAC and finally, the possibility of lodging a claim with the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA).

The CDC and CAC consist of serving GAA officials.

The DRA is an independent, arbitral-based entity that draws from a panel of legal experts and those with an expertise in GAA affairs.

Despite this sophistication, two fundamental problems underpin the GAA's current model.

Firstly, there are too many layers to the present system. In effect, a claimant has three opportunities in which to challenge a suspension.

Given the intricate, organic nature of the GAA rulebook, it is inevitable that technical, overly legalistic arguments will come to the fore. To the dismay of well-meaning officials, the phrase "all the way to the DRA" has, on any hint of controversy, become a feature of many club, county and provincial board meetings.

It is interesting to note that the Irish Turf Club, which administers Ireland's largest and oldest sports industry, is content with a much slimmer disciplinary structure.

Since February of this year, it consists of two divisions with three members on each panel.

The authoritative nature of Irish racing's highest appeals body is illustrated by the fact that a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ronan Keane, is its first chairman. His deputy chairman is the former Attorney General, Eoghan Fitzsimons.

The GAA could adopt a similar model. Moreover, borrowing from the scheme used by the Australian Football League, the GAA should employ a full-time disciplinary officer who, in the aftermath of a National League or championship weekend, would collate all reports and review all available video evidence pertaining to those matches.

Disciplinary matters arising from this information would then be presented to a standing disciplinary tribunal by the Wednesday of the week following the games in question.

The benefits of such a system are manifold.

Doubts that managers have as to the availability of a cited player would last no longer than three days. In contrast to the existing system, the efficacy of the stated proposal would ensure that distinguished players such as Forde would not be placed in a position where their misdemeanour is replayed and speculated upon in the media for weeks on end.

In time, a uniform body of precedence would emerge from this standing tribunal assuring players, official and supporters as to the immediacy and transparency of GAA's disciplinary structures.

The second problem with the extant disciplinary mechanisms of the GAA is one of ethos. There is a culture of clemency within the GAA towards indiscipline.

With the exception of Brian O'Meara, who had to sit out Tipperary's victory in the All-Ireland hurling final of 2001, it is difficult to recall a GAA player who has missed out on a major championship final due to suspension.

Contrast that to soccer where, even in tournaments of a limited number of games, such as the Champions League and the World Cup, two yellow cards can render a player ineligible during the latter stages of the tournament. Roy Keane's suspension from the 1999 Champions League final is a case in point.

In more general application, disputes of a sporting nature are becoming more frequent and more complex.

The ordinary court system is too slow and expensive a route to take. Consequently, is it not time that the Irish Sports Council (ISC) consider the formation of a national Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)? A quick review demonstrates that an Irish CAS would have a considerable workload.

At present, the start of the club rugby season in Ireland is threatened with delay as a result of a number of player eligibility disputes.

One club, Young Munsters, has mentioned the possibility of High Court action in their bid to return to Division One of the AIL. Equally, the collapse of Eircom League club Dublin City has seen a number of clubs consider litigation in light of the league's decision to deduct points earned in matches against the defunct club.

In addition, complex doping allegations, such as those now faced by athlete Gareth Turnbull, could also be dealt with by a national CAS, as opposed to the current ad hoc system utilised by the ISC.

Finally, obtuse objections bedevilled the initial years of the GAA, and frustrated leading figures such as Michael Cusack. What better way to celebrate the centenary of Cusack's death than for the GAA to reconstitute its disciplinary mechanisms in a manner that becomes a benchmark for all of Irish sport?

Jack Anderson lectures in law at Queen's University, Belfast. He is a member of the DRA.