Disputes Resolution Authority decision: The GAA's independent arbitration body, the Disputes Resolution Authority, has released the full text of its decision to over-rule the Leinster Council's finding in the long-running controversy concerning the eligibility of Dublin player Mark Vaughan to play for his club, Kilmacud Crokes, in a county championship match last May.

Leinster had upheld an objection by Kilmacud's defeated opponents from last May, St Brigid's, that Vaughan should have been suspended on foot of a sending-off in last winter's Leinster club championship.

That decision was supported by the GAA's Central Appeals Committee.

St Brigid's argued that the DRA hadn't been properly constituted at the time of the original hearing and that the rule book on which the decision had been based was deficient because it hadn't properly incorporated a motion passed by the 1996 Congress.

The motion passed reads: "Add to Rule 110: The provincial and All-Ireland championship shall be considered as an extension of the county senior championships and playing eligibility shall be in accordance with Rule 32. Rule affected - Rule 32."

Nonetheless, the rulebooks published since 1996 have included the above text in Rule 32 and not in the then Rule 110 (governing the provincial and All-Ireland championships - now Rule 114, which was relied on by both Kilmacud and the tribunal).

A Central Council ruling of 1977 to the same effect was also cited in support of the practice whereby players serve suspensions picked up in club championships in their next championship match, whether it be county or provincial.

Rejecting the St Brigid's argument about its competence to hear the matter, the DRA held that the original hearing had been on a point of clarification and that the parties involved had accepted the arbitration as binding regardless of whether the process was part and parcel of the GAA's new independent arbitration system.

Proceeding to the argument about the merits of the original decision, the DRA held that its decisions could only be over-ruled by the High Court:

"We are quite satisfied, however, that the facts of the present case do not even come close to the exceptional circumstances which would justify such a course of action. This is not a case where some newly discovered or fresh evidence came to light subsequent to the award.

"It is clear from the submissions (oral and written) of the Leinster Council in the present case that it was aware at the time of the arbitration of both the ruling of 1977 and the amendment of 1996. These matters were not produced before the arbitrators at that time.

"The arbitrators determine a reference on the basis of the material put before them. It is up to the parties to present and marshal their arguments. It would undermine entirely the benefit of arbitration were parties to be permitted to reagitate on the basis of arguments which were known to them at the time."

The DRA went on to question whether consideration of the 1996 motion would have been justified given that it hadn't been embodied in the Official Guide.

"Finally, we would also have very real concerns as to the extent to which we would be entitled to rely on the amendment of 1996 in circumstances where that amendment was never embodied in the Official Guide.

"Under Rule 9, there was a requirement that the Rules of the Association be printed in Irish and English.

"Reference is also made to the provision of Rule 79 in relation to rule drafting. The clear implication of this rule seems to be that amendments should be incorporated in a new printed version of the rule concerned.

"Clearly, considerable time has elapsed since the rule was amended in 1996 and at least two subsequent versions of the Official Guide have been produced, neither of which contains an amendment to Rule 138.

"In order to ensure the effectiveness of the newly established Disputes Resolution Authority, and out of fairness to individual players, it is essential that the rules of the association as set out in Official Guide are kept fully up to date.

"It occurs to us that in disciplinary proceedings, any ambiguity or doubt must be resolved in favour of the affected player."