THE travails of the Gaelic football season drag on. Just when it looked as if Mayo's admirably drilled team had injected enough excitement into what had been a dreary season to ensure a bit of a concluding crescendo, the second semi final creates controversy for all the wrong reasons which the Games Administration Committee will have to sort out tonight.

Meath played some fine football and sprang a big surprise both in the defeat of Tyrone and the emphatic nature of it. But as last week wore on, the growing rumble of accusations general and specific had tarnished the glossy effect.

It might have been unfair on the Leinster champions, as for most of the match the play was not dirty and, without question, the better team won and won in style, but adverse reaction was the risk inherent in the way Meath approached the match. Whereas the view that they went out to do Tyrone's best forwards is unsupported by the evidence, Meath certainly - and reasonably - went out to make their physical advantage pay. In its legitimate form, this approach was evident in the domination achieved at midfield and in the robustness of the team's general challenge.

At certain other times, however, this approach went too far and crossed the line - as was inevitable in such physical intensity - between what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Among the reactions to the match, two interesting points were made. In last weekend's Sunday Independent, Gerry McDermott, a football analyst, calculated that five players should have been sent off - and he quoted chapter and verse conclusively to support the argument.

In the Sunday Times of the same day, Denis Walsh promoted a theory of "accepted practice". Although critical of Meath, he pointed out that, realistically, were rules to be applied in their full rigour, matches would be even more punctuated with stoppages than is currently the case.

Both viewpoints are correct. The former analyst frequently points out the devastating consequences strict refereeing would wreak in most matches, whereas the latter was accurately describing the way matches are actually refereed. The literal view implicitly includes the notion that if rigorously upheld, the rules would eventually find a far higher level of observance.

The opposing view is that the inherent unenforceability of the rules is what led to the gap between them and referees' interpretations. Either way - redrafted rules or revised instructions for referees - the matter constitutes a fair old headache for Croke Park as referees can't be expected to launch private, unco ordinated crusades to reestablish the primacy of the rulebook.

One substantive move that might well have an impact on discipline is the area of bookings. At present, being booked carries little sanction unless the player does it again and the very fact that he is already booked generally militates against such an occurrence.

Were bookings to be cumulatively punishable, as in soccer, there would be more of a deterrent for habitual infringers. Club and county would have to be separated, but automatic suspensions after a designated number of cautions would give pause for thought and either prevent or punish foul play more effectively than at present.

None of which is tangentially to ignore the incidents at the heart of the controversy because neither was a particularly hard call in terms of rules enforcement. Both were, however, hard to spot, with one being off the ball and the other obscured by surrounding business, in fairness to referee Michael Curley, none of the journalists present appeared to notice either - which failure was at the heart of the slow burn response to the issues raised.

In the 10 days since the match most attention has focused on Martin O'Connell's foul on Brian Dooher, although video evidence suggests John McDermott's late tackle on Peter Canavan was more dangerous as well as more deliberate a tackle on the player at his most vulnerable, in the air when the ball was already well on its way over the bar.

Opposing attitudes on the incident centre on the question of O'Connell's intentions. He denies that he intended to foul Dooher. In some respects, such as dangerous play, intent is irrelevant. In most cases, however, intent is, along with degree, one of the criteria a referee must determine. There is, for instance, a difference between a clash of heads and a head butt.

O'CONNELL is accused of stamping, a charge that requires a level of intent not substantiated by the video evidence. For a start, if he had deliberately stamped on Dooher's head, the Tyrone wing forward wouldn't have been in a position to carry on - with or without bandages. Secondly, when intent goes to the heart of the matter, a player is entitled to have his good reputation taken into account.

It's not that a player, however clean, can't have a belligerent rush of blood to the head, but in the absence of any reference in the referee's report and inconclusive video evidence, a good track record is relevant.

The question of dangerous play is more straightforward. There isn't the same consideration of intent and the video supports far more comfortably the charge that O'Connell was reckless in not avoiding the prone Dooher's head which he had just located with his hand when using it as a launching pad for a sprint across the pitch. That he is focused on the ball during that movement isn't really relevant to the charge of recklessness.

Both stamping and dangerous play are sending off offences, but the former carries a suspension of three months and the latter one of only a month: the fairly significant difference between playing in the All Ireland final and missing it.

It's accepted that Meath are stoical about taking their knocks. Consequently, Meath people in general are annoyed at the shadow being cast on a significant victory, but the more reasonable must surely understand why questions were asked about such graphic video footage.

A number of irate members of the public have drawn comparisons between the O'Connell incident and that involving Peter Clohessy in the rugby international between Ireland and France. Whereas such comparisons don't appear valid, given the ambiguity about intent and the respective track records of the perpetrators, the matter similarly arouses concern.

It is evident that the GAA could handle such occasions more decisively. All those concerned by these controversies would be gratified to see a more immediate response when they arise. If it requires moving forward a GAC meeting, that would be a small inconvenience in return for addressing the issue quickly.