Another Laurel and Hardy moment for the current Games Administration Committee. The latest fine mess for the GAA is this week's conviction of James McCartan for breaking Kenny Larkin's jaw in the now notorious Down-Westmeath challenge match in Newcastle, Co Dublin, all of 18 months ago.

Whereas the sentencing and any possible appeal from the District Court decision are still to come, it's possible to say at this juncture no one has been well served by the failure of the association to deal with this matter quickly and effectively.

Maybe it's harsh to lay all the fault at the door of the GAC, which took months to progress this case before having their deliberations cut short by the GAA's Management Committee on the grounds of procedural shortcomings. But despite operating to a less stringent burden of proof than that of the criminal code the committee failed to deal with the matter and in its prevarications antagonised Westmeath and contributed to the decision to pursue a prosecution.

This was a matter for GAC because the two counties were from different provinces; had it been otherwise the relevant provincial council would have authority to deal with the incident.

Westmeath's complaint was filed within two weeks of the match. Yet it took a further two months before anything happened, as the referee's report was mislaid and the investigation could not proceed until Down official Colm Broderick's account had been considered - even though it was known he had seen nothing. There were increasingly agitated representations from Westmeath. "We could see their player coming on in championship games while our fella was sucking his nourishment through a straw," commented one source in the county.

A sub-committee of the GAC was appointed, chaired by Sligo solicitor Kieran McDermott, to investigate the matter. It decided there was a case to answer. On it dragged with little dramas along the way. In September 2003 plain clothes gardaí arrived in Croke Park to interview McCartan when he was present to give evidence to the investigation. The player refused to co-operate and the GAA protested at the lack of consultation or warrant. It became clear the involvement of the police was inhibiting the GAC despite a firm statement from GAA director general Liam Mulvihill there was abundant precedent for disciplinary procedures continuing at the same time as criminal investigation.

Eventually an unexplained failure to interview all witnesses triggered the need for a second investigation before management called a halt.

The episode hasn't done much for anyone.

Down's zealous, uncompromising defence of the player helped push the matter towards Monday's denouement.

Westmeath were anxious and within their rights to seek redress for a badly injured player when the GAA procedures failed to give satisfaction. But when one of their players, Rory O'Connell, fell foul of the authorities during the summer, Westmeath challenged the GAC suspension in the courts. O'Connell playing on the basis of a temporary injunction caused just as much ill-feeling as McCartan playing for Down the previous year on the basis of GAC inaction.

McCartan's conviction doesn't break any legal ground beyond the high profile of its protagonist. Violent acts on the field of play have previously been punished in the courts so it's not news that breaking someone's jaw during a match can end in criminal conviction. As Judge William Early said: "Striking without legal justification is a crime whether it takes place in the street, in the family home or the football pitch or elsewhere."

But the verdict serves to highlight again the increasing difficulties in which the GAA finds itself at the interface between its games and the courts. The past couple of years have seen disciplinary decisions taken by the association undermined by temporary injunctions. Ironically whereas the criminal case could be characterised as a matter beyond the influence of the GAC and the civil actions as challenges that the committee brought on itself by poor procedure, the opposite is often the case.

Swift action on the McCartan issue would in all likelihood have headed off the prosecution whereas most of the injunctions sought and granted against disciplinary decisions are merely opportunistic devices to allow players escape the consequence of their actions for one or two important matches.

In recent times neither the actual provisions of the GAA rulebook nor the decisions taken by GAC have been struck down. Last weekend's special congress established a new arbitration panel for such disputes. The idea is when parties are dissatisfied with a GAC decision, they can take their case to this newly-established tribunal.

It's a welcome sign the GAA are beginning to recognise the importance of containing disputes within its own decision-making structures but ultimately it may not have a radical impact beyond adding weight to the original decision and making it a little harder for the courts to grant interlocutory injunctions.

Yet when the squeeze comes and a player wants to play in an All-Ireland or provincial final, the resort to civil law will still be there because the constitution guarantees it. The most effective way of preventing opportunistic injunctions is to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court and let it be known taking the litigious route will be both costly and not guaranteed to succeed.

The need for a small, independent tribunal to handle discipline has been covered several times in these columns. It's sufficient to note the deliberations on how best to establish such a body are ongoing and although the legal ramifications promise to be complex, there is broad acceptance throughout the association that the disciplinary apparatus needs to be overhauled.