Further details have emerged concerning Wednesday’s decision of the GAA’s Central Hearings Committee (CHC) to drop the cases against Clare hurlers Peter Duggan and Rory Hayes, as well as Galway’s Cianan Fahy.
All three had been found to have cases to answer by the Central Competitions Control Committee (CCCC) with suspensions, ranging from one match for the Clare players to two matches for Fahy, recommended.
The three cases were all contested. Galway had their hearing first, followed by Clare. Each of the three were dismissed, but there has been widespread confusion about the grounds for the decisions.
None of the three fouls had been noticed by match referees John Keenan (Limerick v Clare) and James Owens (Kilkenny v Galway) but were highlighted on television and then reviewed on video by the CCCC, which decided the matter in each case should go farther.
Ireland v Fiji: TV details, kick-off time, team news and more
To contest or not to contest? That is the question for Ireland’s aerial game
Ciara Mageean speaks of ‘grieving’ process after missing Olympics
Denis Walsh: Steven Gerrard is the latest to show a glittering name isn’t worth much in management
CHC found that the process had been flawed because the decision to commence had been taken by email and not as required after a meeting of the CCCC. Although one version of the technicality that emerged suggested that the fact the business had been done online invalidated it, that was not accurate.
The CCCC did convene a meeting but one member was unable to view the match video evidence because of a format problem. A separate clip was emailed and after the member had been able to view it properly, the decision that the players had a case to answer plus the recommended suspensions was agreed by email.
This was the flaw that the CHC decided nullified the decision to proceed with the disciplinary action.
Once it had been identified in the Galway case, Clare were pushing an open door.
Although Clare chair Kieran Keating suggested in a radio interview with Clare FM that the nature of the infractions as presented in video evidence did not merit red cards, this was not a finding of the CHC. Nor could it be, as the behaviour itself was never adjudicated on as soon as the procedural flaw in the citing process emerged.
The outcome of Wednesday night’s meeting – which CHC chair and solicitor Niall Rennick was unable to attend – is a further setback for the GAA’s beleaguered disciplinary system.
Process in the disciplinary system effectively means that the CCCC have no further role in adjudicating incidents once players have chosen to contest its findings. The GAA even maintains an at times preposterous position that CHC shouldn’t even be aware of what CCCC has decided in terms of recommended suspensions.
There is a media blackout on decisions taken by CCCC partly on that basis. The idea is that CHC will hear the matter ab initio rather than as an appeal.
In those circumstances, should it matter that the initiation of the process was procedurally flawed?
Does the CHC not simply consider the cases as set before them – especially where video evidence leaves no doubt about the facts of the matter, whatever about their interpretation?
If the hearings committee felt it couldn’t in the circumstances go ahead, could the cases not simply have been remitted to CCCC for reprocessing and then reconsidered?
There are also more widespread implications. GAA administrators are being held to a very high standard of process and scrutiny for a voluntary organisation, which runs recreational sports.
In order to make the most blatant of infractions stick, will it be necessary for lawyers to advise on every decision?
If so, how will that apply across the board at local level? Already there is unease at the difficulties in making penalties for misbehaviour stick. Last year one county reported 70 per cent of red cards issued during championship season had been overturned.
Match officials are also affected by the challenge to discipline.
One former intercounty referee made the point this week that it was galling for match referee John Keenan to be criticised at a referees’ meeting on the basis of video evidence for letting things go in the Munster final – after an initial consensus that he had done well – when players who had been seen to commit red-card infractions, walked free on a technicality.
Authorities and match officials must feel that it is now a lottery whether misbehaviour will actually earn appropriate penalties.
