So, you are a referee. What, if any, are your views on last weekend’s congress? Maybe you were encouraged by the much heralded and largely approved suite of disciplinary measures introduced to penalise more severely misbehaviour on the sideline at matches.
You may also have noted that rule breaking at under-age matches, which your colleagues have identified as being the source of some of the worst behaviour among team officials and mentors, will now trigger twice the usual suspension.
All worthwhile initiatives and undertaken last June rather than simply a knee-jerk response to the club season and its occasional associated descent into scenes from Night of the Living Dead.
Still, how do you assess the journey travelled in four months from the launch of the “Respect the Referee” initiative to the regulations unveiled and adopted to underpin this new respect?
You could actually be forgiven for feeling a little disappointed with what happened on Saturday.
Larry McCarthy in his presidency has been an evangelist for respecting referees, last year highlighting the issue both at congress and during the big strategic plan launch a few weeks later.
It was he who convened the committee that produced the targeted measures on the clár last weekend.
Therefore it was discordant that the president threw in something of a qualification with the following comments on refereeing during his annual address to congress.
“We will continue to highlight the need for respect for officials, but respect is a two-way street and is ultimately earned not given.”
Except that it’s not. The point of refereeing is that it should be a non-negotiable. Match officials have to be obeyed whether their decisions are correct or – crucially – if they’re not. Obviously if someone builds a record of poor decision making, they shouldn’t be appointed to any further matches but while they’re there with the whistle, they have to be respected.
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was simply an attempt by the president to jolly along those who are perennially at odds with referees and to emphasise that he sees both sides of that issue.
“I suggested,” he continued, “that they might ask themselves if they could be fitter, could they be sharper, could their reporting be better.”
Maybe not unreasonable as a pep talk to referees but as a public statement, it comes across as victim blaming and an encouragement to judge the merits of match officials rather than simply to bite your lip and get on with it. Disciplinary committees consider a referee’s report to be the last word on something – as should everyone else.
Later that afternoon, the two disciplinary proposals that were voted down each impacted on administrators. Turkeys and Christmas were raised at the post-congress media conference.
One was to suspend the chair and secretary of a club or county should a suspended team official not stick to the newly-tightened terms of such penalties.
This prompted an extraordinary exhibition of hand wringing and the enlistment of enough straw men for a bonfire. How do we “physically” remove them from dressingrooms? What if their children are on the team? How do you stop them communicating?
Brian Rennick, the solicitor who chairs the Central Hearings Committee and was in charge of the raft of proposals, was trying hard to be patient, as he explained that the only rule breaches of interest would be to do with the running of a team, not the WhatsApp group.
As GAA DG Tom Ryan said at the launch of his annual report about misbehaviour towards match officials: “For people that need to be convinced about how you need to behave to referees at matches, we don’t really want them at matches.”
If someone point-blank refuses to obey a suspension, why would they be put in charge of a team?
The other proposal to fall was an important attempt to penalise “frivolous or vexatious” challenges to suspensions. If someone declines to accept a proposed penalty and can bring no substantive challenge to a hearings committee – instead basing their case on procedural technicalities – the penalty is doubled.
It’s not like we don’t know what referees are thinking about this type of process.
When the “Respect” initiative was rolled out in October, there was significant testimony from referees present about the things that annoyed them and made life difficult.
“Referees do get it wrong but there are times when referees are getting it right and still cards are being overturned,” said All-Ireland referee Seán Hurson. “That’s disappointing.”
Larry McCarthy himself made the point at the same launch.
“It can, I would argue, be quite disheartening to see people who have been disciplined have their punishments reduced or even dismissed on the most minute or infinitesimal technicality.”
Reaction from delegates was almost comical, conflating criminal law with the rules of a sports organisation. “The right to appeal is a fundamental right in any judicial system,” said Galway chair Paul Bellew. He wasn’t alone. There would have scarcely have been greater uproar were it a proposal to abolish Habeas Corpus instead of a deterrent to chancers.
An irritated Connacht chief executive John Prenty interjected that no one was trying to limit the right of appeal, which is entirely separate to opting for a hearing.
Rennick, who had presumably progressed from nearly losing his patience to losing the will to live, explained that no, this was not legally unprecedented. For instance if you get a “fixed charge notice” for motoring offences, you can pay up or go to the District Court.
If you fail there, the penalties will be increased. So far, this has survived challenges in the superior courts.
The beaten proposals might well have had an effect in changing attitudes to indiscipline and acceptance of punishment. Then again, as Larry McCarthy said in October: “Culture changes come slowly and anybody who suggests otherwise does not understand either the culture or change in an organisation such as this.”
sean.moran@irishtimes.com
