In their own way, special congresses are distress signals – matters of urgency that need immediate or specific attention. Saturday isn’t any different.
There has been more or less consensus that something needed to be done about football and, in the space of nine months, the Football Review Committee has delivered proposals aimed at doing just that.
The level of that consensus – occasionally disputed, as for example by Sligo manager Tony McEntee in a trenchant contribution to The Irish Examiner in June – is most obvious in the way in which few of the criticisms or reservations have got any sort of traction amongst the GAA public at large.
It might be argued that this was because the work of the FRC hasn’t been particularly public apart from the Croke Park interprovincial series in October but there has been a definite view that Jim Gavin’s committee means business and should be allowed to put its ideas to the test.
Seán Moran: FRC proposals deserve to be trialled but referees also need enhanced support
Busy Saturday at Croke Park brings climax to seismic Leinster club hurling championship
Mayo’s Pádraig O’Hora expected to join Cillian O’Connor in departing senior football panel
Dublin are now facing the hardest trick to pull off in sport: succession planning
Jarlath Burns has driven the FRC from day one of his presidency and the immediate appointment of Gavin. It is an organic process and one that will be revisited after next year’s league and again with a further special congress in 12 months’ time.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been valid critiques of the proposed measures. The two that most often emerge are the hand pass – both in execution and proliferation – and the tackle.
Over the years, the hand pass has led a charmed existence, blithely sailing through decades of football reviews as the ratio of it to kicking soars. The tackle has been a trigger for culture wars long before that concept became so generally prominent.
Traditionalists have always proclaimed the ‘purity’ of a tackle ‘on the ball’ rather than ‘on the carrier’ but as football has speeded up, the notion of all but the most circumscribed contact being foul play has become untenable.
Yet, neither of these ambiguities were addressed with concrete proposals.
One likely explanation is that the FRC was keen to steer clear of particularly divisive rule change – presumably for fear that the necessary consensus would be destabilised.
For example, the four-point goal was abandoned after commentary that followed the trial interprovincial matches. This was a pity because with two-point scores being proposed, there was a need to maintain scoring differentials.
The GAA has previously dabbled in addressing both hand passing and the tackle but it was not considered this time partly because of unhappiness amongst referees.
On RTÉ recently, All-Ireland referee David Gough was very critical of the project. He more or less acknowledged that match officials are like civil servants and it is their job simply to implement what playing rules are adopted but was unhappy with elements of the drafting and the lack of consultation or representation.
His negative reaction failed to ignite a revolution but that doesn’t mean that he hadn’t plausible points to make.
You would imagine that the FRC, if doing it all again, would probably include a referee although one of the members, Pat Doherty, is a former GAA national match officials manager and is informed by that background.
For instance, during the debate on the advanced mark at the Cork special congress five years ago, he questioned the proposal on the basis that it would be hard to officiate.
It can be forgotten that during a period of frequent change in playing rules, both in football and hurling, referees have carried the disproportionate burden of implementing various versions of a brave new world.
In an interesting contribution to the RTÉ website, Dr Noel Brick, a lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology in Ulster University and who has researched the mental wellbeing of match officials in the GAA, drew attention to the additional demands the new rules would place on referees.
The recommendations include stiffer penalties for verbal abuse, which is welcome, but other elements are undoubtedly challenging.
Anecdotally, all teams involved in the interprovincials reported that the enhanced game was more physically demanding. If it’s harder going for the players, it’s even worse for referees, as Dr Brick outlined, citing a 2023 study by Aidan Brady at DCU.
“The total distance covered by Gaelic football referees in a game was 33% more than professional rugby union and rugby league referees and was equivalent to Premier league soccer referees. Perhaps even more telling was that the total distance covered by Gaelic football referees per minute of a game (123 metres) was 6% more than the 116 metres, on average, covered by players, albeit at a lower intensity.”
In an interview with Denis Walsh on Saturday, All-Ireland hurling referee Johnny Murphy said that he believed he was, at 46, physically fitter than he had been as an intercounty footballer with Limerick 20 years ago.
Then there is mental pressure of so many new rules and in-game scenarios from the three-up to 50-metre free advancement and shooting from outside the 40-metre arc.
These impacts aren’t a reason to strike down the proposals but, if the rules are to be enhanced, referees will require similarly improved preparation and psychological supports.
It also places a question mark over the feasibility of rolling out the changes on a universal basis in the new year. Whether the rules are to apply immediately at all levels within the GAA is likely to be the most serious battleground on Saturday.
After a breakneck schedule of meetings, trials and consultations have achieved so much, it may be time to heed the words of Tiber Gaels: festina lente or make haste, slowly.
