On Gaelic Games: In a way it's hard to be that sanguine about the GAA's latest proposals for streamlining its rambling disciplinary processes, and that's not to disparage in any way the diligent and thoughtful report, released this week, of the Rule Book Task Force. By its own explanation the task force was solely focused on Part 1 of the Official Guide, the section concerned with the procedures of enforcing discipline.

It's fine as far as it goes, but enforcement is just one of the boxes that need to be ticked. Last year the RBTF concentrated its efforts on establishing the Disputes Resolution Authority, seen - reasonably enough - as a priority given the increasing recourse to High Court injunctions on the part of players looking to escape the consequences of their foul play.

We will have to wait until next year for proposals on the reform of rules on foul play. This is understandable given the pressures on a voluntary committee that met 49 times in the past year, but it leads to a piecemeal implementation.

There is, however, optimism that the package of measures announced this week will, if accepted by Congress, make an impact on the room for manoeuvre that allows procedural cases be taken to the DRA with such high hopes of success.

It has long been evident that the opportunism that motivates so many GAA members to contest reasonable punishments on the most spurious of grounds will be eliminated only when the prospect of succeeding has been substantially reduced.

To be fair to the measures being proposed, they do address this area comprehensively. The overhaul of the disciplinary apparatus is sensible and replaces the CGAC/CDC arrangement, which was brought in only last year but as a temporary measure to try and address the shortcomings of the old system.

In outline, the division in responsibilities is largely retained but along different lines of demarcation. The CGAC becomes the Competitions Control Committee with responsibility for fixtures, uncontested suspensions (eg, those that arise from a referee's report and are not appealed) and investigating misbehaviour not mentioned by the referee.

Should players accept their punishment, the matter ends there. Should they dispute it, the case proceeds to the Hearings Committee, currently the CDC.

So much for theory. In practice the Omagh suspensions would not have been evaded under the new system.

Although the findings of the CAC (the appeals body that will continue to operate) in relation to the Tyrone-Dublin match were never released, the appeals succeeded because of the way the CDC had been established.

As GAA president Seán Kelly succinctly put it this week: "The CDC had the power to consult the referee but no procedure as to how this should be done."

It was the body charged with both investigating misbehaviour not noted by the referee and handing down suspensions.

To avoid obvious legal challenge (that the same people were both levelling charges and adjudicating on them) the CDC had to hive off some members into an investigating sub-committee, who brought the case. The remainder of the committee heard the matter and imposed the suspensions.

So anxious was the CDC to observe correct procedure (it could only process incidents not dealt with by the referee) that it approached match referee Paddy Russell to ascertain that he had not been able to note all of the individual offences (now to be called "infractions" in order to eliminate any connotations of criminal offence) taking place during the melee.

Had this clarification been sought by the investigating sub-committee, it would have been in order, according to the CAC. Instead Russell was approached on behalf of the other CDC members.

It is not necessary to debate the merits of this decision to see where the new system would have avoided such pitfalls. There would have been no crossover between the investigating body and the one conducting the hearing, so the anomaly would not have arisen.

There are to be other pitfalls for those wishing to appeal suspensions. Technical flaws will no longer guarantee a case is thrown out. In some circumstances it can be referred back to the CCC for rehearing and in others the Hearings Committee can impose a more severe punishment. So exhausting the appeals process will no longer be a risk-free venture.

Only by strengthening the connection between breaking the rules and consequent punishment will the culture of indiscipline within the games be effectively confronted. The proposed measures are a genuine attempt to make progress in this regard.

Consequently, it is a pity that one very effective means of controlling indiscipline has been deliberately rejected by the RBTF. The power to overrule a referee's decision to show a yellow card for an obvious red-card offence helped immensely in the consistent enforcement of discipline. It meant red-card infractions were dealt with as such.

Over the past three years that power, granted by Central Council in 2002, has fallen into abeyance through deliberate disuse and gradually become regarded as ultra vires the disciplinary committees.

This week's package of measures does not include a recommendation that such a power be formally enshrined in rule. Querying the matter with a referee is to be allowed but the official is under no obligation to revise his decision.

"It's a case of competing philosophies," explained Liam Keane. "One is the supremacy of the referee's report; the other is the need to correct errors and punish indiscipline. If a referee looks at something, makes a judgement and is asked to reconsider but decides not to, the committee won't interfere to referee the match. The integrity of the referee's position is preserved."

In fact there's a good argument that the reverse is the case. Nothing undermines the integrity of the referee's position as devastatingly as an act of weak officiating in a big, televised match. It demoralises the referee and makes a mockery of rules as well as discipline. Were it, however, to be established and accepted that red-card offences would be punished regardless of refereeing error it would reduce the pressure on referees.

At present the choice between yellow and red is a lonely one. Does he send off a player early in a match and influence the outcome? Does he flash a straight red card in a semi-final, knowing his decision will ensure a player misses an All-Ireland final?

If the CCC were empowered on the basis of video evidence to take that action regardless of the referee's decision, that would spread the burden of enforcement and ensure the entire onus didn't fall on the official.

Instead the only way this can now be accomplished is by asking the referee to admit in public he was wrong. Which hardly does much for the integrity of his position.

Everyone will wish the RBTF report well, but perhaps the most realistic appraisal came from GAA director general, Liam Mulvihill, who, when asked did the proposed measures affect the opinion, expressed in his annual report, that the CAC should be abolished because the DRA was effectively doing the job of an appeals body replied, "Not really. I'd have to reserve judgement until we see how things pan out over the next year or so."