On Gaelic Games: Well, follow that. Every now and then some stunning embarrassment on the GAA disciplinary front prompts a review of rules and procedures but still the hits - literally - keep coming, writes Seán Moran

The details of the Anthony Lynch case are well rehearsed at this stage. He swung an elbow at a Kerry player, got an immediate red card and a four-week suspension from the Central Disciplinary Committee. To the surprise of many that was taken to the Central Appeals Committee on Friday evening last when to the shock of all, the appeal was successful.

First things first: why did the case go to appeal? According to the Official Guide there didn't appear to be grounds. Rule 155 (h) states: An appeal shall not be upheld unless there is clear infringement or misapplication of a rule.

The contention that referee Joe McQuillan's report was erroneous on the grounds that he cited Lynch for striking with the elbow when in fact the player had never made contact is questionable. Both striking and attempting to strike are covered by Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Football - Rules of Fair Play.

People give out about Frank Murphy and his ways with the rulebook and technicalities but Murphy's job is to serve Cork and Cork interests. It has happened so many times in the past. Four years ago when Cork used more than the permitted number of replacements in a previous Munster final replay, the provincial council ruled in favour of Murphy's arguments, allowing the county's hold on the title to remain.

But Cork's success was Munster's failure just as last Friday's latest coup was primarily the responsibility of the Central Appeals Committee. They were under no obligation to accept the argument and certainly under none to allow what amounted to a rehearing of the case, featuring an array of camera angles of the original incident. As one of the best forensic minds in the GAA, Murphy has once again demonstrated an ability to browbeat committees into making bad decisions.

Ironically it might not have been possible but for the timing of another puzzling decision. Just days before the match in Killarney the National Referees Committee, at a meeting with referees, decided referees' reports should spell out in their own language the offence for which players were being cautioned or ordered off.

This was a departure from the normal practice of the official simply citing the relevant rule and its wording and the category offence involved. Joe McQuillan could a week previously have referenced Rule 5.1 or the precise wording: "To strike or attempt to strike an opponent with the head, arm, elbow, hand or knee".

Instead he was obliged to spell out a report to the effect that Lynch had struck an opponent with his elbow. Opponents of this initiative pointed out that it would create ambiguity by departing from the precise rules. Which is what took all of four days to happen.

For all the effort of the past few years, reforming procedures and structures, the GAA's disciplinary framework has been laid bare again by poor decision making. There's no structure that will somehow solve disciplinary problems if all Murphy has to do is walk in the door with a frown on his face and a rulebook in his hand.

One of the best tools the GAA ever devised for dealing with indiscipline was the right to revisit a wrongly administered yellow card. This dispensed with the tortuous provision that video evidence should only be used to deal with incidents not spotted by the referee.

Foul play on the field and its appropriate punishment has been for some time the biggest problem facing the GAA. Video evidence must be used in every case involving a red-card infraction that didn't result in a sending-off.

Why hasn't this been the case? Because after the presidency of Seán McCague and his GAC, chaired by Páraic Duffy, the power to revisit such fouls on video - granted by Central Council in August 2002 - was discarded by their successors. One of the most strident opponents of this was Frank Murphy, who argued it would be unwarranted interference with a referee for a committee effectively to re-referee a match.

Structures and rules were changing and pending those reviews it was decided on legal grounds not to use video evidence in such circumstances. Yet in this year's interim report of the Rule Book Task Force - chaired by Frank Murphy - no move was made to reintroduce the power, which had been so effective in improving the consistency of disciplinary decisions.

Asked about the omission at the report's launch, RBTF member and solicitor Liam Keane, who is also secretary of the Disputes Resolution Authority, explained: "It's a case of competing philosophies. 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."

That would be news to Joe McQuillan. But if Anthony Lynch suffered the same experience playing for Naomh Aban in Cork, what do you think his chances would be of getting off on last Friday's argument? Keep your answers short.