NATIONAL LEAGUE: The decision by Liam Reidy to give back to St Patrick's Athletic the nine points deducted four months ago as a result of the "Paul Marney affair" may seem like some sort of blow for natural justice but, yet again, it serves to highlight the fact that when it comes down to it, an unwillingness to shrug off amateurism remains preferable to making tough decisions within the Eircom League.
Down the years there has been a succession of cases in which clubs have broken the rules - sometimes inadvertently, sometimes not - and escaped punishment because the rule book has been found to be unclear or contradictory or both.
Yesterday's decision provided a curious variation on the theme. Reidy didn't even begin to argue that the rules weren't clear - the rule in this case simply could not be more clear - but argued instead that it is so regularly breached that it would be unfair to pick on St Patrick's on this one occasion.
As an indictment of the way the league is run it is almost as damning as when the then vice-president of the FAI, Milo Corcoran, pleaded in a similar ruling two years ago that his decision be accepted in the spirit of football effectively because the rules were such a shambles to provide his findings with any great authority.
In the end that matter was resolved by the High Court and it hardly seems out of the question, notwithstanding Reidy's own standing as a senior counsel, that this will eventually go the same way.
Of course it would have been terribly harsh on the St Patrick's Athletic players if points they won on the pitch were lost because a simple administrative error. The fact remains, however, that no allowances are made for what intent might have been involved when breaches of this rule are considered. Reidy's citing of a previous breach in which a suspended player was inadvertently used by a club which was not subsequently docked three points merely serves to underline the fact the rule book of the league is presently a joke.
After yesterday's decision was announced the league's commissioner, Roy Dooney, more or less conceded as much, pointing out that a total of 26 different sanctions are provided for within the rule book and that there is a complete lack of consistency with regard to how and why they should be applied.
It was a point taken up by the St Patrick's manager Pat Dolan yesterday when he said it is the "complexity and ambiguity" of the rules that is the problem. However, that hardly seems the case on this occasion given that those who originally imposed the £1,000 fine as punishment actually argued at the time that the rule was too specific.
Thankfully, Dooney says that he has already done a considerable amount of work on rewriting the rules so as to make them more consistent and therefore more workable. Certainly if the lessons of the repeated fiascos that clubs and their supporters have been subjected to down the years are not finally heeded after this latest dispute then we can all pretty much give up.
What those in Merrion Square actually want is far greater latitude to deal with transgressions as they see fit in particular circumstances and it should be a source of embarrassment to those who drew up the current rules that there was no scope within the regulations to take account of the accidental nature of what occurred.
The fact remains, though, that the clarity of the rule involved this time makes the "Marney affair" more damaging than other recent disputes. This time the ruling was enforceable but simply not enforced. What a handy precedent that should prove when the newly-rewritten rule book faces its first test next season.
