125 YEARS OF GAA/THE BAN: In our series of articles from the GAA Museum, we look at how President Hyde was removed as patron of the association for the crime of attending an international soccer match

UNTIL 1971 the GAA had a ban on its members playing or attending so-called "foreign games", including soccer, rugby and hockey. This was commonly known as "the exclusion rule", or simply "The Ban". It was enforced by "Vigilance Committees" made up of men who would attend "excluded games" and report on GAA members who were either playing or watching these games. Those found at such games would be liable to a lengthy suspension.

This ban was a key feature in the early years of the GAA, but in 1897 the decision was taken to suspend it. With the IRB gaining more and more influence, the ban was re-introduced in 1901, and throughout its existence the ban divided the association.

At the 1911 annual convention the London County Board was refused permission to repeal the ban locally. Liam MacCarthy, chairman of the London board, refused to attend this meeting as he did not want to be associated with any call for a relaxation or repeal of the ban.

In 1912, permission was given to four clubs in London to form a new county board as the existing one consisted of members who "had been playing foreign games".

In 1913, the GAA decided not to invite the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Dublin to the All-Ireland Football Final as he had accepted the honorary presidency of soccer's Leinster Football Association.

But the biggest controversy came in 1938 when the GAA removed Douglas Hyde, President of Ireland, as a patron for attending an international soccer match in Dalymount Park, Dublin.

Hyde rose to prominence as a distinguished Gaelic scholar and founding member of the Gaelic League. It was these Gaelic qualities that convinced the GAA to invite him to become patron.

Late in 1938, Hyde, as President of Ireland, attended a soccer match (between Ireland and Poland) in Dalymount Park.

At a regular Central Council meeting in December 1938, GAA president Pádraig McNamee ruled that a patron ceased to be a patron if his duties "bring him into conflict with the fundamental rules of the association". In making the ruling, McNamee said it brought him no pleasure but he saw no other course.

While the removal of Hyde did cause some discontent at grassroots level, it caused uproar within the media. The Irish Times was particularly scathing. In its issue of December 19th, the newspaper said of the ban that "the notion that the game by which a round ball is kicked only, and not punched as well as kicked, is detrimental to the national culture, is of course the most utterly childish form of humbug", adding: "the loss will be to the GAA. Their little victory over President Hyde will be Pyrrhic, because the head of the State will continue to be the representative of all the people, and not of any clique, however large it may be".

In the face of this criticism, however, delegates at the GAA's 1939 Congress voted against a motion to reinstate Hyde by 120 votes to 11, with five abstentions. At this Congress, the presidential address focused not on the merits of the ban but on the right of the GAA to have a ban if it so chose.

In 1945, Seán T O'Kelly succeeded Hyde as President. O'Kelly was the Fianna Fail nomination and Taoiseach Eamon de Valera moved quickly to bring an end to the embarrassing stand-off between the GAA and the Government. A series of meetings was arranged between de Valera and Pádraig Ó Caoimh, the general secretary of the GAA, with the aim of restoring an amicable relationship between the GAA and the President.

Minutes of these meetings between Ó Caoimh and de Valera highlight that de Valera felt that if the GAA had explicitly drawn Hyde's attention to the implications of the "foreign games rule", then Hyde would have voluntarily (and quietly) resigned as a patron, thus the "unfortunate incident" would never have taken place. De Valera also suggested that the position of patron did not necessarily connote membership of an organisation, and "Dr Hyde, as patron, was in a quite different category from the ordinary members of the GAA".

Ó Caoimh, on the other hand, argued that a patron was just as bound to the rules as any member, possibly more so as he should be leading by example, and that responsibility for advising Hyde on the implications of the "foreign games rule" lay just as much with the President's advisers as with the GAA.

Both sides agreed the incident was "unfortunate" and should never happen again. De Valera agreed that a representation from the GAA should be received by the new President, while the GAA agreed the President should be invited to the principal functions of the association.

However, de Valera was adamant that if the President were to receive a GAA deputation, or accept an invitation to a GAA function, the GAA must understand that the "President is the President of all sections of the community", and that such acceptance did not mean he would restrict himself from accepting invitations from other sporting or athletic bodies.

When the Central Council met and discussed Ó Caoimh's report, they agreed that the President should be invited to all principal functions. They also understood, and agreed, that the President cannot be seen to favour any section of the community over the other; however, they also intimated that this was the decision of the present Central Council only and that future councils may adopt a different view.

See www.gaa.ie/museum for details on a GAA Museum/Irish Times Transition Year Essay Competition.