There were two striking aspects to the weekend's dispatch of Rule 21. One was the scale of the victory for president Seβn McCague's proposal for change and the other was the resignation of the five northern counties who came to the special congress mandated to support the status quo. The latter will be the more significant influence in the weeks and months ahead.

Although there was evidence that even the five dissidents - Armagh, Fermanagh, Derry, Antrim and Tyrone - weren't deeply unhappy over the outcome (Derry and Fermanagh chose not to speak in the brief debate), they will be the ones charged with the implementation of the ban's deletion. Initial indicators are that once the post-congress reaction settles, the issue will - as McCague forecast on Saturday - drift away and that change will happen without too much fuss.

The one thing likely to make the GAA a little uneasy is the prospect of prolonged interest in the aftermath. Given the sensitivities of the counties involved they could do without a series of high-profile events centred on applications to join from security force members, potential challenge matches between the PSNI and the Garda or anything else.

Already there has been a fuss over whether Northern Ireland Executive Minister for Sport Michael McGimpsey will attend Sunday's Ulster club football final - despite the fact he had previously broken the ice with the GAA and was a guest at last summer's fΘile in Belfast.

At the end of Saturday's media conference McCague thanked everyone for giving the GAA the time and space to resolve the issue of Rule 21. He presumably hopes the indulgence will endure for a little while longer. Shortly after Down voted to repeal the rule in January 1995, a British Army officer in Ballykinlar camp offered to set up a kick-about between the locals and a team of squaddies. This time around with changed circumstances confirmed the public relations stuff will be even less welcome.

In the past the operation of the rule was awkward. Until the outbreak of the Troubles it was honoured in the breach as well as in the observance and no one paid it too much attention. By the 1970s such permissiveness became a thing of the past and even if members of the RUC wanted to play, there was sufficient hostility for the ban to be activated.

In some cases this was triggered by apprehension. It was feared the safety of any player from the security forces couldn't be guaranteed at a match and that the club which fielded him would attract a good proportion of the blame.

Saturday's vote and McCague's initiative that led to it were based more on the need not to obstruct current members of the GAA from joining the PSNI rather than the need to allow security forces access to the GAA. From the consultations that laid the path for the decision to delete it was learned some members had already signed up for the new force and clubs didn't want to lose their players as a result.

In Northern Ireland the dispute between Sinn FΘin and the SDLP on the policing issue can proceed without pulling the GAA apart. With association membership in the North split more or less 50-50 between the two parties, the GAA has recognised that the policing issue should not be an item on its agenda.

As McCague said at the weekend: "We did not make any endorsement of a political party, political grouping or police service. We don't encourage people to go into any walk of life. We don't encourage people to join the garda∅ but we won't discourage. We're neutral; it's nothing to do with us."

The passing of the debate and the rule may have been extraordinarily smooth but McCague's achievement in securing that trouble-free passage shouldn't be underestimated.

During the summer, when he announced consultations with counties had begun, the argument was still to be won. The force of his arguments combined with the reassurances he could extend to the cross-Border Ulster counties solved what had been the GAA's most intractable problem.