Use of Croke Park: The decision to pull all motions on Rule 42 from next month's GAA Congress has provoked outrage among the counties involved. News of the ruling proposals to amend the rule, which is used to prevent rugby and soccer being played in Croke Park, emerged during an impromptu press conference with association president Seán Kelly in Dublin yesterday and triggered strong reaction.

Dublin chief executive John Costello said: "It's perplexing that the same motion appeared on the agenda in 2001. I can't understand why it was in order then and not in order now. It smacks of totalitarianism."

Clare's Noel Walsh proposed the same motion - to allow Central Council the authority to decide on the use of Croke Park - a year later when it was deemed out of order but allowed and would have done so last year except the motion was struck off the clár.

The county submitted an exhaustively redrafted motion this year, which was one of those ruled out by last week's meeting of the motions committee.

"It's a black day for democracy," said Walsh, "and now time that people looked at those who decide what's discussed at congress and what's forbidden. It's the antithesis of democracy that all lengths have been gone to to prevent this matter being discussed."

Roscommon's Tommy Kenoy, who originally proposed the motion three years ago and saw it fail to pass by one vote, was equally dismayed. Speaking on RTÉ Radio's Five Seven Live, he said: "It's a dictatorial approach that doesn't sit well with democracy within the GAA."

The issue of allowing other sports be played in Croke Park has become a major controversy within the GAA in recent years. After the narrow failure of the 2001 motion to get the necessary two-thirds majority, Clare's attempt a year later was decisively defeated before being ruled out of order last year.

The fact that eight counties - Longford, Wicklow, Dublin, Laois, Roscommon, Mayo, Cavan and Clare - had all submitted motions favouring the opening up of Croke Park, or at least the devolving of authority in the matter to Central Council should have guaranteed a hearing at next month's congress in Killarney.

In an attempt to avoid precisely the scenario that has arisen, Central Council - on recommendation from the management committee - proposed the GAA's Bye Laws sub-committee be available to vet motions from counties to ensure proposals were in order.

Yet counties that followed this procedure have still had their motions rejected. Roscommon even consented to a compromise motion on being told that it had the support of six of the eight counties - only to have that compromise rejected.

According to Noel Walsh, Clare went further by asking the GAA director general Liam Mulvihill to cast an eye over the county's revamped submission.

"I went into the detail of all rules that might need mention and submitted it to the Árd Stiúrthóir, who I believe has the best knowledge of the rules. He was very helpful and seemed to think that we were covered.

"Naturally he pointed out that he couldn't guarantee that it would be accepted by the motions committee but he personally seemed satisfied."

This committee comprises the president of the GAA and the director general as well as past presidents. Its function is to decide whether motions submitted for congress are in order.

Mulvihill was unable to attend last week's meeting and was represented by the association's PRO Danny Lynch, who said yesterday the decision to sideline the Rule 42 motions had been taken by "a substantial majority".

But the committee may also, according to its establishing provision, Rule 78, "put a motion in order where there is a failure to quote the number of rules affected or where there are minor clerical errors". Kenoy was critical of the committee's refusal to exercise this discretion.

Questioned about the precise grounds for the motions being ruled out of order, Kelly replied: "Not quoting the amendment to Rule 5". Later the president and the PRO added Rules 43, 44 and 142 to the list of those inadequately cited in the eight motions.

There was no disguising Kelly's discomfort at announcing the outcome of last week's meeting. His views in favour of opening Croke Park are a matter of public record and he added yesterday: "I'd like to see any motion that comes from the clubs and counties debated at congress".

Asked were these severe interpretations of the validity of motions not making a "laughing stock of congress", Kelly replied: "It is a matter of concern and something that I will be addressing in due course at the appropriate time and in the right place."

There will, however, be one possibility to discuss the issue, according to Lynch.

"The Árd Stiúrthór's report carries an extensive element in relation to Rule 42. Whereas it's not a motion for debate, counties will be able to comment on this and whole issue of Rule 42."