AS THE dust begins to settle on the latest big-match controversy to afflict Croke Park, it's impossible not to feel sympathy for Meath and Mayo. After momentous championship campaigns by both, they now face into the first half of their regulation League programme with their playing strengths devastated.

Furthermore, what was a great success for Meath has now been overshadowed by nagging controversy and helped deflate feelings of jubilation. Mayo, conversely, have been given no privacy to grieve for the lost opportunity that slipped their grasp.

Sympathy, however, can't extend to the anger with which the counties have reacted to their disciplinary fate. The process of reaching a decision on the matter has prolonged the bad feelings between the counties and made one more resentful of the other, but the GAC no less than match referee Pat McEnaney had to take action on the evidence before them.

If a player is guilty of infringing the rules of the game, there can be no complaint when the regulatory mechanism is used against him.

Accordingly, the sentences handed down may have been harsh in that they exceeded the minimum, but it's invalid to judge them relative to what the other side was given.

For Meath to complain that Mayo escaped the disciplinary process more lightly has no more relevance to their case than Mayo's original grievance that the loss of Liam McHale in the replayed final was unfair because he was more important to his team than Colm Coyle was to Meath.

There are points in the players' defence. It has been argued that the massed scatter at the centre of this week's GAC activity would be unremarkable in the context of many ordinary football matches around the country. True.

The violence might or might not have been commonplace but the fact that television cameras captured the whole event meant there was to be no commonplace escape into obscurity.

Players are amateur. Even accepting the various perks available to inter-county performers. there is no comparison with professional sports when it comes to material reward.

Consequently, the footballers of Meath and Mayo who put in such extraordinary effort over the year were only in the All-Ireland final to win it.

Their efforts may have been surrounded by all the commercial trappings of a professional organisation but all they could ultimately take home was a trophy and the sense of satisfaction that came with it. They didn't owe a duty to the GAA to keep the product commercially attractive and neither did they owe a duty to squeamish television viewers.

So the rules were broken. Players are well aware that they shouldn't break the rules. Rough estimations of what they can get away with may he part of every team's preparation, but if the estimates are out, there's no point complaining about the consequences.

Not one of the 15 players who filed into Croke Park on Wednesday could have been in any doubt that getting involved in a running battle was against the rules. Doubt centred on the referee's reaction.

Miscalculating how the referee will treat organised acts of disobedience isn't a valid defence either. A player's task isn't made any easier by inconsistencies in refereeing but to harp on that theme too much is effectively to ignore the primary responsibility to abide by the rules.

Nonetheless, it is frequently argued that if a team consistently benefits from ignoring the rules, other teams must follow suit or risk disadvantage. This is where the GAA is failing players and the game. Punishment has to be meaningful or there is no incentive to behave. The very suspensions served on the 15 players illustrate that.

Some will be very disappointed to have missed important club matches and that punishes them to an extent, but it also punishes the blameless club-mates and does little to deter those whose clubs are out of the running for prizes. All 15 suspended, with the exception of Jimmy McGuinness, will be present and correct for championship training next spring never mind the matches in May or June.

Suspensions should be served in equivalent competitions and players should be in no doubt as to the methods by which such suspensions will be earned.

The handling of the matter hasn't covered Croke Park in glory either. In publicity terms, "the long wait for a resolution to this matter has been an embarrassment. It may have been appalling that the leaked decision went public before the county boards had been informed, but, delaying the announcement another day - as planned - wouldn't have been a good idea as it would have ensured three successive days' coverage of the matter.

Matters as important as this need to be processed within a week. Dragging them out for over three times that duration makes no sense. It is a point that the counties might bear in mind.

Bruised feelings and hurt pride might make an appeal to Central Council a temporarily attractive proposition, but the better course of action would be to forget about it and get on with the future.