Consistency goes out the window in ruling for elite

IF IT wasn’t so serious the irony would be delicious. Two legal eagles shooting down a ban, which had been upheld by the GAA’s three main disciplinary arms, largely on the basis that an All-Ireland semi-final means more than most games.

As blindingly frustrating as it is, this quirk of fate won’t be lost on those in Croke Park. For years, referees seem to have felt the very same. In the 2000s, Brian Crowe and John Bannon refused to revisit decisions that could have forced Cork players out of All-Ireland finals. And former referees chief Pat McEnaney wanted a cumulative black card amnesty introduced so that players would avoid missing a September decider.

“The truth is that the law will demand a level of fair procedure which is sufficient in all circumstances to ensure justice for the player or member affected by the decision. The more serious the consequences the higher the standard that will be required,” were the lines the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA) tribunal panellists Hugh O’Flaherty and David Nohilly quoted from a 2005 case as part of the reasoning for their decision to rescind Diarmuid Connolly’s one-match ban.