New rules still give ref final call

CROKE PARK'S high-powered Rules Book Task Force have vowed that the rights of referees will be safeguarded in the reworked disciplinary structures and procedures.

Committee member Liam Keane stressed that the integrity of the referee is sacrosanct.

"That's a position throughout the sporting world, that when a call is made by the referee, it's only in very exceptional circumstances that it would be interfered with," he said.

"There are obviously competing philosophies and one is the supremacy of the referee's report and the integrity of the position of the referee. The other is the need to correct errors, or to correct indiscipline - and there is a constant 'balancing' there.

"If a referee makes a judgment call and, if asked to reconsider it, is still quite clear that his initial judgment was correct, we are proposing it be left at that, rather than allowing a committee referee it."

However, he pointed out that, under their recommended procedure, where a referee agrees after being asked for clarification that "he ought to have taken particular action", the Competitions Control Committee can act on that clarification. Essentially, this means that if the referee gets it wrong, a greater penalty can be imposed.

The specific recommendation states: "Disciplinary action, alleging 'Misconduct at Games' infraction that is not disclosed in a referee's report, may be commenced provided that written clarification of the referee is received stating either: (1) that the referee did not adjudicate upon the subject matter of the request or (2) that the report ought to have stated that the infraction concerned did occur."

Interestingly, the task force proposes where a referee "inadvertently" fails to record a score during a game, it can form grounds for an objection. However, no objection, or counter-objection, can be submitted on the basis that a referee incorrectly allows, or fails to allow, a score during play.

One of the main planks of their recommendations is the establishment of the Competitions Control Committee (CCC), which can investigate and make recommendations on penalties. The key point here is that there would be no overlapping between the body which investigates and the one which imposes penalties. In other words, there would be no scope for an appeal on the basis that a committee acted non-judicially. And, if an appeal goes forward, there are three possible outcomes which the committee say "will focus peoples minds". That's because specific powers are proposed where the appeal body can (a) annul a decision, b) remit it for rehearing, based on a technicality and (c) substitute its own decision on the case.

The Task Force will be seeking the go-ahead at Congress to continue their review of the playing rules. For that reason, no proposals relating to players who build up an accumulation of yellow cards are contained in their interim report.

However, they recommend the doubling of penalties for repeat infractions (offences) within a 48-week period and that this should operate across the board. The committee considers that it is "anomalous" that a player who commits different types of serious infractions (eg kicking and head-butting) would escape the doubling of a penalty, whereas a player committing the same type of infraction (in other words two instances of kicking) would be penalised.

Major changes are proposed in the area of investigations. Based on their belief that some of the rules currently in force are unnecessarily restrictive, they are proposing the CCC simply carries out its investigation. The committee would not be making any findings other than "gathering information to commence disciplinary action", so they feel that there is no need of the protections currently in rule.

The view of Liam Keane - a solicitor and member of the Meath executive - is that the structure they recommend is simpler and more streamlined. "It provides a system that's easier to administer and is fairer from the point of view of the person against whom action is being taken. If it's followed properly, there won't be as much scope for error," he states.

Chairman Frank Murphy said: "There is no restriction on the committee how it investigates a matter, so there is less grounds for technical issues to be raised regarding how the investigation was conducted."