GAA to launch user-friendly disciplinary system
It aims to close off loopholes which have allowed numerous suspensions for ill-discipline, most notably the disgraceful NFL tie between Tyrone and Dublin, to be lifted on appeal.
Speaking at a media briefing in Croke Park, where the interim report of the Rule Book Task Force was outlined, Mr Kelly predicted that the failure of this year's high profile Omagh investigations would represent 'the last great escape' for offending players.
The Task Force, chaired by Cork Secretary Frank Murphy, includes Director-General Liam Mulvihill, High Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty, barrister Micheal O'Connell and solicitor Liam Keane, secretary to the DRA.
Its main thrust is the proposal of a new 'step-by-step' disciplinary committee structure which is radically different to the existing format.
Mr Kelly pointed out that the package of proposals going before Congress in a fortnight had taken on board rulings from the DRA which pinpointed loopholes that were being exploited.
"A few issues went against us on appeal in the last year and people jumped to conclusions that the DRA was out of control and that the rule book was up in a heap. All of these were totally exaggerated. With the expertise we have on the committee, we have a system that will work and will work very effectively. Hopefully Congress will accept it and that over a period of time we will have a better disciplinary system and as a result better games.''
The new structures being proposed encompasses a Competitions Control Committee (effectively the GAC) and a Hearings Committee (taking over from the Central Appeals Committee), which would operate at county, provincial and central level.
Mr Keane stressed there would be 'a wall' between the two committees. "When disciplinary action is commenced, proceedings will be heard by a separate independent committee, with no cross-over of personnel between the two bodies. There will be complete independence there and that will obviate the need for committees to sub-divide to watch videos, etc.''
Without wishing to comment on the Omagh investigation, he acknowledged that one of the issues raised in the media related to the separation between those bringing the proceedings and those hearing it.
"What we are proposing are two separate committees and that should remove any scope for difficulty in having a clear distinction between those bringing the charge and presenting the case and, in turn, those hearing that charge and coming to a decision.''
With the Task Force recommending the use of the word 'infraction' in place of offence (because of the criminal connotations of offence), it will be up to the CCC to commence disciplinary action. Investigations would be carried out without the restrictions under the existing rules, which are considered 'too restrictive.'
Crucially, it's proposed that the CCC would be given power to take action if they seek written clarification from a referee if there is 'an ambiguity' in his report or if they are investigating a possible infraction disclosed in it. In effect, if a referee admits that, after re-examining a particular incident 'he got it wrong,' a greater penalty could be imposed.
Frank Murphy stressed that they were not moving to the point of 'overruling the referee.' "His decision is final, but clarification may be obtained, particularly in a melee situation where a referee finds it impossible to identify all those involved. There's no prohibition in relation to the CCC proceeding to action where the referee is not in a position to adjudicate."
The next step in the disciplinary process would involve the CCC notifying the player of a proposed penalty.
The player could either accept or refuse in which case he would seek a hearing.
The Hearing Committee would have the power to decide on what penalty should be imposed lesser or greater than that proposed initially by the CCC.
The DRA will continue to function as heretofore, as an arbitration body.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
