Tougher laws needed in face of ‘new attitude’

THE GAA will continue to experience difficulty in penalising indiscipline as long as their rules are open to legal challenge and people avail of “every possible procedure and loophole” to escape punishment.

The stark warning was given by Director-General Liam Mulvihill, yesterday, when he called for a crusade to stamp out the practice of “hiding and protecting the wrongdoers.”

Expressing a view that it may be a waste of time to continue with the Central Appeals Committee, because appeals invariably ended up with the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA), Mr Mulvihill revealed that the appeals arising out of the Omagh suspensions had succeeded because the wrong procedure was used in seeking clarification from the referee.

In that case, a letter was requested from the referee by a person who was part of the adjudicating process and sitting in judgement on the case. CAC found this to be contrary to their procedures.

Said Mr Mulvihill: “The attitude towards discipline has changed very substantially. There’s an attitude now that feels it’s fair game, no matter what the circumstances, to try and use every aspect to get off when you are caught.”

“This means that the DRA and the whole legal system, which we introduced as a last resort is now seen as another step along the way - another layer as it were, of washing our hands and getting off.”

In framing their rules the GAA needs to come to terms with what Mr Mulvihill described as a ‘new attitude’.

While significant changes will be proposed by the Rule Book Task Force, Mr Mulvihill added that he doubted whether they would be sufficient to deal with what he also termed a ‘changed attitude’.

On the so-called ‘Battle of Omagh’, Mr Mulvihill pointed out that the respective Central Council representatives had ‘strongly condemned’ what happened and ‘put on record’ that neither they nor their counties condoned such behaviour.

“Attempts have been made since to play it down but the fact of the matter is that there were serious incidents. The disciplinary procedures had to be brought into play and unfortunately a loophole was found and the players got off. It’s up to us to ensure that the loophole is closed for the future.

“The CDC were seeking to get clarification on certain incidents in the game, which they identified had not been seen by the referee or his officials. That was the issue they had to establish and what they had to do to comply with the DRA ruling.

“The problem for them was that the procedure they operated was new. It was found not to be fair to the players.’’

Arising from decisions of the DRA, recommendations will be brought before congress to address a number of issues. In a number of cases they heard last year, the DRA referred to previous judgments, and, in the process, they are forming ‘their own case law.’

“The DRA was established to solve disputes, but in the solving of disputes, it does establish case law. And, to that extent they do interpret rules and cause rules to be reinterpreted. That has been a side-effect, which wasn’t focused on when it was established.’’

He wonders if it is now ‘almost a waste of time’ to continue with the Central Appeals Committee because of the number of appeals that end up with the DRA.

“We may have to look at that and make the DRA ‘the’ official appeals system, rather than having the two,’’ he commented.

“The number of cases (33) taken to the DRA was a surprise to us all, no more than to the secretary we appointed, who thought he would have to deal with five or six. We feel that the amount will level off substantially. While there were a few very high profile winners, the number of cases that have been successful was very small.”