New disciplinary structures will deliver

THE GAA leadership is satisfied that the new disciplinary structures and procedures in force from the beginning of the year will reduce the number of cases being brought to the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA).

That assertion, made by Frank Murphy at a press briefing in Croke Park yesterday, was supported by the DRA Secretary Liam Keane.

His view is that the system is ‘more just’ from the point of view of the person/unit being disciplined and both a ‘fairer and easier’ system to operate for the people charged with imposing discipline.

Revealing that up to 40 cases were heard by the DRA last year, Mr Keane declined to say if many of them had been of a ‘frivolous’ nature, responding: “the rules are there. Any person is entitled to bring a case to arbitration, the same as they are entitled to bring a case to court. When the procedures are ‘fully embedded,’ it should lead to less cases being brought.’’

However, GAA President Nickey Brennan was of the view that ‘some cases’ brought before the DRA were frivolous, even though that might not have been the view of the people concerned.

Frank Murphy, who is Chairman of the Rules Revision Task Force, pointed out that whereas in the past appeals often succeeded on ‘technical grounds’ (even where the substantive issue would have been a serious one), this will no longer be sufficient to escape sanctions.

“We believe that the structures will assist greatly in ensuring that errors are kept to a minimum. The DRA can only come into play where there is an error in procedure. We would now expect far less cases will go to them,’’ he said.

It’s also hoped that there will be speedier resolution of disciplinary cases — where, for instance, players face suspension after being sent off on a Sunday. Referees are now required to have their report submitted the following day and three members of the Competitions Control Committee (CCC) (which replaces the GAC) will be empowered to make a decision.

A penalty will be proposed to the player, who can either accept it or not — in which case the matter goes forward to the (new) Hearings Committee.

Mr Brennan made a point of emphasising that the DRA and the Central Appeals Committee of the past went to ‘extraordinary lengths’ to ensure that cases were heard as expeditely as possible.

In the President’s view, there is now ‘a very clear process’ in place. “If this does not work, the alternative will have to be more radical. What you are seeing here is the Association being extremely fair to players at all level. We have gone to extraordinary lengths for players to have their cases heard, appealed and then going to arbitration.

“Understand that behind the scenes an enormous amount of work has fallen on the shoulders of the different committees.

“It is very important that this works, but as I have said on numerous occasions, we want to emphasise that our games will remain physical, our games will remain robust and there will be incidents. But I’d like to think that players and mentors will accept what happens on the field of play, will accept what we are putting in place.

“We feel it’s fair and will allow due process to take place and cases to be re-heard. I’m not going to contemplate that this doesn’t work. Quite frankly, it has to work.’’

Liam Keane remarked that there had been a ‘big change’ in terms of the speed with which provincial councils and committees were prepared to respond — particularly when there was a game pending.

In the early stages of the DRA, the experience was that a lot of applications for ‘interim relief’ were made. Nowadays that was far more rare. In response to a question about the use of video evidence, Frank Murphy pointed out that there ‘is’ a mechanism in place. Outside of the referee’s report, the CCC is entitled to act. And it is ‘freer now’ than the Games Administration Committee ever was, in the sense that no formal rules have to be gone through. “They can view the video and come to a conclusion as a committee and immediately inform the individual of a charge and a proposed penalty.

“The CCC has the right to take action in matters of disciple, whether it be video evidence or on the evidence of the committee or otherwise,’’ he added.